What Revenge?

The Times of India carried an article by Yamini Lohia expressing unrestrained glee over the Youth Congress smearing Sri Ram Sene head Pramod Muthalik's face in Managalore and going on to say that she would wish she could personally perpetrate this act of violence.


Violence is not only in causing physical hurt. It can be at many levels. Even silence can be a kind of violence. Another issue of TOI carried a story that a High Court held that in a marriage silence could tantamount to cruelty. Ms. Lohia feels that there is a justification for violence by groups with whose ideology she agrees and calls it sweet revenge. There is an unending discussion on the moral policing in the country but the advocates of freedom are always mysteriously silent when there is a fatwa in Kashmir for headscarves or for wearing Burqas. There is no discussion if Katrina Kaif is disallowed entry to a Dargah for being in an inappropriate dress. There is repeated discussion on the practices in Hindu temples including Sabrimala and Puri but nobody dares to speak about the practices and methods of their enforcement in other religions, the way they are practised in India. Is it not a bit strange?


There is no discussion if women are not allowed in certain places of worship belonging to other religions but there is much hue and cry on Sabrimala. Mahesh Bhatt and people of his ilk shout hoarse when somebody vandalises Hussains grotto in Ahmedabad in the name of freedom of art but they have nothing to say about the fatwas routinely issued on the lives of Salman Rushdie or the Danish painter, Taslima Nasreen and others. Is there something amiss? Is there a secret fear amongst the pseudo secularists that there antics won't work with Muslims but they have tested Hindus again and again and they know that in that case they can get away with whatever they like.


Let us look dispassionately at other things. The English speaking media people, editorial contributors, people like Jug Suraiya, Mahesh Bhatt and sundry cranks flaunt Hindu bashing like a medal. But they never fail to swear by Indian culture. I wonder if that is a kind of metaphor for Hindu culture. If Hindu culture is not about modesty (if with much less restrictions than in Islam), if it is not about vegetarianism, if it is not about Vedic religions and their offshoots and sub-cultures, if it is not about a certain code of conduct and set of boundaries in public and private behaviours (Maryadas), what is it about? And if these guardians of secularism and freedom are so worried about saying 'OM' or 'Jai Ram ji' in private being saffron, not withstanding the loudspeakers on mosques broadcasting Azaan, how come they don't realise the hurt the 'Indian Culture' is causing to minorities and to Indian Muslims in particular by singing Ganesh Vandanas, lighting lamps, chanting 'Tam so ma Jyotirgamaya', garlanding and vermilion marking foreheads of visitors and taking their Aratis and all the ceremonies that surround almost any and all Indian functions, most of them functions of a secular government, and the singing of Vande Mataram. Why have they not tried to stop it all? Is it fair? Before the British came Hindus were not ruling this land mass. I have the feeling that a lot of Muslims and especially those associated with Jamiat and other similar organisations, and those that chose to leave India at partition strongly felt betrayed by the British, as in their opinion the British took the rule from them and handed it over to Hindus. They are unable of course, to differentiate between a democracy and a theocracy of Hindus. But on a very real plane, they may not be that wrong, at least as far as the rule having been snatched away from them and handed over to whoever else. From their perspective there is also the downside that if we look at the number of years it took to convert a large part of Hindu population to other religions was not much - just four centuries or so. And the current rate of conversion is also quite high. If the British were not in India, arguably Hindus would have been a small minority in India by the middle of 20th century when the British left, as they became in Kashmir and probably in Kerala, Ladakh region and possibly some north eastern states.


Hindus have bragged about their tolerance for centuries now. I wonder if it is the smokescreen to hide their cowardice. M.J. Akbar is to my mind the most rational and straight thinking political thinker and commentator and he famously lionised Hindu tolerance for peaceful life of Muslims and small minorities in India in a debate I happened to watch on television. It was very charitable of him but I suspect it is probably not true. Hindus were defeated again and again by foreign conquerors and the vanquished may or may not be tolerant - it does not matter.

