FDI IN RETAIL WILL DESTROY EMPLOYMENT, SAID DR. MANMOHAN SINGH IN 2002

3

In an earlier blog I had recalled how when the NDA Government was in office the then Chief Whip of the Congress Party Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi had cited the Planning Commission’s recommendation in favour of FDI in retail, and on that basis condemned the Vajpayee Government for contemplating this ‘anti-national’ move.

Arun Shourie as Minister of Commerce promptly stood up in Parliament to affirm that Government was not in favour of any such proposal.

At the Suraj Kund conclave of the BJP’s National Council, speaking on the Economic Resolution, my colleague Shri Venkaiah Naidu read out from a letter written by Dr. Manmohan Singh, at that point of time Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, to confirm this fact. Federation of Maharashtra Traders had conveyed their concern to him about this matter. In his letter dated December 21, 2002 Dr. Manmohan Singh said that the matter had been raised in the Rajya Sabha two days earlier. “The Finance Minister gave an assurance,” Dr. Manmohan Singh said approvingly, “that Government had no proposal to invite Foreign Direct Investment in Retail Trade.”

The letter from Federation of Associations of Maharashtra has attributed to Dr. Manmohan Singh an even more forthright criticism of FDI in retail. The letter written by Shri C.T. Shanghvi, Chairman, Foreign Trade Committee of the Federation, has said:

“Your honour would recall that during the year 2002-03 I had occasion to lead a delegation of the Federation of Associations of Maharashtra to meet your goodself as the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, in connection with the important subject of FDI in retail trade of the country.

Even before we made our detailed submissions, you had categorically stated that ‘we should not permit Foreign Direct Investment in Retail Trade’. You had further mentioned that “India does not require this kind of reform which would, rather than creating employment, destroy employment”. 

Shanghvi adds in the same letter :

We had briefed you, Sir, about the unfair trade practices such as (predatory pricing) adopted by the multinational retail chain stores organization to kill the competition by small retailers. Our delegation also drew your kind attention to the highly undesirable impact that has been felt by some of the Far Eastern Countries – Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia - who had erroneously permitted FDI in retail trade during the late 1990s.

Later, our delegation met you on a couple of occasions and submitted the details of our various representations to the concerned authorities on this subject. In view of the seriousness of this issue from the overall National angle, you had raised the subject in the Rajya Sabha on 18^th/19^th December 2002 and had obtained an assurance from the then Finance Minister that there was no proposal before the Government for permitting FDI in retail trade. Your letter addressed to the Federation in this regard is enclosed for ease of reference.

***

Many interesting comments have been made on the Prime Minister’s address to the nation in which defending his decision on FDI in Retail, he made the trite remark “money does not grow on trees.”

My colleague Jaswant Singh who is an ex-Army Officer has written an article for The Hindu (September 28, 2012) which recounts his conversation with his own tank-driver. I found Jaswant Singh’s article enlightening. The paragraph quoting the interaction with his driver may be very appropriate as tail piece for today’s blog. This is what Jaswant Singh says about the PM’s “rather admonitory” remark :

TAILPIECE

Just a day after this astonishing, also so unneeded, reprimand, I received a telephone call from a retired soldier colleague, who had served with me as my tank driver, sharing with me for many years my tank lean-to shelter at night. I save his name lest he be nagged by the otherwise inefficient Intelligence Bureau.  “Sahib”, he said in his thick Shekhawati dialect and accent, “please educate the PM that money does actually grow on trees and plants; we get all our fruits, vegetables and animal feed and also firewood from a ‘tree’. So tell him to think of the farmers, not of the ‘foreigners’, who over two centuries back came as a company and took away our land.  Not one ‘biswa’ (a measure of land) was left to us”. I promised him I would do so, but advised him not to disturb his retired life over such depressing thoughts, for just as our ‘dhabas’ defeated a rather cocky Colonel from Kentucky, US of A, India will defeat this, too.  And not one word of this anecdote is made up.

L.K. Advani

New Delhi

 http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/fdi-in-retail-will-destroy-employment-said-dr-manmohan-singh-in-2002

EVEN NEHRU’S SECULARISM WAS BASED ON HINDU FOUNDATIONS

No

An outstanding book I have run into these days is one by a renowned Harvard scholar Diana L Eck. The book is titled INDIA: A Sacred Geography.

Some historians say that Indians lack a sense of history. In chapter 2 of the book, captioned “What is India?” the author of this extremely well- researched book refers to such remarks, but goes on to affirm that it is however, “remarkable to discover that they (Indians) had a detailed sense of geography.” Diana adds:

Even in a time when travel throughout the length and breadth of the land must have been very difficult, there were traditions of geographical knowledge to suggest that such travel was indeed undertaken. And it is remarkable that even in a time when the subcontinent had no political unity whatsoever, those who described this territory to Alexander’s company thought of it and described it as a single land…

They also attested that India was roughly quadrilateral in shape, with the Indus River forming the western boundary, the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush stretched along the north, and the seas skirting the other two sides. They even cited its measurements: the length of the River Indus; the distance from the Indus to Pataliputra and from there to the mouth of the Ganges; the distances along the eastern and western coasts.

Alexander Cunningham, who under the British became Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, wrote in 1871:

‘The close agreement of these dimensions, given by Alexander’s informants, with the actual size of the country is very remarkable, and shows that the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land.”

