Mamata breaches Left’s fort
Shikha Mukerjee (Pioneer, Monday, January 12, 2009)
By defeating the CPI(M)-led Left Front in the Nandigram by-election, the storm petrel of West Bengal politics has proved a point. But can she forge a meaningful alternative?
In Nandigram, the Trinamool Congress’s labour has yielded exactly the outcome that it worked to achieve. The by-election result in this intensely controversial constituency, which was the battleground between the dominant CPI(M) and every other political party, organisation and individual in 2007 over the possibility of locating the petrochemical Special Economic Zone, has revealed that the Trinamool Congress, backed by the Congress, has consolidated its base at the cost of the Left.
Three by-election results were declared on January 9 and the diversity of underlying causes that produced these outcomes reveals the complexities that pose a challenge to the ruling CPI(M)-led Left Front in its crusade to transform the State’s economy and integrate it with that of the rest of India and so build a link to the changing global economic environment. The way voters have made their choices it has became clear that West Bengal would have to first live through and survive a fierce conflict between deeply rooted conservatism defended by the Trinamool Congress and also the Congress, and a change-inducing CPI(M).
The ferocity of the conflict that erupted in places like Nandigram has surprised many, because the unsuspected depths of conservatism in progressive West Bengal were never seriously acknowledged. Because West Bengal had voted the Left since 1967; because the ‘renaissance’ had started here; because social movements challenging obscurantist practices within religion blossomed here, there was little understanding of and sensitivity to the strongly emotional attachment to the old ways.
As a run up to the Lok Sabha election, the Nandigram result is good news for the Trinamool Congress and depressing for the CPI(M)-led Left Front. It has to come to terms with the fairly conclusive evidence that voters have transferred their allegiance. Instead of regaining ground lost in Nandigram over the proposal to set up the SEZ, CPI(M) must adjust to the new politics of eroding popularity and an ascendant Trinamool Congress.
Instead of there being no serious alternative to the Left in West Bengal, the Nandigram result shows that for voters in that place, the Trinamool Congress is the alternative. Apprehensions of Ms Mamata Banerjee’s detractors about the planks that make up her populist appeal are irrelevant, because Nandigram prefers to be represented by Firoza Bibi, mother of a martyr, whose usual arena of activity has been her home rather than Premanand Bharati, a school teacher, put up a candidate by the Communist Party of India.
By making its choice, Nandigram has confirmed what some had suspected: There are deeply rooted pockets of antipathy to the processes of modernisation in West Bengal. For those who do not want modernisation, the antipathy has spilled out as a vote against the ruling Left and its commitment to change. It must also be noted that in Nandigram it hardly mattered that the candidate was from the CPI; to the voter the Left was subsumed under the overarching dominance of the CPI(M).
While it is possible to explain the Nandigram outcome as a consequence of the cumulative discontent born of disappointment and resentment over the high-handed ways of the CPI(M), which took it for granted the opinions and concerns of the people, a simpler and startling explanation could be that just over half of the people in Nandigram do not want change. Since they are free to exercise their choice, the thumbs down to change, progress, modernisation, integration with the trajectory that India’s economy is pursing is irrefutable evidence that West Bengal’s politics will henceforward be a bitter fight between those who propose change and those who oppose it.
However, Nandigram’s is not the only verdict and in other places, it seems, the Trinamool Congress’s brand of conservatism, dressed up a righteous jihad against the CPI(M), does not sell. In obscure Para, a reserved Schedule Caste constituency in Purulia district, which has a significant tribal population, the CPI(M)’s brand of progressive politics continues to accurately capture and reflect the aspirations of the voter. Ms Mina Barui has won from Para, confirming that the CPI(M) is a significant vote catcher even in troubled times.
Congress’s win in Sujapur, the fiefdom of the Ghani Khan Chowdhurys, reveals yet another aspect of politics in West Bengal, where loyalty to a family takes precedence over everything. Ms Mausam Benazir Nur is a global citizen, but that hardly matters; to the voter she is ‘the family’.
Sentiment over science (Marxism to its believers is a science), conservatism against Communist ideology, a simulation of the world of rural Bengal vis-a-vis the real describes the ways in which voters make up their minds. Different sets of voters prefer different ways of life. In as much as the CPI(M) and its transforming agenda have been challenged, the by-election lifts and drops a question on the Trinamool Congress plate — can it gather together all the conservative voters and make a credible bid as an alternative, necessarily with the backing of the Congress?
http://dailypioneer.com/149270/Mamata-breaches-Left%E2%80%99s-fort.html
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Amartya Sen’s blow to Left Front policy
Amartya Sen’s blow to Left Front policy 04.01.2009
Uday Basu
Year 2009 ended badly for the CPI-M. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, whom the homegrown Marxists look upon as one of the champions of their political creed, virtually dealt a knockout punch to their controversial industrialisation initiatives in general and the aborted Tata Motors small car project in particular.
Almost at the same time, far from the city’s madding crowd, a small landowner, Mr Probir Roy, supervising the threshing of paddy grown on his land in Birbhum district, nailed the Marxists’ lies about stagnation in agriculture and the imperative need for industrialisation on farm land. He traced the root of the current turmoil in rural Bengal to the Marxists’ land reforms that led to severe fragmentation of land.
If the economist came to his conclusion after poring over weighty tomes and documents, the hard-working owner of agricultural land could see through the folly of the ruling combine with his field experiences.
For the past two years, CPI-M leaders starting from Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to lower level party functionaries had been tireless in their propaganda that far too many people were engaged in agriculture and the yield was too inadequate. The only way to generate employment for “thousands of educated youth in rural and urban areas” was to set up industries through acquiring “wasteful” farmland.
“Factories can’t come up in the air”, was the common refrain of the Marxists of all denominations to justify their clarion call of evicting farmers from their fertile lands so that industries could be set up.
The statistics reeled off by the chief minister can’t be wrong, since they are backed up by the findings of various central and state agencies. But true to Marxist tradition, Mr Bhattacharjee never told the whole truth. The yield from land is bound to be low as a logical corollary to the much-hyped land reforms policy the Marxists implemented since they came to power in 1977.
When they effected the reforms, they believed they were ushering in a revolution of sorts as big landlords were being cut to size and small and marginal farmers and landless labourers were being freed from the clutches of oppressive jotedars (rich peasants).
What was the upshot of this revolution?
In the language of the small landowner, the land reforms have created a situation where only those who have other sources of livelihood can hope to get reasonable returns from land. But, those who solely depend on their landholdings can hardly ever rise above the subsistence level.
“According to the land ceiling act an individual farmer can own a maximum of 18 bighas of land, a family of five 35 bighas and for extra members two to two and a half bighas each not exceeding a total of 52 bighas. If land weren’t fragmented in such a manner one could have invested considerable amount of money for irrigating a large tract of land ensuring greater yield. But such investment is out of the question on small plots earmarked by the ceiling,” Mr Roy said.
Therein lies the rub.