Religious Symbols, Relics and Statues with Public Funds - Wonders of a Secular State

Mr. Rahul Gandhi said that UP had all the place for statues but none for development and power. Mr. Gandhi is right. Only he somehow sees a difference between what Congress is doing in the whole country and what Mayawati is doing in UP. All new projects, roads, parks, colonies, airports, institutions etc. get only the Gandhi family names. I see no difference. Both Gandhi dynasty and Ms. Mayawati are busy sith self aggrandisement at the cost of the nation and the taxpayer. Mayaji has less time so she has to do it faster and more aggressively. The sycophancy and narcissism are two big gifts to the nation from Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. What is the wonder then if every neta wants something in his or her name at the cost of national exchequer?What Gandhi is missing is that Ms. Mayawati's expenditure is not on just 'Statues' She is building Bauddha Vihars and is promoting a particular religion with Government funds. Maybe he can't see that because his sister is a staunch Budhist as well. So much for secularism! How brazenly public funds are being channelised for promotion of Buddhism is appalling. And, where are the people? What about RSS, VHP, BJP and the so called Sangh parivar? And the Shankaracharyas?
No PILs? No comments in the papers. Nothing on the electronic media?

The Indian 'Pseudo Secularist's' Convenient Hindu Ambiguity

Comment sent to TOI (Unlikely to be printed being politically incorrect) on July 13, 2009 on news item that Salman Khurshid thinks in the absence of a legal framework to force the private sector to give jobs to minorities, they should come forward to do so on their own.

The Government should declare the real figures of the number of Muslim, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Parsis and Buddhists.

I estimate that the Buddhists are not less than 12% of the population. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that were estimated at 10,000,000 in 1975 should now be around 3 crores by way of natural growth and multiplication. Most unfortunately, lately the Jains have begun to claim that they are not 'Hindus' and this has been recognised by the law. The same applies to 'Sikhs'. So who are the Hindus that are claimed to be 80% of the population? The numbers just don't add up and the non-Muslims, non-Christians and non-Sikhs, Atheists and Agnostics are not the only non-Hindus. If Hindus mean 'Vedists' inclusive of all their sects, sub-sects and affiliations only, they may not be more than 40% of the population. That means they may at best be the largest single religious group but are certainly not a 'majority'. And in any country population groups of say 20 to 25% such as the Muslims and the Jains can't be construed as really a 'Minority'.

On the other hand, the truth is that 'Hindu' is a word that was coined by the people west of the Indus which was 'Sindhu' at that time. As many races from the Middle East pronounced 'Sa' as 'Ha', Sindhu became Hindu. So all people on this land mass were Hindus to the marauding Iranians, Afghans, Turks etc. Actually Hindu is a signifier of a culture that existed then in the northern part of the subcontinent. So it actually is a cultural Umbrella that covered all religious sects in the region. This is further borne out by the great cultural synthesis and consequent similarities amongst all communities from before the invaders, mostly Muslim began to visit here for plunder. It is therefore sad that all the religionists such as Jains, Sikhs etc. are distancing themselves from 'Hindu' whereas they probably only want to differentiate themselves religiously from the Vedists or Sanatan Dharmis or Arya Samajis, rather than to pretend to belong to some alien cultures. This chasm however is set only to grow wider in the future, given the leadership of various clergy and socio-political vested interests of different groups. So be it. But that is then an urgent reason to clarify that all these people are different and are definitely not Hindus. That is mainly because they do not any more wish to identify themselves in this wider cultural manner but in narrower religios groupings, even refusing to accept a common root.

I believe therefore that it is time we lift the shroud of convenient ambiguity from the definition of 'Hindu' before the nation discusses the Hindu and minority issues any further.

Legal Reforms the Country Needs Urgently

India has a pendency of 30 million cases. Everyone talks about it and everyone keeps mouthing the cliché 'Justice delayed is justice denied'. Hardly anyone goes beyond this remark accompanied by some noises that may sound appropriate. Almost no one suggests any remedy. I am not a legal expert. But I suppose the legal experts are the real reason why there can not be any reforms. I would like to touch upon only the concerns of people and what I think might benefit the country and the public, huge amount of national time that eats into our productivity and tons of money that are lost on the non-dispensation of justice.