When the Britishers ruled our country one school of so called orientalists keen to promote the Empire were scornful of the idea that India was one country and that Indians were one people.

A prominent representative of this school was a British Civil servant, Sir John Strachey.  Speaking at the University of Cambridge in 1888, Sir Strachey said “What does this name India signify? The answer that has more than once been given sounds paradoxical, but it is true,” he said. “There is no such country, and this is the first and most essential fact about India that can be learned. India is a name, which we give to a great region including a number of different countries.”

Sir John Strachey argued that Europe had more of common culture than India. “Scotland is more like Spain than Bengal is like the Punjab…There are no countries in civilized Europe in which people differ as much as the Bengali differs from the Sikh, and the language of Bengal is as unintelligible in Lahore as it would be in London.”

Diana Eck, the author of this book is a professor of Comparative Religion and Indian Studies at Harvard University. While her book Banaras, City of Light is regarded a classic in the field, this 559-page tome painstakingly projecting how Hindu mythology, interwoven with India’s Geography is a powerful and convincing refutation of the imperial thesis that India is not one country, and that Indians are not one people.

This book recalls Pandit Nehru’s incarceration in the Ahmednagar Fort where he wrote his Discovery of India. It was in this book that he reflected how his travels across the country during the freedom struggle made him acutely alive to the impression of the country’s unity.  Nehru wrote:

Though outwardly there was diversity and infinite variety among our people, everywhere there was that tremendous impress of ‘oneness’, which had held all of us together for ages past, whatever political fate or misfortune had befallen us. The unity of India was no longer merely an intellectual concept for me: it was an emotional experience which overpowered me.

Diana comments: “Nehru’s vision of India surely included all its caste and regional communities, as well as its religious diversity. Although he espoused an ardent secularism throughout his political life, from his rising leadership of the Indian National Congress in the 1930s to his death as the first prime minister of India in 1964, it was a secularism that was somehow built on the kinds of deep, presumptively Hindu foundations we are describing.”

The BJP and the RSS hold that the basis of Indian nationalism is our culture. When in October 1961, the AICC held its session at Madurai, Pandit Nehru remarked that India has “for ages past been a country of pilgrimages.” He added: “All over the country you find these ancient places, from Badrinath, Kedarnath and Amarnath, high up in the snowy Himalayas down to Kanyakumari in the south.  What has drawn our people from the south to the north and from the north to the south in these great pilgrimages. It is the feeling of one country and one culture and this feeling has bound us together. Our ancient books have said that the land of Bharat is the land stretching from the Himalayas in the north to the southern seas. This conception of Bharat as one great land which the people considered a holy land has come down the ages and has joined us together, even though we have had different political kingdoms and even though we may speak different languages. This silken bond keeps us together in many ways.”

Pandit Nehru’s Madurai speech clearly spelt out India’s ancient but constantly self-renewing culture as the ‘silken bond’ that unites our diversities into ‘one country’.

****

Hearty compliments to Umashree Bharati for the successful completion of the First Phase of her Ganga Samagra Abhiyan, to mark which a formal function was held at the Constitution Club on January 7, 2013.

The Abhiyan had two main components: one, a five-week yatra lasting from 20 September, 2012 to 28 October, 2012, from Ganga Sagar to Gangotri and secondly, a Manav shrinkhala (a Human Chain) all along the banks of the Ganga on December 2, 2012.

Sadhvi Uma Bharati’s campaign is aimed at two objectives. (i) Shuddh Ganga, (ii) Aviral Ganga.

At this well attended function Bharati ji gave the gathering an impressive account of the very enthusiastic response the Abhiyan had received from all communities and sections of society.

At the function held at the V.B.P. House, my daughter Pratibha’s 30 minute highly engrossing and educative film “Ganga” was screened.

****

In this book on Sacred Geography, there is a separate chapter on “The Ganga and the Rivers of India”.

In this chapter, Diana says : “There are few things on which Hindu India, diverse as it is, speaks with one voice as clearly as it does on Ganga Mata. The river carries an immense cultural and religious significance for Hindus, no matter what part of the subcontinent they call home, no matter what their sectarian leaning might be. As one Hindi author writes, “Even the most hardened atheist of a Hindu will find his heart full of feelings he has never before felt when for the first time he reaches the bank of the Ganga.” Or, we might add, when the Ganga reaches him. The use of Ganga water to evoke sentiments of unity among people of diverse regions and multiple Hindu traditions should be wholly benign. After all, this is a symbol that bears only beneficence, only the brimming water pot and the lotus.

Volunteers for Umashree’s campaign had gone to all MPs, MLAs and thousands of public representatives to present them with urns of gangajal. Umaji herself had gone to present gangajal to the Rashtrapati, the Hon’ble Speaker and several other distinguished VIPs.

All those who were part of this Gangajal presentation programme were, however, unanimous that the reverence which these urns commanded was not confined to Hindus but Hindus, Muslims, Christians. Sikhs etc. all alike.

L.K. Advani

New Delhi

January 11, 2013

 http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/even-nehru%E2%80%99s-secularism-was-based-on-hindu-foundations

BJP : A HUB OF HOPE

15

Politicians are generally critical of media persons. It is, however, rare that media men themselves ridicule their own fraternity for indulging in political criticism not because it is justified but because even while realizing that the criticism is uninformed and superficial, the write ups do add up to “lazy copy”.

