In an attempt to attract minority votes for his party,SP leader,Azam Khan,crossed boundaries of division on the basis of religion. He went ahead to create a rift in Indian army. He said it were the Muslim soldiers who won the Kargil war of 1999 and not any hindu soldiers.
The Akhilesh Yadav government made Ayodhya almost a fort with 8000 cops and also got hundreds of preventive arrests since yesterday to ensure that the VHP was unable to set off on a 300-km march through six districts to circle Ayodhya.The six UP districts that the VHP yatra would have traveled through have a decent Muslim population. The VHP, a wing of RSS demanding Ram Temple in the disputed area of Ayodhya has declared revival of the yatra from the coming month to gain support for the same. Praveen Togadia , the leader of VHP has been taken into preventive custody while anothe VHP leader , Ashok Singhal, has been detained at the Lucknow Airport.
This unsuccessful Yatra ,seem to have served its purpose- the Govt of UP showed how concerned it is about the security of Muslims ( a major source of its vote bank) and the VHP rekindling the Ram Temple issue may have revived BJP’s place in the minds of those few hardline Hindu voters who wish to see Ram Temple in the disputed area of Ayodhya.
The Samajwadi Party has demanded Election Commission to ban BJP’s poster mentioning Modi’s statement in public – “I am a Hindu Nationalist” .About 50 posters showing Modi’s statement in public-“I am a Hindu Nationalist” has been displayed in Mumbai.Abu Azmi senior leader of SP has asked EC to ban these posters and has mentioned his reasons out there in his letter.
Well,nothing much to say – Wish to know what is wrong with being a Hindu Nationalist ?? Big Deal! I am no hardcore NaMo fan but come on .. ain’t this too much? If this statement is being non-secular then better Indians be asked not to follow any God in the land and no caste,no state, no other language other than Hindi . That would be ONE !! The secular! Only then this statement of Modi would have sounded falling out of place.
While addressing the Indo-American community Modi shared his definition ofsecularism as “India First” .
While the whole speech was interesting enough to judge Modi’s political approach and strategic statements keeping 2014 General Elections in mind, the definition of secularism makes me restless enough to think about the literal meaning of secularism in our country since Independence.
What is secularism in India,post independence ? In India, a country packed with people following different faith,speaking different languages and following different lifestyles, the meaning of secularism , so far, has been vote bank politics and nothing else! Face it!The term minority got hyped not for the minorities but for vested political interest .The political well-wishers of schedule – castes/tribes and people following religions with lesser density, made sure they use every individual following under their set !
Result – Its been more than 60 years since we are a free land yet honour-killing still exists and so does the constant fear of communal riots.
A concerning question to think about – What have the secular political forces given India while they had got the maximum opportunity to rule the nation ? Were/Are they really bothered going beyond their vote bank interests and think about India , first ?
No , I am not a die-hard , Narendra Modi fan.I am not going crazy to see him be the next Prime Minister or feel he is the only way out for India to shine.Relax ! 2002 Gujarat riots brought Narendra Modi the recognition and for any secular Indian(including me) it was not a right image of the name.A name which is a synonym to development 11 years since then ! Although his achievements can never justify his controversial role(as the chief minister of the state of Gujarat) in 2002 riots yet it cannot be denied as well that he has actually worked for his state, hard enough! He has worked hard for who he is today and just not played politics like many ‘secular’ politicians of the nation have done for over few decades now.
Yes, criticisms are there and even God has critics and thankfully he is not God for many ! They are minimal(criticisms and people who consider him God, both 🙂 ).While,one can argue the minorities(Muslims)of the state have no choice but to go with the political flow of the state to seek development of their constituencies,it is also noteworthy that the Muslim dominated constituencies have actually seen development under BJP’s regime and it was this time, that even the minority dominated constituencies (previously,Congress dominated) voted for the “communal leader”-Modi.
While,many of us,the urban,literate,’secular’, Indians may still find Modi an uncomfortable figure to talk positive about,there is no denying he is a great speaker and a consistent political performer. Modi has already made himself number one of the favorites as the Prime Ministerial Candidate for 2014 General Elections(As per many surveys. Surveys are just surveys so anti-Modis need not worry 🙂 ).
Coming back to Narendra Modi’s definition of secularism-when he says secularism to him is “India First” he should make sense even to an Indian who may hate him the most. Why ? Secularism is to unite and its our nation which unites us-Indians with varied skin colour,faith,languages,lifestyle,castes, state and many more sub-sets ! Hence our nation should be our foremost priority for every Indian!! Is considering caste,religion,state or language above national identity not Communal-ism ? Should the so called secular political forces not stop categorizing Indians as schedule castes and tribes and as Christians and Muslims by giving them certain privileges over the majority and making the rift deeper! Being an Indian one should give importance to his nationality over his caste or religion ! Secularism in true sense is -Nation First !
Ram Gopal yadav,General Secretary of Samajwadi Party declared Shahid Siddiqui was not a part of the party and that he left the party long back to join Lok Dal and appealed Media not to mistaken him as part of SP ! All this happened after he took interview of Narendra Modi , Gujarat Chief Minister, for a Urdu Newspaper , as a journalist(Siddiqui is a journalist as well) where Modi claimed if he be termed guilty in the Gujarat riots of 2002 , he would not mind being hanged. Anticipating the interview might indicate probable upcoming closeness between SP and BJP, the party preferred to clarify that Siddiqui was in no way associated with the Samajwadi Party ! After all, how can SP risk the minority vote bank ? Had the political parties been more bothered to impress voters with their work rather than connecting to their religious and caste related sentiments , shape of Indian economy and overall progress would have been completely different ! Anyways, is their anything wrong in performing the job of a journalist as a member of a certain political party and interviewing someone from the opponent party ?