It seems the Prodigal Son has finally been allowed to test the waters in–gasp!–Uttar Pradesh.
And the linked “op-ed” rebukes him a tad too harshly but does not go overboard. Manini Chatterjee and Varghese K George present it like it’s an election postmortem, not an unbiased piece. Not that one expects better from the Congress party pamphlet.
Raising the pitch in the run-up to the UP Assembly polls, Rahul Gandhi today said that had anyone from the Gandhi family been active in 1992, the Babri Masjid demolition would have never taken place.
I don’t need to specify the Crown Prince’s target audience. To its credit the Indian Express piece says the right thing:
But it is also skewed history because well before Narasimha Rao took over power, it was the Rajiv Gandhi regime’s flirtation with “soft Hindutva” that helped the Ramjanmabhoomi campaign launched by the RSS-VHP-combine from the mid-1980s.
In fact, apart from December 6, 1992, two other dates are significant in the bitter Babri Masjid-Ramjanmbhoomi dispute that eventually led to the demolition. The first is February 1, 1986 when the locks of Babri Masjid were opened to allow Hindus to worship the Ram Lalla idol in its precincts. The Faizabad court order allowing the opening of the locks and the Central government’s decision to overturn the Supreme Court verdict on the Shah Bano case by adopting the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill in May 1986…
Interspersed among these words is a prominent hint: the columnists seem to imply that the opening the locks was a mistake, but the bigger mistake was the Faizabad court order. For they say in the next paragraph that
Both the decisions gave a big fillip to the Hindutva forces — if the Shah Bano issue gave the BJP ammunition to accuse the Congress of “Muslim appeasement”, the opening of the locks played a crucial role in whipping up the VHP’s campaign for the “liberation” of Ramjanmabhoomi and the construction of a “grand temple” at the site of the mosque.
Trust the secular media to blame the vile “Hindutva forces” for all evil, real and fictional. So, what starts as an analysis ends up as a wake-up call for the Congress to get its act together in UP. Not dissimilar to this other, no-holds-barred wake-up call. What is laughable is that the Manini and her colleague can’t even do it well:
But Rahul Gandhi’s claim on behalf of the entire Gandhi family may only revive memories of the Congress’s own soft Hindutva under Indira and Rajiv to the detriment of the current politics and interests of the party.
Right. Hardcore Islamic train bombings, and regular Fatwa issuances are infinitely preferable to “soft Hindutva,” whatever that means. Then, this:
Sonia Gandhi, since she took over as party chief, has tried to substantially restore the Congress’s Nehruvian secularism.
Amazing, isn’t it? This “op-ed” actually lauds the one term that’s the root of all things wrong with India today. It is kind of fitting that with speeches like this, the greatgrandson is hastening the Congress party’s downfall to obscurity. Sad that the country has to bear the cost.
Tags: Commentary, Election 2004, History, Indian Politics, Media Watch, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame
On 03.22.07 shadows says:
>>> To its credit the Indian Express piece says the right thing:
Do you think that “soft Hindutva” is wrong ?
I mean to say, not “that” variety, but still.. what wrong with respecting our culture and heritage.
Ramjanmabhoomi was not due to soft Hindutva or anything…. It was a long simmering discontent at being treated as unequal lower citizens of the country, our religion ridiculed and blamed for things which have no relation with other events whatsoever… (eg. bastard wannabe-British Nehru and his Hindu rate of growth comments)
On 03.22.07 shadows says:
>> >>> entire Gandhi family may only revive memories of the Congress’s own soft Hindutva under Indira and Rajiv
Indira ?? Rajiv ?!! Congress and soft Hindutva ? No man,, not at all.. The worst excesses against Hindus have taken place under Congress.
On 03.22.07 Sandeep says:
My dear Shadows,
Please cool down. Here’s what I meant when I said the IE says the right thing.
Like you, I don’t buy the “soft Hindutva” crap that IE has dished out. What I meant was, Rajiv finally bowed to pressure when he opened the locks of the gate. In the words of IE, it comes out twisted–note that Hindutva (soft, medium, hard) is in itself a term of abuse. I guess you didn’t read the whole post because immediately after that, I’ve said:
Interspersed among these words is a prominent hint: the columnists seem to imply that the opening the locks was a mistake,…
I was merely semi-analysing the piece so linking that to disrespecting your culture and heritage is incorrect!
Cheers!
On 03.22.07 Niketan says:
‘the opening of the locks played a crucial role in whipping up the VHP’s campaign for the “liberation” of Ramjanmabhoomi and the construction of a “grand temple” at the site of the mosque.’
All these experts who keep on damning Hindutva forces including the all knowing DDS do not even make a mention of an entity called the BMAC. When even the so-called fascist Hindutva forces were ready to come to an agreement to give up their claim to all religious sites in as long as Ayodhya, MAthura and one more site was handed over, was it not these secular worthies who refused to give up an inch at the same time forcing an elected govt to overturn the supreme court order.
Let us also give credit to the eminent historians who put in al efforts to prove that Ram and Krishna did not exist and were all myths.