It’s entirely wrong for Mr Bhattacharjee and his comrades in arms to blame agriculture for its low returns and project industrialisation as a panacea for economic ills. They created this sorry rural economy by splitting land in a way that has eventually rendered it far less productive.
This is not to hold brief for big landlords or exploitation of rural poor by rich peasants. What Mr Roy sought to demonstrate was the inherent weakness of the Marxists’ land reforms policythat in the ultimate analysis is responsible for the stagnation in agriculture.
There’s no harm for the Marxists to admit their mistakes and try to rebuild the system. This was precisely the second theme that Professor Sen elaborated at the debate in the presence of the chief minister, several of his Cabinet colleagues and other Left leaders.
The force and bluntness with which he spoke his mind sounded intriguing and left people wondering why he sought to debunk the top CPI-M leaders in public in such a fashion.
Describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. Having said this he stunned the audience by saying that the process of de-Stalinisation was being carried out in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but surprisingly the CPI-M hadn’t openly decried the wrongs of Stalin. “There’s no harm in admitting mistakes,” he said.
As if to rub salt into injuries, Professor Sen said land acquisition for industrialisation can only be “the last recourse” and that the Tatas should have bought land from the farmers for the Singur project as part of the dynamics of market economy especially when they could pay huge amounts for buying the British steel major.
Such a position is not only a marked departure from Professor Sen’s earlier stand on the issue, but is diametrically opposite to his Marxist friends and admirers’ view who have been advocating that industrialisation can’t be done without acquiring farmland.
The question that automatically arises is: Was the whole show of turning the CPI-M’s industrialisation policy virtually on its head stage-managed? Or, are the Marxists having a second thought on their pet industrialisation overdrive?
The latter can be convincing only if an economist of Professor Sen’s stature lends his voice to it. Is it for this reason that the CPI-M heavyweights invited him to deliver the lecture and contradict their own policy so that they can suitably modify it and attribute the change to Professor Sen and economists of his standing?
Perhaps this is the only course left for the Marxists to extricate themselves from the predicament they are in with the Opposition wresting vast swathes of their support base slowly but steadily.
If that is true, it’s rather too late. The damage is done.
(The writer is Special Representative, The Statesman)
“De-Stalinisation is going on in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but the CPI-M doesn’t openly do so. I have been a Leftist and I believe one has to admit mistakes one has made.”
~ Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.
“Market economy should have been followed in getting land for the (Nano) project. We talk about market forces which should also have applied in the case of Singur. When the Tatas could buy a world steel major, there was no reason why they didn’t buy the land.”
~ Professor Amartya Sen
Uday Basu
Year 2009 ended badly for the CPI-M. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, whom the homegrown Marxists look upon as one of the champions of their political creed, virtually dealt a knockout punch to their controversial industrialisation initiatives in general and the aborted Tata Motors small car project in particular.
Almost at the same time, far from the city’s madding crowd, a small landowner, Mr Probir Roy, supervising the threshing of paddy grown on his land in Birbhum district, nailed the Marxists’ lies about stagnation in agriculture and the imperative need for industrialisation on farm land. He traced the root of the current turmoil in rural Bengal to the Marxists’ land reforms that led to severe fragmentation of land.
If the economist came to his conclusion after poring over weighty tomes and documents, the hard-working owner of agricultural land could see through the folly of the ruling combine with his field experiences.
For the past two years, CPI-M leaders starting from Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to lower level party functionaries had been tireless in their propaganda that far too many people were engaged in agriculture and the yield was too inadequate. The only way to generate employment for “thousands of educated youth in rural and urban areas” was to set up industries through acquiring “wasteful” farmland.
“Factories can’t come up in the air”, was the common refrain of the Marxists of all denominations to justify their clarion call of evicting farmers from their fertile lands so that industries could be set up.
The statistics reeled off by the chief minister can’t be wrong, since they are backed up by the findings of various central and state agencies. But true to Marxist tradition, Mr Bhattacharjee never told the whole truth. The yield from land is bound to be low as a logical corollary to the much-hyped land reforms policy the Marxists implemented since they came to power in 1977.
When they effected the reforms, they believed they were ushering in a revolution of sorts as big landlords were being cut to size and small and marginal farmers and landless labourers were being freed from the clutches of oppressive jotedars (rich peasants).
What was the upshot of this revolution?
In the language of the small landowner, the land reforms have created a situation where only those who have other sources of livelihood can hope to get reasonable returns from land. But, those who solely depend on their landholdings can hardly ever rise above the subsistence level.
“According to the land ceiling act an individual farmer can own a maximum of 18 bighas of land, a family of five 35 bighas and for extra members two to two and a half bighas each not exceeding a total of 52 bighas. If land weren’t fragmented in such a manner one could have invested considerable amount of money for irrigating a large tract of land ensuring greater yield. But such investment is out of the question on small plots earmarked by the ceiling,” Mr Roy said.
Therein lies the rub.
It’s entirely wrong for Mr Bhattacharjee and his comrades in arms to blame agriculture for its low returns and project industrialisation as a panacea for economic ills. They created this sorry rural economy by splitting land in a way that has eventually rendered it far less productive.
This is not to hold brief for big landlords or exploitation of rural poor by rich peasants. What Mr Roy sought to demonstrate was the inherent weakness of the Marxists’ land reforms policythat in the ultimate analysis is responsible for the stagnation in agriculture.
There’s no harm for the Marxists to admit their mistakes and try to rebuild the system. This was precisely the second theme that Professor Sen elaborated at the debate in the presence of the chief minister, several of his Cabinet colleagues and other Left leaders.
The force and bluntness with which he spoke his mind sounded intriguing and left people wondering why he sought to debunk the top CPI-M leaders in public in such a fashion.
Describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. Having said this he stunned the audience by saying that the process of de-Stalinisation was being carried out in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but surprisingly the CPI-M hadn’t openly decried the wrongs of Stalin. “There’s no harm in admitting mistakes,” he said.
As if to rub salt into injuries, Professor Sen said land acquisition for industrialisation can only be “the last recourse” and that the Tatas should have bought land from the farmers for the Singur project as part of the dynamics of market economy especially when they could pay huge amounts for buying the British steel major.
Such a position is not only a marked departure from Professor Sen’s earlier stand on the issue, but is diametrically opposite to his Marxist friends and admirers’ view who have been advocating that industrialisation can’t be done without acquiring farmland.
The question that automatically arises is: Was the whole show of turning the CPI-M’s industrialisation policy virtually on its head stage-managed? Or, are the Marxists having a second thought on their pet industrialisation overdrive?
The latter can be convincing only if an economist of Professor Sen’s stature lends his voice to it. Is it for this reason that the CPI-M heavyweights invited him to deliver the lecture and contradict their own policy so that they can suitably modify it and attribute the change to Professor Sen and economists of his standing?
Perhaps this is the only course left for the Marxists to extricate themselves from the predicament they are in with the Opposition wresting vast swathes of their support base slowly but steadily.
If that is true, it’s rather too late. The damage is done.
(The writer is Special Representative, The Statesman)
“De-Stalinisation is going on in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but the CPI-M doesn’t openly do so. I have been a Leftist and I believe one has to admit mistakes one has made.”
~ Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.
“Market economy should have been followed in getting land for the (Nano) project. We talk about market forces which should also have applied in the case of Singur. When the Tatas could buy a world steel major, there was no reason why they didn’t buy the land.”
~ Professor Amartya Sen
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Higher education is starving--Why donate Rs 23 Crore to Harvard?
Why didn't Prof. Amartya Sen himself part with part of his Nobel Prize in Economics to finance the Harvard U. which employs him?
kalyan
Higher education starves, but a $4.5m gift to Harvard’s fine?
R Vaidyanathan
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42:00 AM
The news item was not in the front pages of any major newspaper. It was published by some national dailies in the inside pages.
It is about the Government of India gifting $4.5 million (nearly Rs 23 crore) for Harvard University to establish a fund in honour of Prof Amartya Sen, which would help Indian students pursue higher education in that institution. This was to celebrate the 75th birth day of the renowned economist in recognition of his “extraordinary accomplishments” (PTI, December 11, 2008).
The government had earlier given £3.2 million (nearly Rs 26 crore) to the Cambridge University’s Judges Business school to celebrate Nehru’s entry as a student of Trinity College (see my article in DNA Money, February 12, 2008).
Both the news items, though important, were not debated by academicians nor commented upon by editors. To start with, there are questions regarding using government money to facilitate the fund-raising activity of Harvard or Cambridge. It is common knowledge that post-Thatcher era, the educational institutions in the UK are forced to raise the fees particularly for foreign students and even then, the fees do not cover even 25% of the cost of running these institutions. And hence, most of the British educational institutions are going around the world with a begging bowl, camouflaged as road shows, for their graduate and undergraduate courses.
Harvard, which recently lost more than $8 billion (nearly 22% of its corpus), is so much more desperate to augment its resources in the context of the global meltdown and deep US recession (WSJ, December 4, 2008).
Now, why should a developing country like India fund the cash-starved institutions of the West?
If Cambridge was so fascinated about Nehru entering it as a student or about the ‘India Story’, then it should have approached a private financier or some company in the UK to fund this endowment.
Ditto for Harvard, which could have asked many leading philanthropies in the US or business groups in India to fund the centre.
I know of several centres in China, which are funded by these universities or US companies. But India is a peculiar country, which funds centres in foreign universities, facilitating/ enhancing their finances. This gesture is not going to make others recognise us as a global economic power.
The higher educational institutions in India are starved of funds and crying out. After the decision of the government regarding reservation for other backward castes and the Supreme Court judgments thereon, it has become imperative for centrally funded institutions to increase their strength by at least one-and-half times and hence they need funds to expand their physical infrastructure. The government is not much forthcoming on this and expects the Central institutions to fend for themselves. There is a need for buildings and various other physical infrastructure in all the Central institutions of higher learning, leave alone the lower levels of education.
It is also surprising that the traditional rebels without a pause, namely the Left liberals, are totally silent on this. The usual Marxist crowd berating US imperialism, etc is also silent. May be the recessionary imperialism is not to be bothered about. The academic community is silent and some may be positioning themselves for future opportunities.
In the context of starving Indian institutions, gifting nearly Rs 50 crore to institutions in the UK/US is, to say the least, callous and may be construed as the result of the embedded colonial gene in our systems. The courtiers and family retainers may be already crowding around relevant ministries and power centres to get the positions, but that does not justify this subsidy.
Due to our distorted Nehruvian socialistic thinking, we believe that government is the embodiment of wisdom since it can tax and provide subsidies. We still live in the era of Kings where the whims and fancies of the Chakravarthi could get huge gifts to the courtiers and other foreign poets/ scholars. All one need do is stand in the queue and sing praises — particularly in this Dhanur month. Of course, if your colour is white, then just stand, not necessarily in the queue. Gifts will be bestowed and you will be profusely thanked for your presence and acceptance of the same.
There are many NRIs and Indian business groups who could have provided this subsidy/ alms to Harvard, but that was not the deal. Harvard I presume has arm-twisted the Government of India to get the funds to minimise the impact of its losses on the hedge funds. Anyhow, Indian government is the best hedge against such situations; due to the colonial hang-up and because we think Americans have done a great favour to us.
That is the reason our Ambassador to the USA, Ronen Sen (of the ‘headless chicken’ fame) profusely thanked the president of the Harvard University for accepting the gift.
We all should be very happy that Harvard condescended to accept our cheque since each of us was worried they may not!
Will the Indian mind ever get de-colonised?
The writer is professor of finance and control, Indian Institute of Management —Bangalore, and can be reached at vaidya@iimb.ernet.in. Views are personal.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1214632&pageid=0
kalyan
Higher education starves, but a $4.5m gift to Harvard’s fine?
R Vaidyanathan
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42:00 AM
The news item was not in the front pages of any major newspaper. It was published by some national dailies in the inside pages.
It is about the Government of India gifting $4.5 million (nearly Rs 23 crore) for Harvard University to establish a fund in honour of Prof Amartya Sen, which would help Indian students pursue higher education in that institution. This was to celebrate the 75th birth day of the renowned economist in recognition of his “extraordinary accomplishments” (PTI, December 11, 2008).
The government had earlier given £3.2 million (nearly Rs 26 crore) to the Cambridge University’s Judges Business school to celebrate Nehru’s entry as a student of Trinity College (see my article in DNA Money, February 12, 2008).
Both the news items, though important, were not debated by academicians nor commented upon by editors. To start with, there are questions regarding using government money to facilitate the fund-raising activity of Harvard or Cambridge. It is common knowledge that post-Thatcher era, the educational institutions in the UK are forced to raise the fees particularly for foreign students and even then, the fees do not cover even 25% of the cost of running these institutions. And hence, most of the British educational institutions are going around the world with a begging bowl, camouflaged as road shows, for their graduate and undergraduate courses.
Harvard, which recently lost more than $8 billion (nearly 22% of its corpus), is so much more desperate to augment its resources in the context of the global meltdown and deep US recession (WSJ, December 4, 2008).
Now, why should a developing country like India fund the cash-starved institutions of the West?
If Cambridge was so fascinated about Nehru entering it as a student or about the ‘India Story’, then it should have approached a private financier or some company in the UK to fund this endowment.
Ditto for Harvard, which could have asked many leading philanthropies in the US or business groups in India to fund the centre.
I know of several centres in China, which are funded by these universities or US companies. But India is a peculiar country, which funds centres in foreign universities, facilitating/ enhancing their finances. This gesture is not going to make others recognise us as a global economic power.
The higher educational institutions in India are starved of funds and crying out. After the decision of the government regarding reservation for other backward castes and the Supreme Court judgments thereon, it has become imperative for centrally funded institutions to increase their strength by at least one-and-half times and hence they need funds to expand their physical infrastructure. The government is not much forthcoming on this and expects the Central institutions to fend for themselves. There is a need for buildings and various other physical infrastructure in all the Central institutions of higher learning, leave alone the lower levels of education.