The country gave up the system of Jury and speedy justice. At one time there were also Honorary Magistrates that no longer exist. I wonder whether the judiciary should think of re-introducing these systems at low cost. I am sure the legal experts have a huge number of reasons to argue against the system that may range from the inexperience in the art or the science of 'Judgement' to the clear possibility of corruption and partisan behaviour. The question is whether is it not an honest truth that these maladies afflict the jurisprudence in the form we practice it now as well. In the present system there is also a great deal of impunity implied in the appointments of theses civil servants which may make them less accountable. In the old system and the American model this impunity may be less. Removal of the honorary judges and Jury may be a lot easier. I am not sure Honour is a highly cherished value in our system.

In the appointment of judges we should institute greater transparency. There should be greater accountability. The performance of the Judges must be assessed by harshest of standards because these men of law wield huge power over the fates of the people. Their ability to take decisions, their analytical capability, honesty, value system etc. must be checked thoroughly before inducting them into judiciary. For this rigorous psychological tests including aptitude and personality tests must be instituted. Only the best of the men should be entrusted with people's fates and often, their careers and even lives. I doubt most judges will pass these tests. Correspondingly the punishments for the erring judges should also be harsher as no one can fathom the damage they may have caused to hundreds of people through their ineptness or sheer malpractice.

For crimes against the nation the legal process should be made faster and straight forward. What proof and evidence does the nation need against say, Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab? Hours of television feeds, openly conducted attacks and arrests from the scenes of commitment of these heinous crimes demand further proof? Are we not out of our minds to be wasting the nation's money and time on extended trials that may merely give greater publicity to the criminals and make the state seem soft. The criminals may even become, over time, heroes or role models for many youngsters. What are we hoping to achieve? What justice can we dispense through this waste of time? What will change? What is not known and public knowledge? And, if we must maintain the pretence of a just society is one single hearing and summary trial not enough? Will their repeated exposure not help feed religious fanaticism of weak minded amongst certain communities and create more of the Afzal Gurus and the Kasabs, even from within the country. This is one reform that we need yesterday!

Another reform we need very badly is the system of appeals. I think this would be the most important one and will be the only solution to the ever increasing queue of cases pending in India courts, now exceeding 30 million. My idea is that in the cases decided by the lower courts, conciliation courts etc. the right to appeal should be limited. It should not be that a party loses a case and loses or wins in the next court and loses again and so on and the feuding parties may go on fighting for the whole life and even into next generations.

Their should be fast track courts with the number of dates being given limited to say 5, so that the parties are forced to attend the hearings and not just keep sending their excuses or advocates to ask for fresh dates. The time within which these hearings would be held should also be limited to say six to nine months.

The judges prolonging the decisions and leaving the pendency during their tenure should be assessed for performance on the basis of these failures.

They should not be allowed to forward or recommend the cases to higher courts as far as possible. There should be admitted no representation in a higher court unless there is additional and substantive information or evidence and not just the twists and interpretations of laws. Let us say such a chance should be limited just to one court and the next higher, and then it should end. In the biggest cases where there may be question of life imprisonment, capital punishment or huge sums of money that may impact national interests only a third appeal should be allowed. But in all cases, and in all courts, there should be a limit on the number of hearings with also a limit on the time within which these hearings must be completed. The judges failing to perform should be demoted or punished in some way as the law may allow.

In order that these methods will be extremely effective the judiciary needs to tighten its own system starting from recruitment through to a judge’s rise to the highest position in the judiciary. The selection should, in addition to including personality and aptitude tests, investigate the persons’ background to ensure to the extent possible their being above board. And then, there should be stringent punishments for the erring judges. As stated earlier, in addition, there should be separate and tougher laws to judge the judges.

The lawyers should be investigated for their connections with judges and their methods as it is often suspected that many work as brokers. This may or may not be true so there should be a close watch on the entire legal system so as to ensure that no one misuses powers, connections, graft etc. to scuttle the process of justice and effectively have the justice denied to hapless seekers of it.

The Shape of Things, post Indian Election

Congress is back in power with a bang; if there can be such a thing in the highly fragmented polity of India. This has been widely welcomed. Interestingly no major opposition party has made any adverse comments on the election process, the winners, the electorate and the machinery that conducts the elections, conceding their defeat with a modicum of dignity. The major parties like the BJP and the Communists have chosen to introspect instead of slinging mud. All this augurs well for the floundering democracy of this country. Several good things happened and a lot of doomsayers were proved wrong, thanks to the electorate of India.