Swapan Dasgupta is an eminent journalist who commands great respect in the capital. His page one piece every Sunday in the Pioneer is read with great interest. His latest column (May 27, 2012) is a severe comment on the media which he holds “shapes the tone and tenor of the chattering class discourse”.

Under caption “Media creates its own realities”, Dasgupta wrote last Sunday:

“Given the fact that the media thrives on stereotypes, caricatures…. it was not very surprising that the bite brigade that descended on Mumbai last week for the BJP National Executive was looking for reaffirmations of set conclusions.”

Swapan added a perceptive summing up :

“That everyone in the BJP is not on the same page is a truism. No political party in India, not even the CPI(M), possesses an army where every member of the officer corps think alike. This is democratic normalcy and it is only in India that the media projects the ideal of politics crafted on the North Korean model.”(A Marxist uniformity !)

However, when these days media-persons attack the UPA Government for its string of scams, but at the same time regret that the BJP led NDA is not rising to the occasion, I as a former pressman myself, feel they are reflecting public opinion correctly.

At a meeting of the BJP’s Core Committee some weeks back, a meeting attended by several senior RSS leaders I had reminisced about my sixty years’ political journey since the launching of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in 1951 by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji. I had said that thinking of the party’s successes and failures during these sixty years, I cannot think of a more depressing year than 1984, when in the Eighth Lok Sabha Elections that took place that year, our party had put up 229 candidates. Our score in the Lok Sabha was a miserable two, one from Gujarat and the other from Andhra. In all the other states of the country, including U.P., Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, we had drawn a blank. Even in the first General Elections to the Lok Sabha in 1952, our party had captured three seats, more than in 1984 !

In 1984 I was Party President and so felt extremely downcast. But I also remember that the party had set up a Committee headed by Krishan Lal Sharma to analyse the poll results objectively. The Committee had reported that in the rank and file of the party as also in our support base, there was no demoralization because of the electoral setback, which was being attributed to the dastardly assassination of Smt. Gandhi by terrorists and a powerful sympathy wave for young Rajiv Gandhi.

The mood within the party these days is not upbeat. The results in Uttar Pradesh, the manner in which the party welcomed BSP Ministers who were removed by Mayawati ji on charges of corruption, the party’s handling of Jharkhand and Karnataka – all these events have undermined the party’s campaign against corruption.

The fact that we have a sizable contingent of MPs in Parliament today as against the niggardly two seats in 1984, that our performance in the two Houses under Sushmaji and Jaitleyji has been excellent, that the party is in power in as many as nine states today is no compensation for the lapses committed. I had said at the Core Group meeting that if people are today angry with the U.P.A. Government, they are also disappointed with us. The situation, I said, calls for introspection.

****

TAILPIECE

The Times of India carries today (May 30, 2012) a news item with the caption:

            AT 97, A.K. HANGAL SHOOTS FOR TV

The report says :

A year and a half ago, Avtar Kishan Hangal aka A K. Hangal, who had made millions weep with his heart-rending roles on screen was fighting illness and poverty at his residence in Santa Cruz East.

But things are now changing for the actor who had also been an active participant in the national struggle for freedom. The 97-year-old actor after starring in over 200 films, is all set to return to the small screen with a brand new show, Madhubala. He has been a part of several shows in the 1990s.

The actor will play himself on the show that is reportedly based on the life of veteran actress Madhubala. In fact, Hangal shot for the part a couple of days back.

Hangal came on the scheduled day and shot for nearly an hour. “It was something that we had never imagined possible. He has unique energy. It was like a blessing for us. Even his son told us how happy he was to shoot after almost seven to eight years. We were all charged up seeing him on the sets. That one-hour was purely magical. I did not know whether he would be able to pull it off at this age. But he managed to give a one-take shot. It was wonderful”, said Saurabh Tewari, the producer of the show.

I remember that in the sixties and seventies, there were journalists who often used to compare the Jana Sangh with film actor A.K. Hangal and say that Hangal is always admired by cine-goers. But he cannot sustain a full film by himself. He is a brilliant character actor. But he is not a star: neither a hero, nor even a villain. Jana Sangh’s position in Indian politics is similar. Its patriotism and integrity secures for it the plaudits of all; but the party will never dominate the political scene.

I recall challenging such comments, and asserting that a day will certainly come when the situation will undergo a complete metamorphosis. That has now happened. Today BJP has become converted into such a hub of hope for all, that if it commits even a minor lapse, it does cause distress and disappointment to the people.

L.K. ADVANI

New Delhi

May 31, 2012

 http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/bjp-a-hub-of-hope

SALUTATIONS TO A GREAT MARTYR !

Today is 23^rd of June.  It is a date the nation must not forget. Exactly 59 years back, in 1953, on this very day Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee passed away in Srinagar in mysterious circumstances. 

In October 1951, Dr. Mookerjee had founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. He had been elected its first National President.

In 1952, the Election Commission had organized the First General elections to the Lok Sabha, and the State Assemblies. Dr. Mookerjee was elected to the first Lok Sabha from a Calcutta constituency.

In December 1952, the first All India Session of the Jana Sangh was held at Kanpur. It was at this conclave that Dr. Mookerjee gave a call to the country for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir State into the Indian Union. The call was summed up in a powerful slogan:

Ek desh men     Do Vidhan                                                           

                        Do Pradhan

                        Do Nishan

Nahin Chalenge 

Nahin Chalenge

(Ours is one country; we cannot have

  Two Constitutions

  Two Presidents

  Two Flags)    

             

The Kanpur session ended with a resolve: to launch a countrywide movement for the full integration of J&K State into the Union.