It is also surprising that the traditional rebels without a pause, namely the Left liberals, are totally silent on this. The usual Marxist crowd berating US imperialism, etc is also silent. May be the recessionary imperialism is not to be bothered about. The academic community is silent and some may be positioning themselves for future opportunities.
In the context of starving Indian institutions, gifting nearly Rs 50 crore to institutions in the UK/US is, to say the least, callous and may be construed as the result of the embedded colonial gene in our systems. The courtiers and family retainers may be already crowding around relevant ministries and power centres to get the positions, but that does not justify this subsidy.
Due to our distorted Nehruvian socialistic thinking, we believe that government is the embodiment of wisdom since it can tax and provide subsidies. We still live in the era of Kings where the whims and fancies of the Chakravarthi could get huge gifts to the courtiers and other foreign poets/ scholars. All one need do is stand in the queue and sing praises — particularly in this Dhanur month. Of course, if your colour is white, then just stand, not necessarily in the queue. Gifts will be bestowed and you will be profusely thanked for your presence and acceptance of the same.
There are many NRIs and Indian business groups who could have provided this subsidy/ alms to Harvard, but that was not the deal. Harvard I presume has arm-twisted the Government of India to get the funds to minimise the impact of its losses on the hedge funds. Anyhow, Indian government is the best hedge against such situations; due to the colonial hang-up and because we think Americans have done a great favour to us.
That is the reason our Ambassador to the USA, Ronen Sen (of the ‘headless chicken’ fame) profusely thanked the president of the Harvard University for accepting the gift.
We all should be very happy that Harvard condescended to accept our cheque since each of us was worried they may not!
Will the Indian mind ever get de-colonised?
The writer is professor of finance and control, Indian Institute of Management —Bangalore, and can be reached at vaidya@iimb.ernet.in. Views are personal.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1214632&pageid=0
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dial CPM Brinda and Teesta for cash-for-false-affidavits
Dial CPM Brinda and Teesta for cash-for-false-affidavits
Gujarat-based NGO processed payment from CPM relief fund
Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi (Pioneer, 20 Dec. 2008)
A controversial Gujarat-based NGO was instrumental in organising payment of Rs 1 lakh each to as many as ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot cases. The money came from the CPI(M) relief fund and was distributed months before the witnesses deposed in the courts, five years after the clashes took place. Four other eyewitnesses received Rs 50,000 each.
The revelation comes in the backdrop of reports that a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 while the victims got mere Rs 5,000 each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.
Chief Coordinator of CJP Rais Khan told The Pioneer that he had submitted the name of beneficiaries to the CPI(M) on instruction from Teesta Setalvad. "Setalvad identified the people and I merely followed her instruction and forwarded the list to CPI (M)," Khan said.
When contacted, Setalvad said she was present at the function on an invitation from the CPI(M) and had nothing to do with fund raising. "It was CPI(M) money and I was a mere guest at the function," she claimed.
Yasin Naimudin Ansari, one of the eyewitnesses who got one lakh rupees, told The Pioneer on phone from Ahmedabad that he was approached by someone from Teesta Setalvad's organisation. "I vaguely remember this. But I don't remember the name of the person," he said.
The function took place in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 and the witnesses were handed out demand drafts by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.
Brinda Karat admitted that the CPI(M) had raised the money, adding that as far the party was concerned it was giving relief to the victims. "Our party is not involved in any court cases involving Gujarat riots, and for us, distributing relief was merely a humanitarian gesture," she said.
Not disputing that she had taken the help of local NGOs to identify the victims, Brinda said, "We had received a lot of applications and money was distributed in different phases."
The 14 DDs (Nos 567540 to 567554 all dated 01/08/2007) were handed over to these witnesses by Teesta, Brinda and Rais Khan. Seven DDs were payable at Ahmedabad and seven at Baroda. Interestingly, one of the recipients is Yasmin Banu Sheikh, the estranged wife of Zahira Sheikh's brother Nafitullah.
The Pioneer is in possession of letters written by beneficiaries thanking Brinda, Teesta and Rais Khan for the payment.
Yasmin Banu Ismailbhai Shaikh (aunt of Zahira) of Baroda, who received Rs 50,000 (DD No 567552 dated August 1, 2007). Yasmin is a complainant in case No. 114/04 at Baroda. It is interesting to note that, when no substance was found in her complaint, she was directed to face lie detection test by the court and ever since she has not appeared in the court.
Among the recipients are four Best Bakery case witnesses and nine are appearing as witnesses in Ahmedabad-related Naroda Patia, Shahpur, Khanpur and other 2002 riot cases.
The information has been gleaned through a string of petitions under the Right to Information Act by one H Jhaveri from various agencies, including banks.
The four Best Bakery case witnesses are:
Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan of Ahmedabad who was paid Rs 1 lakh; Tufel Ahmed Habibullah Siddiqui of Baroda who received 50,000; Sehjad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan of Baroda who was paid Rs 50,000 and Rais Khan Amin Khan Pathan of Baroda who too got Rs 50,000.
There are nine witnesses relating to Ahmedabad riots who are testifying in local riot cases. All of them were given Rs 1 lakh and they are: 1.Kureshabibi Harunbhai Ghori of Baroda, witness in case No. 11/02 registered in Khanpur Police Station.
2. Husenabibi Gulambhai Shaikh, also of Baroda and witness in case No. 11/02 filed in Khanpur police station.
3. Rasidabanu Yusufkhan Pathan of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
4. Fatimabanu Babubhai Saiyyed of Ahmedabad and witness in Case No. 100/02 registered in Shahpur Police Station.
5. Badurnnisha Mohd Ismail Shaikh of Ahmedabad, witness in Case No. 49/0 3 of Shahpur Police Station.
6. Mohd Khalid Saiyyed Ali Saiyyed of Ahmedabad, witness in Naroda-Patiya case. His first application was registered on March 7, 2008 and second on May 29, 2008.
7. Mohd Yasin Naimuddin Ansari of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
8.Shaikh Azharuddin Imamuddin of Ahmedabad. During 2002 riots he was injured. At that time he was 10 years.
9. Sarjahah Kausar Ali Shaikh of Baroda. No details available.
List of Victims who were paid Rs 5,000 on 11/10/2007.
Mohammed Rafiq Abukar Pathan , Aslamkhan Anwarkhan Pathan, Pathan Saiyedkhan Ahmedkhan, Imtiyazhhan Saiyedkhan Pathan, Rashidkhan A. Pathan, Sairaben Salimbhai Sanghi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai Sanghi.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html
Gujarat-based NGO processed payment from CPM relief fund
Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi (Pioneer, 20 Dec. 2008)
A controversial Gujarat-based NGO was instrumental in organising payment of Rs 1 lakh each to as many as ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot cases. The money came from the CPI(M) relief fund and was distributed months before the witnesses deposed in the courts, five years after the clashes took place. Four other eyewitnesses received Rs 50,000 each.
The revelation comes in the backdrop of reports that a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 while the victims got mere Rs 5,000 each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.