First, and probably the most important, is the fact that the regional parties lost heavily reducing their status from being King Makers, never mind if they acted more like Trouble Makers, to nothing. Lalu’s departure to oblivion is about the most desirable outcome of the election. While Rajdeeep Sardesai rated him the most saleable TV personality, and Shekhar Suman spent considerable time making a third rate video news report on Lalu’s daily chores (and poor mannerisms), lionising him for unknown virtues not long ago, today Lalu is singing songs saying ‘Badal gaya Insaan’.

The truth is that the regional satraps have been feudal in their approach with little dignity or respect for law, or even the electorate that made them what they were. Paswan with 3 MPs, Ramdoss, Lalu and many others hardly seemed like the right people in those places. Most of them are more interested in their selves and families and have scant love for their regions, state, the nation and the people. And like Sonia Gandhi said everybody wanted to be Prime Minister in this election. Lalu had actually said several times in one issue of Walk the Talk with Shekhar Gupta with raised finger “I will be Prime Minister one day”. Pawar’s ambitions were going through the sky. Communists who have long been suspected of dubious relationship with the Chinese and divided loyalties have also been put paid. Indeed, the Indian communists are hardly the socialists they claim to be as they are elitist, can be seen in designer clothes and need servants to carry even their cabin bags on domestic flights. Mulayam and Amar Singh have failed to persuade the peoples of the country of their sincerity and are probably seen just as regional satraps, power drunk, power hungry and opportunistic. People rejected them as well as Mayawati who despite being ‘Dalit ki Beti’ acts like a queen and seems to believe that she is above law in some way.

I however suspect that much of this thought process-the tendency to hallucinate as being bigger than the nation, lack of humility and power drunkenness has been inherited from Nehru and Indira Gandhi who was infamously branded as ‘India is Indira and Indira is India’. Nehru seemed to believe that he alone could take the right decisions for the country and bore an aura of arrogance of being indispensable for the nation. No wonder the latter day politicians, whose role models these leaders no doubt must have been at some time or another being so much younger, saw political power as the sole goal and eventual licence.

The second good thing is that we have a stable government at the centre. There is a great opportunity for the Congress to redeem itself of its huge failures in its over 50 years’ rule over the country. The defeat at the hands of China in 1962 is dwarfed by the abject failures at the home front. (Indian state has failed to stop their incursions into Arunachal and their repeated claims to it, and has also failed in delimiting boundaries with China and Pakistan after years off efforts indicating lack of both political élan and competence.) The society is deeply riven on religious and caste lines. Then, there are regional, linguistic and sectarian divisions in the society. This is a potentially explosive situation and can drive the country into a civil strife of unspeakable dimensions. The corruption is endemic and the political system is corrupt to the core. The judiciary, gubernatorial positions and bureaucracy are repeatedly seen as partisan and bureaucracy has been instrumental in giving the country the reputation of being one of the most corrupt on earth. 30 million pending cases in the courts are a mockery of our legal process. Failure to effectively counter and overcome the problems of Kashmir, separatism, Naxal rebellion and its greatly increased power as well as spread, fundamentalism etc are irritants that are not only threatening the nation’s security but also the credibility of the Indian nation, even the idea that is India. This can result in our failure as a nation and loss of our position, both economic and political, in the world. Our failure to get Pakistan out of our system and Kashmir are monumental failures that impinge upon our sovereignty and paint us as a lame duck state. We have failed to secure our borders. An estimated 10 million Chakma rebels and Bangladeshi refugees that entered India in the 70s, and who should now be around 30 million due to proliferation through normal birth rates, are in the country and are eating into our resources but we have failed to do anything about it. No other country in the world would allow that.

Congress has again a chance to show that they can make a difference and really work for the nation’s uplift.