The movement was preceded by Dr. Mookerjee’s correspondence with Prime Minister Pandit Nehru on this issue of J&K’s full integration.

This was followed up by Dr. Syama Prasad undertaking a countrywide tour on this issue.  In this tour he was accompanied by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

I was in Kota, Rajasthan, those days.

I can never forget meeting these two great stalwarts at the Kota Railway Station, when the two were passing through Kota Junction.

The J&K Government had decreed that any visitor to the State would be permitted entry only if he secured a permit from the State Government.  Dr. Mookerjee felt that this order of the State Government was violative of the Indian Constitution.  So he decided that he himself would lead from the front the movement he had given a call for, by defying the entry-permit order. 

Dr. Mookerjee left Delhi for his Kashmir destination on May 8, 1953 by a passenger train carrying him and his entourage into Punjab.  Throughout Punjab, it was a sea of humanity that accosted him everywhere. 

His last stop was at the border check-post at Madhopur on the River Ravi, one of the great five rivers of Punjab, marking the boundary between Punjab and J&K.   The day of his entry into this State was May 10, 1953.  There was a road bridge across the Ravi.  The boundary between the two states was supposed to be at the mid point of this Madhopur bridge.

When the jeep carrying Dr. Mookerjee reached the centre-point of the bridge they found a posse of J&K Police blocking the road.  The Superintendent of Police, Kathua (J&K State) handed Dr. Mookerjee an order signed by the Chief Secretary of the State banning Dr. Mookerjee’s entry into the State.  “But I am determined to go into the State”, Dr. Mookerjee declared.

Thereupon the police officer took out an order of arrest under the Public Safety Act, and took Dr. Mookerjee into custody.  Vaidya Guru Dutt and Tekchand were two colleagues in the group who had been assigned the duty of accompanying Dr. Mookerjee when he was arrested.  These two also courted arrest.

Dr. Mookerjee then spoke to Atalji and asked him to go back and convey to the people of the country that Dr. Mookerjee had defied the prohibitory orders, and entered Jammu and Kashmir without a permit, though as a prisoner. 

The place at which Dr. Syama Prasad was incarcerated was a small house near Nishat Bag far away from Srinagar City.  This house was converted into a sub-jail.

On June 23, 1953, the whole country was shocked to learn that after a brief illness at his place of detention, Dr. Mookerjee was shifted to the State Hospital about ten miles away, where he had breathed his last.

I was at Jaipur that day.  I vividly remember how in the early hours of June 24 morning, about 4.30 a.m., I was woken up from sleep by the loud wailing sounds of someone outside our party office at Chaura Rasta (he turned out to be a local newsman), who kept shouting, while weeping: “Advaniji, they have killed Dr. Mookerjee”!

Tathagata Roy is one of our prominent activists of West Bengal.   He has been at one point of time the President of our State unit there.  He has lately written “a complete biography” of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee.  It is to be released next month.  We in the BJP owe our position in India’s politics to the sacrifices and exertions of thousands who have preceded us, and above all to the vision and martyrdom of Dr. Mookerjee. 

We had known our great leader closely only during the closing years of his life.  Tathagata has done a signal service to history and to the nationalist cause we are pursuing in politics by doing all the research necessary and preparing this volume informing readers about the life of this great patriot right from his birth.  All kudos to Tathagata Roy.

TEXT OF LETTER WRITTEN TO

PRIME MINISTER NEHRU BY

SMT. JOGMAYA DEBI,

MOTHER OF DR. S.P. MOOKERJEE

77 Asutosh Mookerjee Road

Calcutta

4^th July, 1953

Dear Mr. Nehru,

            Your letter dated 30^th June was forwarded to me on the 2^nd of July by Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy.  I thank you for your message of condolence and sympathy.

The nation mourns the passing away of my beloved son.  He has died a martyr’s death.  To me, his mother, the sorrow is too deep and sacred to be expressed.  I am not writing to you to seek my consolation.  But what I do demand of you is Justice.  My son died in detention –  a detention -  without trial.  In your letter you have tried to impress that Kashmir government had done all that should have been done.  You base your impression on the assurances and information you have received.  What is the value,  I ask, of such information when it comes from persons who themselves should stand a trial? You say, you had visited Kashmir during my son’s detention.  You speak of the affection you had for him.  But what prevented you, I wonder, from meeting him there personally and satisfying yourself about his health and arrangements?

       His death is shrouded in mystery. Is it not most astounding and shocking that ever since his detention there, the first information that I, his mother, received from the Government of Kashmir was that my son was no more and that also at least two hours after the end? And in what a cruel cryptic way the message was conveyed! Even the telegram from my son that he had been removed to the Hospital reached us here after the tragic news of his death. There is definite information that my son had not been keeping well practically from the beginning of his detention. He had been positively ill a number of times and for successive periods. Why did not, I ask, the Government of Kashmir or your Government send any information whatsoever to me and my family?