Chief Coordinator of CJP Rais Khan told The Pioneer that he had submitted the name of beneficiaries to the CPI(M) on instruction from Teesta Setalvad. "Setalvad identified the people and I merely followed her instruction and forwarded the list to CPI (M)," Khan said.
When contacted, Setalvad said she was present at the function on an invitation from the CPI(M) and had nothing to do with fund raising. "It was CPI(M) money and I was a mere guest at the function," she claimed.
Yasin Naimudin Ansari, one of the eyewitnesses who got one lakh rupees, told The Pioneer on phone from Ahmedabad that he was approached by someone from Teesta Setalvad's organisation. "I vaguely remember this. But I don't remember the name of the person," he said.
The function took place in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 and the witnesses were handed out demand drafts by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.
Brinda Karat admitted that the CPI(M) had raised the money, adding that as far the party was concerned it was giving relief to the victims. "Our party is not involved in any court cases involving Gujarat riots, and for us, distributing relief was merely a humanitarian gesture," she said.
Not disputing that she had taken the help of local NGOs to identify the victims, Brinda said, "We had received a lot of applications and money was distributed in different phases."
The 14 DDs (Nos 567540 to 567554 all dated 01/08/2007) were handed over to these witnesses by Teesta, Brinda and Rais Khan. Seven DDs were payable at Ahmedabad and seven at Baroda. Interestingly, one of the recipients is Yasmin Banu Sheikh, the estranged wife of Zahira Sheikh's brother Nafitullah.
The Pioneer is in possession of letters written by beneficiaries thanking Brinda, Teesta and Rais Khan for the payment.
Yasmin Banu Ismailbhai Shaikh (aunt of Zahira) of Baroda, who received Rs 50,000 (DD No 567552 dated August 1, 2007). Yasmin is a complainant in case No. 114/04 at Baroda. It is interesting to note that, when no substance was found in her complaint, she was directed to face lie detection test by the court and ever since she has not appeared in the court.
Among the recipients are four Best Bakery case witnesses and nine are appearing as witnesses in Ahmedabad-related Naroda Patia, Shahpur, Khanpur and other 2002 riot cases.
The information has been gleaned through a string of petitions under the Right to Information Act by one H Jhaveri from various agencies, including banks.
The four Best Bakery case witnesses are:
Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan of Ahmedabad who was paid Rs 1 lakh; Tufel Ahmed Habibullah Siddiqui of Baroda who received 50,000; Sehjad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan of Baroda who was paid Rs 50,000 and Rais Khan Amin Khan Pathan of Baroda who too got Rs 50,000.
There are nine witnesses relating to Ahmedabad riots who are testifying in local riot cases. All of them were given Rs 1 lakh and they are: 1.Kureshabibi Harunbhai Ghori of Baroda, witness in case No. 11/02 registered in Khanpur Police Station.
2. Husenabibi Gulambhai Shaikh, also of Baroda and witness in case No. 11/02 filed in Khanpur police station.
3. Rasidabanu Yusufkhan Pathan of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
4. Fatimabanu Babubhai Saiyyed of Ahmedabad and witness in Case No. 100/02 registered in Shahpur Police Station.
5. Badurnnisha Mohd Ismail Shaikh of Ahmedabad, witness in Case No. 49/0 3 of Shahpur Police Station.
6. Mohd Khalid Saiyyed Ali Saiyyed of Ahmedabad, witness in Naroda-Patiya case. His first application was registered on March 7, 2008 and second on May 29, 2008.
7. Mohd Yasin Naimuddin Ansari of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
8.Shaikh Azharuddin Imamuddin of Ahmedabad. During 2002 riots he was injured. At that time he was 10 years.
9. Sarjahah Kausar Ali Shaikh of Baroda. No details available.
List of Victims who were paid Rs 5,000 on 11/10/2007.
Mohammed Rafiq Abukar Pathan , Aslamkhan Anwarkhan Pathan, Pathan Saiyedkhan Ahmedkhan, Imtiyazhhan Saiyedkhan Pathan, Rashidkhan A. Pathan, Sairaben Salimbhai Sanghi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai Sanghi.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Commie VIPs !
Commie VIPs !
Over 45,000 men protect our VIPs
Aloke Tikku , Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, December 18, 2008
Last Updated: 01:14 IST(18/12/2008)
As the post-26/11 debate on whether politicians need more security than the public rages on, facts hidden in government figures show how India can be safer if only our VIPs do not turn security into a status symbol.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice. More than 45,000 policemen protect the pool of VIPs in India that grew at 20 per cent — 12 times faster than the annual population growth rate — between 2004 and 2005. This means more security personnel guard 13,319 VIPs than the number of policemen in any Indian city — Delhi and Mumbai included. This is more than the police strength of all states bar the nine largest.
An estimated Rs 825 crore of taxpayers’ money is spent annually on the salary of the security staff alone, assuming — conservatively —that all on duty are constables earning Rs 15,000 each.
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) headquartered in Delhi had compiled the figures more than a year ago.
Police officers said the actual number of policemen protecting the VIPs — ministers, members of Parliament, state legislators, judges and bureaucrats among others — would be at least twice this figure. In Delhi, more than 14,000 personnel are on VIP duties. The report, Data on Police Organisations in India, only counted about 4,900 security personnel deployed for more than six months as on January 1, 2006.
“A total of 11,012 VIPs were provided police protection for more than six months during the year 2004… It shows an increase of 20.9 per cent over the previous year,” the report said.
“The increase in the VIP protection deployment has strained the limited manpower resources of State Police,” the report said, suggesting that the grounds for providing security were skewed.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh’s is the latest example. His threat perception suddenly increased this year to the highest level, Z-Plus, around the same time that the UPA government’s life was hanging in balance after the Left pullout.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati too had got herself home ministry clearance for her car to drive up to the aircraft at the Delhi airport after she extended support to the government more than a year ago. She withdrew support this year, but the privileges continue.
BPR&D said the deployment of police for VIP protection should be rationalised by reviewing it against need-based assessment. According to figures in its report, West Bengal has the most number of VIPs -- 1,999. Assam comes next with 1,610 and Uttar Pradesh, a close third at 1,506. Maharashtra, on the other hand, had reported about 122 VIPs.
Terror-torn Jammu and Kashmir, however, has only 170 VIPs.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=9d7c2725-b9d1-4b24-85e4-7bea32d4aac7
Over 45,000 men protect our VIPs
Aloke Tikku , Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, December 18, 2008
Last Updated: 01:14 IST(18/12/2008)
As the post-26/11 debate on whether politicians need more security than the public rages on, facts hidden in government figures show how India can be safer if only our VIPs do not turn security into a status symbol.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice. More than 45,000 policemen protect the pool of VIPs in India that grew at 20 per cent — 12 times faster than the annual population growth rate — between 2004 and 2005. This means more security personnel guard 13,319 VIPs than the number of policemen in any Indian city — Delhi and Mumbai included. This is more than the police strength of all states bar the nine largest.
An estimated Rs 825 crore of taxpayers’ money is spent annually on the salary of the security staff alone, assuming — conservatively —that all on duty are constables earning Rs 15,000 each.