The BJP is vanquished, crestfallen and without any clue how to pull itself together again. This may not be good augury as the democracy can only remain strong and working as long a there is a strong, nationalist and well meaning opposition. Absence of it would soon allow the Congress to degenerate to its old ways and the democratically elected representatives will soon turn into unbridled despots. The RSS has failed to stimulate the electorate and could not convince its constituency of its own honesty and progressiveness. For the first time in its existence, during the time of K. Sudarshan at its helm, its claim of an undivided, disciplined and honest organisation has come under serious doubts. Most people suspect treachery against Modi, Chauhan and many others. The good thing however is that BJP can take a lesson from it and finally understand that if it performs it does not need the crutch of RSS. And, it should be chastening for RSS too but we can still see their belligerence.

BJP can have another chance only if Congress squanders the gains of this election and betrays the trust the Indian electorate has placed in it after a long break. BJP therefore must reinvent itself.

The Communists need to be banished by law, and if that is not possible then by the electorate. They have no function in a democracy. Communism is a farcical system which claims to be by, of and for the proletariate and working classes, but actually is a system that suppresses all dissent and representation. Maoists-Leninists have gone further to propagate the idea of grabbing the political power through the barrel of the gun, taking the world back to barbaric times. Is a sovereign state, democratic or not, going to be held at a barbarian gun point and, maybe finally be defeated by it, as we saw in Nepal not long ago? They will pretend democratic values as long as they are not in power. And when they come to power they will banish all democratic processes without losing any time and will immediately create a dictatorial state. I think not understanding this would only be the worst political naïveté.

The new congress led governments has its task cut out. The priorities are infra-structure (Power, roads, communication in the same order), defence, education and water resources management. I believe everything comes later. By defence I mean the internal homeland defence as well.

True to its confused philosophy rooted in Nehru’s ideas obfuscated by his elite background and socialist leanings, the Congress believes in taxing anyone who can be made to pay somehow. It seems to believe that taking away food from some and distributing it to others is a solution. They do not seem to understand that to help people you need to teach hem fishing rather than give them a fish.
They are likely to increase taxes.
They are likely to hike interest rates making India less competitive.
They are unlikely to make sure that the educational schemes are made functional again right from the village level, where the schools exist but teachers don’t.
They are unlikely to curb corruption. Mrs. Gandhi had already accepted it as a way of life when she said that it was there everywhere in the world.
They are likely to continue policies of appeasement for certain sections of society rather than fair and just action.
They are unlikely to gather the will to take on terrorists in true earnest or to fight Naxals with kind of will recently displayed by Mahinda Rajapakse in Sri lanka.
They are likely to take moral high ground at every opportunity, employing the English media to its fullest without doing much at the ground level.
They are unlikely to work on labour law reforms to reach a just system which recognises inefficiency, incompetence and avoidance of work as criminal waste of national resources and establish the right to hire and fire with the employer.
They are unlikely to take radical steps for legal reforms so that the pendency of cases may be reduced and faster dispensation of justice may be promoted.
They are unlikely to ensure high moral values and transparency at ministerial levels.
They are not serious about water resource management.
They will remain embroiled in casteist politics and will let the country lose its social fabric and its progress. Imagine that in the canopy at India Gate in New Delhi we could not install the statue of Mahatma Gandhi after removal of George V statue due to such sectarian squabbles, what to talk about bigger things.

In the opinion of Congress there have never been any leaders of national stature except Congressmen, mainly Nehru-Gandhis. So they will go on usurping all opportunities of naming new resources such as roads, buildings, monuments, airports etc after only Indira Gandhi and her bloodline. This is an insult to the nation but it will continue.

The country is likely to lose its position in the world which was build by Vajpayee and Bill Clinton. The country may lose its position as a safe and attractive investment destination due to the possible social strife and unsafety in the future. The challenge is to ensure a safe and prosperous future for the one billion that live here and their progeny. Is the current Congress up to the task?

Holier than thou!

That is what congress party tries to be, if in vain. Its power lies in its freindship with and management of media. The media management of the Congress undoubtedly is outstanding. Could it be from the old Russian training? Media, particularly the English media blatantly promotes Congress even in the time of elections and I don't think that all the surrogate advertising through organised blitzkrieg against opponents in the name of debates, commentaries etc. is anything short of breach of law that prohibits canvassing in the constituencies 48 hours before the polling begins. The television keeps blaring and sending open as well as subliminal messages that are motivated. Many people including myself suspect that there is more to media management than meets the eye. The media's honesty and nationalism is always a big question mark. One wonders about the possible corruption in the media and the play of money power or money and power in its management. The 4th estate may well have been the biggest bane of this fledgling democracy. The method is quite well recognised. The TV journos try to put their words in the mouths of opponents and if they fail to do so, they show fragments of sentences spoken by them and then take over with their own cues.