Even when he was removed to the Hospital they did not think it necessary to immediately intimate us or Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy. It is also evident that the Kashmir Government had never cared to acquaint itself with the previous history of Syamaprasad’s health and provide for nursing arrangements and emergent medical attendance in case of need. Even his repeated attacks of illness were not taken as a warning. The result was disastrous. I have positive evidence to prove that he had, to quote his own words, a “sinking feeling” on the morning of 22nd June. And what did the Government do? The inordinate delay in getting any medical assistance, his removal to the Hospital in most injudicious manner, the refusal to allow even his two co-detenus to be by his side in the Hospital are some glaring instances of the heartless conduct of the authorities concerned. 

       The responsibility of the government and their own doctors cannot be in any way evaded or lightened by some stray quotations from Syama Prasad’s letters chosen at random, that he was keeping well.  What is the value of such quotations? Docs anybody seriously expect that he – of all persons – and that while in detention far away from his dear and near ones – would ventilate his grievances through letters or diagnose his own malady?  The responsibility of the Government was immense and serious.

I charge them that they had utterly neglected and failed to discharge this bounden duty. You speak of the comforts and amenities given to dear Syama Prasad in detention. It is a matter to be enquired into. The Kashmir Government had not even the courtesy to allow free flow of family correspondence. Letters were held up, and some mysteriously disappeared. His anxiety for home news, particularly of his ailing daughter-and my poor self, was distressing. Will you be astonished to learn that on the 27th June last, we received here his letters dated 15th June, despatched by the Kashmir Government in a packet on the 24th June, that is, a day after sending his dead body? That packet also brought back to us the letters addressed by myself and others here to Syama Prasad which had reached Srinagar on the 11th and 16th June, but had never been delivered to him. It was a case of mental torture. He had been repeatedly asking for sufficient space for walking. He was feeling ill for want of it. But he was persistently refused Is not this a method of physical torture too? I am filled with surprise and shame to be told by you “that he was being kept not in any prison but in a private villa on the famous Dal Lake in Srinagar.” Strictly confined in a small bungalow with a little compound, guarded day and night by a body of armed guards—such was the life that he was leading. Is it seriously maintained that a golden cage should make a prisoner happy? I shudder to hear such desperate propaganda. I do not know what medical treatment and assistance had been given to him. The official reports, I am told, are self-contradictory. Eminent physicians have expressed their views that it was, in the least, a case of gross negligence. The matter requires a thorough and impartial enquiry.

I do not bewail here the death of my beloved son. A fearless son of Free India has met his death while in detention without trial under most tragic and mysterious circumstances. I, the mother of the great departed, demand that an absolutely impartial and open enquiry by independent and competent persons be held without delay. I know nothing can bring back to us the life that is no more. But what I do want is that the people of India must judge for themselves the real causes of this great tragedy enacted in a free country and the part that was played by your Govern­ment.

If a wrong has been done anywhere, by any person—however high he may be—let justice take its course and let the people be cautious so that no mother in Free India has again to shed tears with the same agony and grief that has befallen me.

You are good enough to tell me not to hesitate to inform you about any service that you may render to me. Here is the demand on my own behalf and on behalf of the mothers of India. May God give you courage to allow Truth to see the Light.

Before I close my letter I would refer to one very important fact. Syama Prasad’s personal diary and his other manuscript writings were not returned by the Kashmir Government along with his other belongings. Copies of correspondence between Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed and my eldest son, Ramaprasad, are enclosed herein. I shall be deeply grateful if you could recover the diary and the manuscripts from the Kashmir Government. They must be with them.

With my blessings,

Yours in grief,

Sd/-

Jogmaya Debi.

L.K. Advani

New Delhi

June 23, 2012

 http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/salutations-to-a-great-martyr

IF SAUDIS CAN SURRENDER ABU JUNDAL, WHY CAN’T PAK HAND OVER DAWOOD IBRAHIM?

A distinguished visitor to New Delhi last week was Jalil Abbas Jilani, Foreign Secretary of Pakistan. He had earlier worked in the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi and was Deputy Head of the Mission here. Mr. Jilani came to meet me at my residence along with several other Pakistani officials including the newly arrived Pakistan High Commissioner Salman Bashir. The Pak officials were at my place for nearly an hour and there was a free and frank discussion with regard to several issues concerning Indo-Pak relations.

The Pakistani Foreign Secretary was all praise for the NDA Government’s earnest efforts to restore normalcy and goodwill between India and Pakistan. I said to him that for us the greatest regret has been that the joint statement issued by Gen. Musharraf and Shri A.B. Vajpayee at Islamabad after the SAARC Conference affirming that Pakistan would not allow any part of its country or any area under its control to be used for terrorist operations against India has not been sincerely followed up.

Today, I said to him, there are numerous terrorist outfits active in Pakistan. There is no denying that lately more people are dying in Pakistan at the hands of terrorists than they are dying in India. And so, Government of India as well as the people here are conscious that Islamabad is today proactively fighting terrorism within its own borders. But the shared view here also is that while Pakistan is taking head on terrorist groups such as Tahreik-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP), which has been targeting Pakistan, it continues to provide assistance to groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and Hizbul Mujahideen (H.M.) whose target is India.

An even more distressing aspect of continuing Indo-Pak tension on the issue of terrorism is the safe haven Pakistan still provides to declared terrorists and absconders like Dawood Ibrahim. If taking a cue from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan can hand over Dawood Ibrahim to India, it can overnight change public perception in India about Pakistan.