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) headquartered in Delhi had compiled the figures more than a year ago.
Police officers said the actual number of policemen protecting the VIPs — ministers, members of Parliament, state legislators, judges and bureaucrats among others — would be at least twice this figure. In Delhi, more than 14,000 personnel are on VIP duties. The report, Data on Police Organisations in India, only counted about 4,900 security personnel deployed for more than six months as on January 1, 2006.
“A total of 11,012 VIPs were provided police protection for more than six months during the year 2004… It shows an increase of 20.9 per cent over the previous year,” the report said.
“The increase in the VIP protection deployment has strained the limited manpower resources of State Police,” the report said, suggesting that the grounds for providing security were skewed.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh’s is the latest example. His threat perception suddenly increased this year to the highest level, Z-Plus, around the same time that the UPA government’s life was hanging in balance after the Left pullout.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati too had got herself home ministry clearance for her car to drive up to the aircraft at the Delhi airport after she extended support to the government more than a year ago. She withdrew support this year, but the privileges continue.
BPR&D said the deployment of police for VIP protection should be rationalised by reviewing it against need-based assessment. According to figures in its report, West Bengal has the most number of VIPs -- 1,999. Assam comes next with 1,610 and Uttar Pradesh, a close third at 1,506. Maharashtra, on the other hand, had reported about 122 VIPs.
Terror-torn Jammu and Kashmir, however, has only 170 VIPs.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=9d7c2725-b9d1-4b24-85e4-7bea32d4aac7
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Are you scared of the Hindus, Comrade Brinda Karat?
Are you scared of the Hindus, Comrade Brinda Karat?
By: Bandyopadhyay Arindam
11/3/2008 4:39:35 PM
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Are-scared-Hindus-Comrade-Brinda-Karat/blog-198.htm
Congratulations Mrs Brinda Karat. You are the first in history of
mankind to have dubbed the entire Hindu community as Fundamentalist.
Brinda Karat raises a storm in Rajya Sabha. Not even the Pope or the
Imam had the insight to think about it before. It"s a pity that so far
there has not been an accolade from the anti-Hindu, pseudo secular,
quasi-intelligent ilk, that you represent. Perhaps our Prime Minister
will soon render an apology on behalf of the Hindus and consider you
for next year"s Bharat Ratna award.
Surely you are ecstatic that a handful of the 80 crore Hindu community
have been finally alleged and apprehended for bomb blasts. Unlike the
legal and judicial system, you do not need any further evidence to
prove them guilty. The mere existence of people who indulge in
violence and are Hindu by faith is enough for you to call them "Hindu
fundamentalist and terrorists". There presence gives you the leverage
to equate with all the terrorist activities in the name of Islam and
all the Hindu bashing of the Christians. And the next secular
deduction you make is that since there is a few Hindu fundamentalist,
it must be that the entire Hindu community is Fundamentalist.
I assume you don"t claim yourself as part of a Hindu community and
would not like to be labeled as a fundamentalist. I do not want to
embarrass you by asking about your parents or forefathers.
We know for sure that you belong to the Marxist community, though. Are
you aware that even in your so called atheist, Marxist community in
India, there are people who value their Ganesh and Lakshmi, their Kali
and Durga, their Shiva and Vishnu and their Rama and Krishna much
above your Marx and Lenin. Hindu Subhash blasts CPM
Also we know that you are not naïve to actual violence and
fundamentalism. Let us look back at history. On the morning of April
30, 1982, sixteen Ananda Marg monks and a nun were dragged out of
taxis, beaten to death and then set on fire, as watched by thousands
of people in Tiljala, one of Kolkata"s southern suburbs Basu Govt
still suppressing facts on Margi massacre. This was allegedly
carefully planned and executed by Marxist cadres over a land dispute
with the Marg. The Marxists had feared the Margis would upstage their
domination in the Kasba belt, which was at that time a base for the
CPI(M).
Will you consider this violence as Marxist fundamentalism?
Such violence is nothing new to Communism. Violence and Terror has
been the basis of the doctrine of Stalinism and Mao-ism and the
pillars on which the "democratic" reign of the Marxist communist party
in West Bengal has existed for over three decades now. Marxist
comrades and cadres are required to participate in various
"revolutionary" activities for the betterment of the society,
including gunning down of innocents, as we recently witnessed in
Nandigram. Marxist leaders like you, in turn, have to encourage them
with calls for violence Brinda prescribes "Dum Dum dawai" for Opposition.
Interestingly, the fact that a large number of the victims in
Nandigram were Muslims did not bother the Minority commissions or the
Secular brigade because the perpetrators themselves were of the same
color as the members of the commissions and brigades. There was no
special Hindu or saffron shade in the picture - so no point in playing
the religious card.
Does the Nandigram violence qualify for Marxist or Secular
fundamentalism, Mrs. Karat?
What do you propose to do with the entire fundamentalist Hindu
community, Mrs. Karat? Do you intend to wipe them out as you crushed
the Nandigram opposition?
Have you for once wondered, Mrs. Karat, how fortunate you are to live
in this Hindu fundamentalist"s country?
Consider for a moment that you are in your ideologically desired
country of China and you mention something like this against the
communist majority in their politburo meet. How long do you think it
would take for your blood to be splashed all over Tiananmen Square?
Imagine you are in a Middle Eastern country and accusing that the
whole Muslim community is fundamentalist. How long do you think it
would take before the footage of your beheading reaches and graces the
"You tube" website, for the viewing privilege of the rest of the world?
Picture yourself, standing in the US senate and blaming the whole
Christian community as fundamentalist. Perhaps they would bring back
the medieval laws to enjoy the pleasure of seeing you being crucified
and stoned to death. As a minimum, if you are fortunate you would be
left to rot for the rest of your life in Guantanamo or some other
remote CIA operated prison?
Do you now appreciate how lucky you are to be still around, amongst
the Hindu community, even after several days of the most demeaning
generalization that you can make about the majority populations of
this ancient land? Shamefully, barring a few, the 250 odd, Rajya Sabha
members, presumably mostly Hindu hardly made any protest. Our secular
anti-Hindu media and the opportunistic vote-hungry politicians, too
occupied in sensationalizing "Hindu Terror", could not find any
gainful reason to criticize your enlightening comment.
No threat to withdraw your comment was made from any segment of the
country.
Not a single "fatwa" was decreed against you.
No prize money was offered for your head.
No call to taste your blood was heard.
Surely even you"ll agree that your so called Hindu fundamentalists are
purely of prekindergarten varieties compared to their Muslim
counterpart. Clearly Hindu fundamentalists do not have any idea of the
ABCs of fundamentalism? Perhaps you anticipated very well that you
would have a fair chance of getting away with this malfeasance.
Compare this to the Danish cartoon or Taslima Nasreen saga. Did you
even dream to make any antagonizing remark like this about even a
section of the, let alone the entire, Muslim community? You knew that
even the army of comrades of your party and the power of your general
secretary - husband would not be enough to give you protection after that.