Recently I was watching an interview of Narendra Modi by Rahul of Headlines Today taken in an aircraft. It was probably 27th or 28h of April. Rahul tried all the tricks in the book to get Modi to say what he wanted him to. Modi called his bluff and said that he was not going to get it. Modi also said the media and the interviewer were going to edit the answers and add their own ideas and project them as those of Modi. That is exactly what Rahul did within minutes after the interview was over. It was indeed shameful. I am not for or against BJP. I am for the country so I may not be misunderstood by this example which is fresh in my mind just because I happened to watch the interview and then Rahuls's presentation of the news and a brief debate that followed. (I had to switch off the TV when Manu Singhvi arrived on the scene in the debate to avoid a sick feeling.) Rahul wanted Modi to ask the nation pardon for Post- Godhra. Modi said repeatedly that creating the model of pardon was incorrect and there should be no asking or giving of pardon. Their should be punishment according to law if anyone including Modi himself was found guilty of a crime. Rahul presented it as something that sounded like 'Modi does not repent and is not willing to accept his guilt and ask the nation's pardon'. (This has been the refrain in the entire English media eversince. Is it to help the Congress after canvassing closes?) This was as far away from the truth as is possible. But the public would not know that if they had not seen the whole interview. It was simply appalling. It left me wondering about the irresponsibility and insensitivity with which media was manipulating public opinion and the nation. Rahul and the channel should have been sued by Modi for this gross misrepresentation. The entire English media, especially India Today, Outlook, Headlines Today, Channel 18 group and NDTV are blatantly involved with a party and spread canard with a view to misleading people with an aggressively pro-Congress propaganda. Is the power of media in irresponsible hands fair? Should there not be laws against it? But that brings us to the next problem. They are above law just like the Netas are. They are arrogant and powerful because of the power they wield in terms of their reach and thus their opinion building capability. They are the Gods of politicians and therefore they can get away with anything at all. Is it not diffferent from freedom of expession?

As a thinking person and one who would place the nation above all other considerations, I have developed a healthy respect for M.J. Akbar for his balanced views and incisive analyses. He is the one nationalist journalist I can think of.

I sometimes wonder if there could be Post-Godhra if there were no Godhra? Can there be post-mortem without 'mortem'. (Modi or anyone in the political dispensations can't say that for fear of being politically incorrect. But can't media do that?) This is not to say whether it was right or wrong. That is something the people have decide by voting Modi to power. This is the same as the Congress having been voted to power after 1984 anti-Sikh riots that were much worse than the Gujarat in Godhra. In Delhi alone 3000 people were killed, tortured, shaved, torched! And the Prime Minister of India shamelessly propounded the physics of impact of the fall of a big tree. By contrast, Modi is not known to have ever justified the riots in Godhra. But the media is completely insensitive to this fact. I am from Aligarh, and as aboy I was witness to several riots. In those days also there used to be hushed talks of possible Congress hand behind the riots. RSS had been banned and was not there to do all that. No one has ever asked for an apology.

Even if we do not talk about the policies of appeasement demonstrated in myriad ways, but even in the legal system wherein we have special status of a state, special law for a community, and benefits for pilgrims and many other benefits to a community. I am not against it. I am against discrimination which gives voice to the 'appeasement' theory.