* 

On January 11, 2011, M.J. Akbar’s brilliant book on Pakistan titled Tinderbox was released in New Delhi.  Presently the author has left for a short trip to the U.S. for a book tour of the country to coincide with the release of the American edition of Tinderbox.

I remember that on the very day this book was released in India last year, a ghastly murder took place in Pakistan. Salman Taseer, Governor of Pakistan’s most populous state, Punjab, was assassinated by a member of his personal security detail. Taseer had invited the fanatic’s wrath because of his outspoken defence of a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, at that point of time facing a death penalty on charges of blasphemy. The Punjab Governor had been boldly advocating repeal of blasphemy laws.

In his introduction to the book, Akbar wrote:

Muslims of British India had opted for a separate homeland in 1947, destroying the possibility of a secular India in which Hindus and Muslims would coexist, because they believed that they would be physically safe, and their religion secure, in a new nation called Pakistan. Instead, within six decades, Pakistan had become one of the most violent nations on earth, not because Hindus were killing Muslims, but because Muslims were killing Muslims.

In his very brief speech that day, M.J. Akbar referred to the grim tragedy that had occurred in Lahore that very day, and affirmed:

            If Salman Taseer had been in India, he would not have died !

* 

Last week, the media carried some select news items based on a book of memoirs titled ‘Turning Points’, written by former Rashtrapati Dr. Kalam. I was surprised to find reports supposed to be based on the book about Gujarat in which Vajpayeeji was being found fault with for trying to protect the Narendra Modi Government. Dr. Kalam’s book has not been released as yet. But I have been able to procure Chapter Nine of this book captioned “My Visit to Gujarat”. Dr. Kalam says that his visit to Gujarat in August 2002 was his “first major task” after taking over as President.  He adds:

“As no president had ever visited an area under such circumstances, many questioned the necessity of my visit to the state at this juncture. At the ministry and bureaucratic level, it was suggested that I should not venture into Gujarat at that point of time. One of the main reasons was political. However, I made up my mind that I would go and Rashtrapati Bhavan was in full swing to make this my first visit as President. Vajpayee asked me only one question, ‘Do you consider going to Gujarat at this time essential ?’ I told the PM, ‘I consider it an important duty so that I can be of some use to remove the pain, and also accelerate the relief activities, and bring about a unity of minds, which is my mission, as I stressed in my address during the swearing-in-ceremony.”

What Dr. Kalam goes on to add after this is even more significant.  He writes:

“Many apprehensions were expressed, among them that my visit might be boycotted by the chief minister, that I would receive a cold reception and that there would be agitations from many sides. But, to my great surprise when I landed at Gandhinagar, not only the chief minister, but his whole cabinet colleagues and a large number of legislative members and administrators including the public were present at the airport. I visited twelve areas – three relief camps and nine riot-hit locations where losses were high. Narendra Modi, the chief minister, was with me throughout the visit. In one way, this helped me, wherever I went, the type of petitions and complaints and as he was with me I was able to suggest to him that actions be taken as quickly as possible.”:

I have often felt that in India’s political history no political leader has been as systematically and viciously maligned as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Bhai Modi. Do not these reports also  reveal a conscious effort at vilification: the Prime Minister’s casual query “Do you consider going to Gujarat at this time essential” as the P.M. wanting to stop the President from going to Gujarat? Dr. Kalam has also referred to apprehensions he had heard that his visit may be boycotted. Dr. Kalam’s actual experience was totally different. Modi and his government enthusiastically cooperated with Dr. Kalam. Yet no newsman thought it worthwhile to report these complimentary observations of his !

L. K. Advani

New Delhi

8 July, 2012

http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/if-saudis-can-surrender-abu-jundal-why-can%E2%80%99t-pak-hand-over-dawood-ibrahim

Teesta Setalvad, Rajdeep Sardesai & the truth about Pandarwada grave digging case

Anand Mathur

The learned bench of the Supreme Court, commented that the investigation proceedings against Ms. Teesta Setalvad in the illegal grave opening case of Pandarwada were spurious. Justice Aftab Alam did not explain why, but asked the Gujarat government Advocate to go through the FIR “passionately”. The bench held that while other cases against Ms. Setalvad held some merit, this particular case was “spurious”.

But curiously in his affidavit against Ms. Teesta Setalvad, the senior journalist of Headlines Today, Mr. Rahul Singh has claimed that he was present at the time of opening of the graves and that he was unaware that the graves were legal. He also claims that Ms. Teesta Setalvad brushed aside his ethical concerns and betrayed his trust by passing on the story to Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN, who apparently was given all his information about the case by Ms. Teesta Setalvad , negating the investigative work being done by Mr. Rahul Singh!

Ms. Teesta Setalvad, in her search for justice, has apparently shown blatant disregard for probity in public life and the rule of law. It seems that to her, the end justifies the means. In her fanatic crusade to nail the Gujarat Government, Mr. Narendra Modi in particular, there are serious accusations of perjury and extra-legal behavior. Several lives rot in jails based on concocted testimonies filed by Ms. Teesta Setalvad’s NGO against these innocent victims of her crusade. Her key coordinator, Mr. Rais Khan has also turned against her for her regular recourse to illegal ways. He has also alleged in a letter written to the Chief Justice of the Mumbai High Court that he has received threats from Muslim fundamentalists for going against Ms. Teesta Setalvad.

Exhumation of the dead bodies without prior permission of the competent authorities constitutes an offence under sections 192 (fabricating false evidence), 193 (punishment for false evidence, 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 297 (trespassing on burial places) of IPC.