Have you thought of the possibility that if the whole Hindu community
was indeed fundamentalist, they should have offered you as a
sacrificial "balidaan" to their Bharatmata, right then and there in
the altar of the Rajya Sabha.
Or may be that possibility did cross your mind? Is there actually a
hysteric outburst of fear in your exclamation? Are you afraid that the
scare of the retaliating Hindu has become a reality now? Are you
shuddering with the apprehension that the combined façade of
intellectualism, activism and secularism will not be enough to cover
up any more? That the ugly faces are exposed and identifiable now and
the time of retribution may not be far away.
Have you considered the real threat of true Hindu fundamentalism? The
80 crores strong do not even need to be violent or fundamentalist. All
they have to do is to take a few united stride and that will steam
roll the likes of a few hundreds of your kind who are taking this
country of India, our punya bhumi, for a ride, dividing its people in
every possible way starting from religion, language, regionalism,
caste and tribes. The mass is counting days to reach to this handful
of leaders, who in coordination with the foreign funded, anti-national
media continues to serve their own vested interest at the cost of
lives and properties of the innocents.
The majority Hindu community has been systematically alienated in
their own country; they have been pushed too far. Retaliation is
expected. Violence though undesirable, does happen. These isolated
events may be signs of early days. Bharatvarsha is no Nandigram, Mrs
Karat. It is just a few people who have started to sacrifice - imagine
when their number increases. That is what leads to revolution. Not the
Marxist variety to make India subservient to the Chinese masters: but
the nationalistic variety - to return India to its glory and zenith.
Brace yourself Mrs Karat, people like you may not be lucky forever.
Bandyopadhyay Arindam
By: Bandyopadhyay Arindam
11/3/2008 4:39:35 PM
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Are-scared-Hindus-Comrade-Brinda-Karat/blog-198.htm
Congratulations Mrs Brinda Karat. You are the first in history of
mankind to have dubbed the entire Hindu community as Fundamentalist.
Brinda Karat raises a storm in Rajya Sabha. Not even the Pope or the
Imam had the insight to think about it before. It"s a pity that so far
there has not been an accolade from the anti-Hindu, pseudo secular,
quasi-intelligent ilk, that you represent. Perhaps our Prime Minister
will soon render an apology on behalf of the Hindus and consider you
for next year"s Bharat Ratna award.
Surely you are ecstatic that a handful of the 80 crore Hindu community
have been finally alleged and apprehended for bomb blasts. Unlike the
legal and judicial system, you do not need any further evidence to
prove them guilty. The mere existence of people who indulge in
violence and are Hindu by faith is enough for you to call them "Hindu
fundamentalist and terrorists". There presence gives you the leverage
to equate with all the terrorist activities in the name of Islam and
all the Hindu bashing of the Christians. And the next secular
deduction you make is that since there is a few Hindu fundamentalist,
it must be that the entire Hindu community is Fundamentalist.
I assume you don"t claim yourself as part of a Hindu community and
would not like to be labeled as a fundamentalist. I do not want to
embarrass you by asking about your parents or forefathers.
We know for sure that you belong to the Marxist community, though. Are
you aware that even in your so called atheist, Marxist community in
India, there are people who value their Ganesh and Lakshmi, their Kali
and Durga, their Shiva and Vishnu and their Rama and Krishna much
above your Marx and Lenin. Hindu Subhash blasts CPM
Also we know that you are not naïve to actual violence and
fundamentalism. Let us look back at history. On the morning of April
30, 1982, sixteen Ananda Marg monks and a nun were dragged out of
taxis, beaten to death and then set on fire, as watched by thousands
of people in Tiljala, one of Kolkata"s southern suburbs Basu Govt
still suppressing facts on Margi massacre. This was allegedly
carefully planned and executed by Marxist cadres over a land dispute
with the Marg. The Marxists had feared the Margis would upstage their
domination in the Kasba belt, which was at that time a base for the
CPI(M).
Will you consider this violence as Marxist fundamentalism?
Such violence is nothing new to Communism. Violence and Terror has
been the basis of the doctrine of Stalinism and Mao-ism and the
pillars on which the "democratic" reign of the Marxist communist party
in West Bengal has existed for over three decades now. Marxist
comrades and cadres are required to participate in various
"revolutionary" activities for the betterment of the society,
including gunning down of innocents, as we recently witnessed in
Nandigram. Marxist leaders like you, in turn, have to encourage them
with calls for violence Brinda prescribes "Dum Dum dawai" for Opposition.
Interestingly, the fact that a large number of the victims in
Nandigram were Muslims did not bother the Minority commissions or the
Secular brigade because the perpetrators themselves were of the same
color as the members of the commissions and brigades. There was no
special Hindu or saffron shade in the picture - so no point in playing
the religious card.
Does the Nandigram violence qualify for Marxist or Secular
fundamentalism, Mrs. Karat?
What do you propose to do with the entire fundamentalist Hindu
community, Mrs. Karat? Do you intend to wipe them out as you crushed
the Nandigram opposition?
Have you for once wondered, Mrs. Karat, how fortunate you are to live
in this Hindu fundamentalist"s country?
Consider for a moment that you are in your ideologically desired
country of China and you mention something like this against the
communist majority in their politburo meet. How long do you think it
would take for your blood to be splashed all over Tiananmen Square?
Imagine you are in a Middle Eastern country and accusing that the
whole Muslim community is fundamentalist. How long do you think it
would take before the footage of your beheading reaches and graces the
"You tube" website, for the viewing privilege of the rest of the world?
Picture yourself, standing in the US senate and blaming the whole
Christian community as fundamentalist. Perhaps they would bring back
the medieval laws to enjoy the pleasure of seeing you being crucified
and stoned to death. As a minimum, if you are fortunate you would be
left to rot for the rest of your life in Guantanamo or some other
remote CIA operated prison?
Do you now appreciate how lucky you are to be still around, amongst
the Hindu community, even after several days of the most demeaning
generalization that you can make about the majority populations of
this ancient land? Shamefully, barring a few, the 250 odd, Rajya Sabha
members, presumably mostly Hindu hardly made any protest. Our secular
anti-Hindu media and the opportunistic vote-hungry politicians, too
occupied in sensationalizing "Hindu Terror", could not find any
gainful reason to criticize your enlightening comment.
No threat to withdraw your comment was made from any segment of the
country.
Not a single "fatwa" was decreed against you.
No prize money was offered for your head.
No call to taste your blood was heard.
Surely even you"ll agree that your so called Hindu fundamentalists are
purely of prekindergarten varieties compared to their Muslim
counterpart. Clearly Hindu fundamentalists do not have any idea of the
ABCs of fundamentalism? Perhaps you anticipated very well that you
would have a fair chance of getting away with this malfeasance.
Compare this to the Danish cartoon or Taslima Nasreen saga. Did you
even dream to make any antagonizing remark like this about even a
section of the, let alone the entire, Muslim community? You knew that
even the army of comrades of your party and the power of your general
secretary - husband would not be enough to give you protection after that.