I remember that the lock of the masjid-temple in Ayodhya was ordered open by Rajiv Gandhi. I also remember that the place for Ram Lala the Ram chabutra was built under the personal supervision of Buta Singh who was close to the then prime minister and was a minister himself. The press would surely find the pictures of that momentous time in their archives. What moral high ground can Congress take on the temple matter having, in a way, laid the foundation for it themselves? But people don't remember all that. And media makes sure they never find out nor jolt their memory. Whom does it not suit? What are the allegiances? Is their a meaning to the stoic silence of English media in particular and the media in general? Is their a matter of vested interests? Why the ghost of Godhra keeps haunting the media and all the terrorist attacks, riots in Congress ruled states ever since independence never seems to be a matter of debate? They are holier than thou by all accounts of Congrss spokesmen on the TV. Godhra is new and all else is forgotten? Is this non-partisan? And is it healthy for the democracy? Should the media continue to inflame minority pasions and keep them inflamed day after day, year after year? Do they have the right to divide the nation? When is enough Enough? Have they ever aired or projected the views of Godhra and Gujarat Muslims who want to put it behind and get on with the task of building peace and harmony? Is the media saying there are no such Muslims? Are all Muslims interested in some kind of 'revenge' with possible resultant mayhem? I believe it is a false and very uncharitable view of the community by the media. In fact I know that a great deal of Muslims want peace and progres and are feeling secure enough. These muslims don't find a voice in the media. On the other hand in the present security scnario, no one in the country feels safe any more. Blasts in Guwahati at frighteneing frequency are a sombre reminder of the dangers lurking in 'safe' places of India. Not to mention the blasts that happened in Mumbai, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Malegaon, Hyderabad and many other places where innocent people kept dying when the political Neros were fiddling secure in their Z classs security paid for by us hapless, insecure citizens. And the huge tracts of land under Naxal control - who is answerable for that? Media does not seem to have a problem with the nation's real issues and that lends credence to the idea that they are playing a malicious role to the detriment of the nation and the democracy. I wish to say again that I am not against anyone and owe no allegiance to any party. I am pleading for the 4th estate to play its role that it legitimately must own in a democratic system. Like the Congress, the media is holier than thou! No wonder they are such good freinds.

The political system in the country is no longer conducive to democracy. The politicians keep demonising their opponents. Are thye going to turn it into 'demonocracy' one day? The system itself has become a demon that is cannibalising the democracy and the nation.

Maintain your dignity

I have been amazed at the twist that has been given to the "Congress is a 125 years old woman" and all sorts of insinuations like disgracing womanhood and what not are being invented by the opposition. It is indeed the lowest level of destroying the normal linguistic idiom and is an assault on the language itself by the likes of Congress spokespersons. On the other hand Priyanka has made a fool of herself by asking if she looks old. thank God she did not ask whether she looks 180 years old! She was not at all in the question and there was no need to take the dialogue to that level even if the hint was at he age of some BJP leaders. Not that Congress doesn't have its share of oldies like Arjun Singh, Motilal Vora, Karunakaran to name a few. Sibal, Kamal Nath, Manmohan Singh, Digvijay Singh and many others are also not exactly our idea of youth.
However, the next counteroffensive from Narendra Modi of asking whether he should now call the Congress Guriya was indeed in bad taste and does not behove a leader of his status. He can and should ignore certain things. Also, if we rub something too hard, it loses its charm and effectiveness. I think repeated assertions by Advani regarding his offer to Manmohan for a public debate are also no longer making good hearing. The matter is over and something fresh is required. We can't keep flogging a dead horse. It won't go.
I think BJP brass has to learn to campaign in a better way. Needless to mention that they also need a pack of younger men and women in their teams. After Pramod mahajan's unfortunate and untimely demise BJP has no good propaganda manager. Sushma Swaraj must realise that she is a spent force. Arun Jaitley is the best and most well meaning second line politician but he needs to become more charismatic. But all that is BJP's problem and I am not a BJP person. Nor I belong to any party. I am just a nationalist an I am dismayed at the malfunctioning of our democracy. Nevertheless, on balance I believe that BJP leading NDA did much better than any Congress government ever but they failed to encash their achievements a they are not good at propaganda that the Congress mastered from the time of its close association with Soviets who were masters at the game. It is amazing that Congress could only produce two good prime ministers viz., Narsimha Rao and Rajiv Gandhi. It is more amazing that Vajpayee did more to realise Rajiv's dreams of IT revolution, expressway network, transparency in administration and government, reduction in red tape etc. than any Congress government did. What an interesting contradiction! But BJP couldn't make good capital of it too. They failed to show the behaviour of Congress and its basic lack of loyalty to anything except power (Kursi) to the public at large.
India may be good or bad but it never fails to surprise!