Meanwhile Ms. Teesta Setalwad continues unabated.

View Rahul Singh's affidavit submitted to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Lunawada

Also visit Evidence Against Teesta Setalvad for more such instances.

 http://dharmanext.blogspot.in/2012/03/teesta-setalvad-rajdeep-sardesai-truth.html

Teesta Setalvad: the Champion of anti nation and anti Hindu NGO industry in India

Sanjay Kumar

In the past, I have raised many vital questions pertaining to our will to fight terrorism and the feedback I got has given me impetus to highlight few aspects further in detail. One of them is the role of some intellectuals, social activists, self appointed champions of human rights and secularists. Many ‘famed’ people come in this category but the names like Shabana Azmi, Arudhati Roy, Teesta Setalvad etc. are making ripples not only in India but in abroad also with their antics.

Firstly, let’s examine the role of Ms. Teesta Setalvad lauded as a social activist, championing cause of human rights and civil rights, educationist, secularist, journalist, and so on.

Recently she was in international news when she was invited by the Indian Muslim Council (Coalition Against Genocide), USA for a lecture tour in USA where she spew out venom against India. It is worth mentioning here that when NRI’s were gaining considerable social status after Pokhran two, this organization was formed with a view to overshadow the rise of nationalism and it rewards mostly anti-Hindus and pseudo secular Hindus. From the platform of the same organisation, Ms Setalvad and other ‘social activists’ urged U.S and international community for imposing sanctions against India.

Equipped with ample funds, holding flag of pseudo secularism she goes on maligning India by projecting a dismal picture sometimes in the name of minorities, or in names of human rights and civil justice.

Although she is writing and speaking since 1983 she came in the news particularly after Gujarat riots when she became a self appointed saviour of minority rights and issues.

But her well publicized self appointed role took a beating when one of the prime witnesses of the Best Bakery case, Zaheera Sheikh accused Ms. Setalvad and her colleague Raes Khan for pressuring her to identify innocent people as accused in the Best bakery case. Zaheera said, "I was shifted to Mumbai from Baroda under threat. Raees Khan and his goons, pointing a knife at me, had forced us to leave the city after the Baroda court's verdict last year. Teesta kept all my family members at different places and did not allow us to meet one another. She also tortured me.... Raees Khan and his goons took us all away forcefully, telling us, 'Chup rehna, yeh kaum ki baat hai', and transported us to Mumbai. I was kept at the residence of Teesta for about a month. I was locked in a room and was not allowed to meet anyone. My signatures were obtained on some papers typed in English that I couldn't understand.

I was told that those were the documents pertaining to the Best Bakery property in Baroda.... They told me, 'Kaum ka savaal hai, jhooth to bolna padega, aur jab case phir se chalega tab hum bolenge waise zoobani deni padegi'. "I pleaded with them to relieve me as I did not want to get into these affairs and did not want to give false statements against innocent people framed in the case. What I had stated in the Baroda court was the truth."

Truly, Zaheera episode raises questions about the very authority of Teesta Setalvad as an activist.

Take another case of Samir Khan who was killed by the Ahmedabad Crime branch in an encounter. His father, Sarfaraz Khan wrote a letter to activists and NGO’s including Teesta Setalvad and her advocate Sohel Tirmizi wherein he asked them not to interfere in his son’s case as he was pursuing the case ever since his son’s death. Setalvad had lodged a private complaint with the Ahmedabad metropolitan court, seeking CBI probe into the alleged encounter of Samir Khan Pathan. The complaint was lodged in the name of Samista Khan, Pathan’s cousin. Activist Shabnam Hashmi and Javed Akhtar had also moved a petition in the Supreme Court, contending that Pathan was killed in a fake encounter.

Also, Sarfaraz Khan stated in his letter that his consent had not been obtained before the petition was moved in the Supreme Court by Hashmi and Akhtar. He also said he had not been consulted before Ms.Setalvad registered the complaint. He further added that he did not agree with the petition or the complaint as there was no document or proof with either party. He requested the activists not to file any petition or complaint in the case. If they did, he would have to take action against them. What does this over-zealousness to move court in cases where minority community is involved indicate?

As if that was not enough, on another occasion, Ms.Arundhati Roy had to court embarrassment when in an article in Outlook about Gujarat riots she wrote, "The mob broke into the house (of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafari). They stripped his daughters and burned them alive." Just a week after T A Jafari, son of Ehsan Jafari, told the Asian Age, May 02, 2002 Delhi edition, "Among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US."

This is the height of duplicity of these so called social activists.

Not to mention of the pressure tactics used by Ms Teesta Setalvad to disrepute judicial procedure. She wrote an article in a Kerala newspaper that the judiciary and Supreme Court are unduly delaying the Godhra and Gujarat cases. Supreme Court lashed out at her and said it was shameful and ‘not in good taste’ the attempts of some social activists, particularly Ms Teesta Setalvad, to blame it for the delay in hearing the Gujarat riots cases in which her NGO was one of the parties.

Even so, the bench comprising the CJI (Chief Justice of India) queried, who is this Teesta Setalvad? Is she a spokesperson of these persons or petitioners?”, "There is one article that appeared (written by her). If she is representing these persons (Godhra accused) we do not want to hear them," the bench said. The Chief Justice was particularly disconcerted over allegations that hearing on post-Godhra cases were fixed in such a way that it gets adjourned.