Have you thought of the possibility that if the whole Hindu community
was indeed fundamentalist, they should have offered you as a
sacrificial "balidaan" to their Bharatmata, right then and there in
the altar of the Rajya Sabha.
Or may be that possibility did cross your mind? Is there actually a
hysteric outburst of fear in your exclamation? Are you afraid that the
scare of the retaliating Hindu has become a reality now? Are you
shuddering with the apprehension that the combined façade of
intellectualism, activism and secularism will not be enough to cover
up any more? That the ugly faces are exposed and identifiable now and
the time of retribution may not be far away.
Have you considered the real threat of true Hindu fundamentalism? The
80 crores strong do not even need to be violent or fundamentalist. All
they have to do is to take a few united stride and that will steam
roll the likes of a few hundreds of your kind who are taking this
country of India, our punya bhumi, for a ride, dividing its people in
every possible way starting from religion, language, regionalism,
caste and tribes. The mass is counting days to reach to this handful
of leaders, who in coordination with the foreign funded, anti-national
media continues to serve their own vested interest at the cost of
lives and properties of the innocents.
The majority Hindu community has been systematically alienated in
their own country; they have been pushed too far. Retaliation is
expected. Violence though undesirable, does happen. These isolated
events may be signs of early days. Bharatvarsha is no Nandigram, Mrs
Karat. It is just a few people who have started to sacrifice - imagine
when their number increases. That is what leads to revolution. Not the
Marxist variety to make India subservient to the Chinese masters: but
the nationalistic variety - to return India to its glory and zenith.
Brace yourself Mrs Karat, people like you may not be lucky forever.
Bandyopadhyay Arindam
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Modi to Buddha, Mamata: go the rightist way
Modi to Buddha, Mamata: go the rightist way
Modi's open letter to Buddhadev, Mamata on Nano
PTI | Kolkata (13 Oct. 2008)
Barely a week after Tata's Nano found its new home at Sanand, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has asked his West Bengal counterpart Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Opposition leader Mamata Banerjee to work unitedly for development.
"We can't forget that the Marxists were once opposed to industrialisation. Continuity in the industrialisation policy will only help retain the people's confidence," Modi said in an open letter to both Bhattacharjee and Banerjee which was published in a leading Bengali daily on Sunday.
In the letter to Bhattacharjee, Modi said, "The condition for the growth of Nano has not yet developed in West Bengal in view of its present work culture despite your serious efforts... Please don't get surprised at my letter, which I wrote after serious thought... People of West Bengal may think I have snatched Nano to Gujarat. But it is not so. There is no scope of misunderstanding."
"The land (at Sanand) given to the Tata for the Nano plant was acquired for an agriculture university which was allotted another piece of land. The Tatas purchased the land and it is free of any dispute over agricultural or non-agricultural in nature."
Modi in his open letter suggested Mamata to "shun ultra-leftism in opposing the Leftists and show West Bengal the rightist way to usher in development."
"You may raise demands for more industry, more roads, more jobs in your State. Go the rightist way to development," Modi said.
Modi emphasises in the letter to Bhattacharjee that his Government's industrial policy has a continuity and does not change with the change of party in power.
"From the outset, we sought to take advantage of the policy of economic liberalisation in the competitive society. We wanted big industries... If there is continuity in the industrial policy, the Government may enjoy people's confidence and faith."
"We can't forget that your party (CPI-M) once took the extreme policy of opposing industrialisation. People observed how you disallowed entry of computers and now you are talking of industry. Despite your being in favour of industry, your party and the Government are not with you totally," Modi told Bhattacharjee.
Explaining how his Government made available land for the Tatas' Nano plant, Modi said, "We prepared a land-bank for land acquisition for industry. We also made an industry map in Gujarat. All this has been done to ensure that land can be handed over to entrepreneurs fast. However, that does not mean that all land here is infertile. There is fertile land here too for which compensation has to be made."
Modi pointed out he had no intention to snatch the Nano from Singur to Sanand, asserting "the course of events and Gujaratis' accountability towards industrialisation have brought in the small-car project to Gujarat."
The BJP leader asked Mamata Banerjee to note that opposition parties in Gujarat do not pursue the policy of "opposition for opposition's sake."
"Opposition Congress in Gujarat too has lent wholehearted support to the Nano's coming to Gujarat... We don't do politics over industrialisation in Gujarat."
http://dailypioneer.com/127070/Modis-open-letter-to-Buddhadev-Mamata-on-Nano.html
Modi's open letter to Buddhadev, Mamata on Nano
PTI | Kolkata (13 Oct. 2008)
Barely a week after Tata's Nano found its new home at Sanand, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has asked his West Bengal counterpart Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Opposition leader Mamata Banerjee to work unitedly for development.
"We can't forget that the Marxists were once opposed to industrialisation. Continuity in the industrialisation policy will only help retain the people's confidence," Modi said in an open letter to both Bhattacharjee and Banerjee which was published in a leading Bengali daily on Sunday.
In the letter to Bhattacharjee, Modi said, "The condition for the growth of Nano has not yet developed in West Bengal in view of its present work culture despite your serious efforts... Please don't get surprised at my letter, which I wrote after serious thought... People of West Bengal may think I have snatched Nano to Gujarat. But it is not so. There is no scope of misunderstanding."
"The land (at Sanand) given to the Tata for the Nano plant was acquired for an agriculture university which was allotted another piece of land. The Tatas purchased the land and it is free of any dispute over agricultural or non-agricultural in nature."
Modi in his open letter suggested Mamata to "shun ultra-leftism in opposing the Leftists and show West Bengal the rightist way to usher in development."
"You may raise demands for more industry, more roads, more jobs in your State. Go the rightist way to development," Modi said.
Modi emphasises in the letter to Bhattacharjee that his Government's industrial policy has a continuity and does not change with the change of party in power.
"From the outset, we sought to take advantage of the policy of economic liberalisation in the competitive society. We wanted big industries... If there is continuity in the industrial policy, the Government may enjoy people's confidence and faith."
"We can't forget that your party (CPI-M) once took the extreme policy of opposing industrialisation. People observed how you disallowed entry of computers and now you are talking of industry. Despite your being in favour of industry, your party and the Government are not with you totally," Modi told Bhattacharjee.
Explaining how his Government made available land for the Tatas' Nano plant, Modi said, "We prepared a land-bank for land acquisition for industry. We also made an industry map in Gujarat. All this has been done to ensure that land can be handed over to entrepreneurs fast. However, that does not mean that all land here is infertile. There is fertile land here too for which compensation has to be made."
Modi pointed out he had no intention to snatch the Nano from Singur to Sanand, asserting "the course of events and Gujaratis' accountability towards industrialisation have brought in the small-car project to Gujarat."
The BJP leader asked Mamata Banerjee to note that opposition parties in Gujarat do not pursue the policy of "opposition for opposition's sake."
"Opposition Congress in Gujarat too has lent wholehearted support to the Nano's coming to Gujarat... We don't do politics over industrialisation in Gujarat."
http://dailypioneer.com/127070/Modis-open-letter-to-Buddhadev-Mamata-on-Nano.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