Funnily enough, Ms. Setalvad speaks against the country, Judiciary, and writes heavily biased against a particular community, but strangely enough instead of any checks on her she is bestowed with awards. Ironically, Teesta Setalvad won the Nuremberg International Human Rights Award 2003 and in 2007 she was awarded the Padma Shri by the Government of India and has received many other awards including the Rajiv Gandhi Sadbhavna Award 2002. Interestingly Communalism Combat, her publication cum organization which she runs with her husband Javed Anand, is a private limited company and it has been bestowed awards. So much so in the last national elections crores of rupees were expended in media publicity campaigns defaming a particular community and political party, is it the job of an activist? Communalism Combat has acquired a status of a big business. And for the reasons best known to it, our political establishment is bringing forth such people on the top who are insincere towards national issues, national interest, unaware of strategic and international situation.

The vital question that emerges amongst all this is who is behind her? Where do the funds come from? Very rightly a noted columnist, Indian Express Tavleen Singh’s has pointed out in her recent article: “In the vanguard of those fighting Hindu fundamentalism was Teesta Setalvad’s magazine, Communalism Combat. It won awards, went from strength to strength, received laurel upon laurel until, recently, when Teesta’s protégé Zaheera Sheikh condemned her for exploiting her for money. “She further adds that “This is not about Communalism Combat or the fight between Zaheera and Teesta. What it is about is the number of magazines and NGOs that have thrived on maligning India for being a country as fundamentalist as our Islamic neighbours. Is it not time to ask where their funds come from?”

Likewise, will her perpetual pro-Muslim, pro-minorities stance help in fighting terrorism or is it just a façade to show the nation how truly "secular" a Hindu she is? Upon being asked in a panel discussion, as to what does she think of the problem of educated muslim youth getting into terrorism she sounded evasive. Instead of coming forward and debating on grave concerns like terrorism rationally, Ms Setalvad in her address during the 15th anniversary day of a monthly periodical 'Satyagrah' called for a ban on certain Hindu organizations and certain Brahmin organizations and said this would keep India away from international terrorism.

If this is her definition of terrorism then she needs help.

Once again, in the debates on terrorism she always says that Mumbai blast is the result of Gujarat riots and adds that terrorism increased after demolition of the disputed site in Ayoodhya. Is it the sign of a true secularist that she proclaims herself to be? On the contrary a true secularist has faith and respect for all religions. Is it true secular spirit when she defames one community to bring up the case of another? Why she has never spoken on the reasons of militancy in Kashmir, plight of 5 lakh Hindus from the valley and the reasons of insurgency in North East. Never ever has she uttered a word on the relation between Christian missionaries and naxalism, are these not vital issues?

The book titled NGOs, ACTIVISTS AND FOREIGN FUNDS ANTI-NATION INDUSTRY edited by Radha Rajan and Krishen Kak very aptly points out – “The great and global managers in the anti-nation and anti-Hindu NGO industry in India like Teesta Setalvad, Praful Bidwai, Achin Vanaik, Arundhati Roy, Aruna Roy, Nirmala Deshpande, Angana Chatterji, Akhila Raman, Sandeep Pandey, Raju Rajagopal and Harsh Mandar are all self-appointed guardians of an undefined civil society that has been allowed in India to determine, define and decide what ought to be our national goals 'political, economic, moral, ethical and practical' and to proclaim with authority from the housetop what other immediate knock-down priorities of our society and our nation should be ignored and discarded with vibrant secular contempt in the larger NGOs' interest of de-nationalising the Indians and de-Hinduising the nation. The might of the UPA Government and the Congress Party is placed at the feet of these global personalities and the mighty NGOs they represent for achieving their undeclared objectives of selling five prime products in India? Terrorist Islam, Compassionate Christianity, Menacing Marxism, Noxious Nehruvian Secularism and Serpentine Soniaism.”

On one hand Ms Setalvad proclaims herself to be an educationist, on the other hand time and again she speaks about the educational backwardness among Muslims and very vociferously demands to implement the controversial Sachar Committee report. What kind of educationist is she? That she is only worried about education of a section of Indian society?

Incidentally, she had also prepared a handbook for a school which mentioned that Shivaji was a Shudra… which may be true but here it is important to highlight the ulterior reasons behind doing so. Hence it is worth quoting from the book NGOs, ACTIVISTS AND FOREIGN FUNDS ANTI-NATION INDUSTRY which highlights how “The main aim of the NGO’s activism is to prise apart important segments of Hindu society like women, tribals and so called Dalits from their family, community and culture, religious and national moorings. The ultimate intent of their activism is to damage the Hindu social fibre and weaken social cohesion by de-Hinduising large segments of Hindu society.”

Furthermore it is pitiable that how out of trivia she finds grounds to build a malice campaign against India and depict a gloomy picture of our society. This further illustrates that the intellectual honesty of our so called intellectuals is so abysmally low. All they do is go round and round mouthing same rhetoric and arriving upon same diagnosis time and again.

It is time to behave in responsible manner and hold accountable people like Teesta Setalvad who in name of social responsibility indulge in selective projections of the issues thus misleading people and creating a fear psychosis.

Also Visit: Evidence Against Teesta Setalvad

 http://dharmanext.blogspot.in/2008/11/teesta-setalvad-champion-of-anti-nation.html