|
|
|
General Forum: Current 'Affairs' | | BJP Top man L. K. Advani withdraws his resignation to the party post. Would this alienate BJP from RSS? | |
| If then resident of Bombay was instrumental in creation of Pakistan by advocating communal divide of the country, another person who born in Karachi, birthplace, now in Pakistan, caused communal bloodshed to lead the Mandir Issue. There is no difference here between the both! Both want the power and top posts at any cost and changed their stand for the same. If no one is secular, then no one is communal; all want to be the top. Jinnah wants to be the top among all his contemporaries, but faced Jawaharlal Nehru a stiff competitor. Hence Jinnah lead the communal issue, then only he can get that top position on the ‘other’ side. Hence he had done so! Most of the politicians, perhaps, don’t know history. It’s the then ‘Press’ created Pakistan first, later by the politicians. Jinnah had taken the clue along with his feudal friends and, expanded, elaborated, advocated and executed the partition of the country while ‘other’ section of India too ignited communal frenzy that helped Jinnah a lot. There aroused an ego question among the lawyers turned politicians then, which were tactical and strategic in decision making of top class. Jinnah may be a communal person to some sections of Indians, but statesman to the Pakistan.
The BJP, after Mr.Advani’s comments about Jinnah in Pakistan itself, cannot longer keep the people of India in darkness. Now, it’s open that it is in introspection and having internal fighting of highest order. Let the cats come of the bag! The leaders who criticized Mr.Advani for his comments about Mr.Advani bound to change their stand to sustain in the Indian Democracy as people of India are educated enough to understand the communal politics of the political parties and, for the issues the BJP fought the elections in the previous elections are no longer relevant. Let Mr.Advani say that the Partition of India was a mistake; right-wingers executed assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Let Mr.Advani talk about social issues like the need for the eradication of dowry in the system and strict implementation of Dowry Abolition Act, 1961. Let Mr.Advani launch a padayatra from Kanyakumari to Kashmir in a Gandhian way denouncing politics creating awareness among the masses about their real social problems. Let Mr.Advani fight against all the governments for proper governance advocating initiating debates on social issues and igniting legislations. It’s better for him to do so before the history stamps him as ordinary or petty politician fighting for the posts only. People are important than parties, better for him to realize. If Ms.Sonia Gandhi refused the Prime Ministerial ship will full conviction, commitment and self-confidence, why should Mr.Advani hang on for the posts! In fact, Mr.Advani is senior to Ms.Sonia Gandhi in politics. History may laugh at him at this!
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 14, Jun 2005 11:57:42 AM IST
The Times of India, Editorial. 13th June, 2005.
....
To survive and grow, the party has to have a moderate makeover
The drama within the sangh parivar over L K Advani's comments about Jinnah has ended predictably, with Advani continuing as party president. Two important consequences follow. First, the BJP has postponed what could have been a bitter contest for leadership among ambitious second-rung leaders like Arun Jaitley, Narendra Modi, Sushma Swaraj, Pramod Mahajan and Venkaiah Naidu. Not one of these netas can claim primacy over another and few can claim to be vote winners in a general election. Without Advani or Atal Behari Vajpayee at the top, the BJP would have turned into a battleground of warring satraps. Second, if the BJP has to have a future as a political party in India, it needs to turn its back on Hindutva, and the moth-eaten politics of mandir and masjid , to evolve a modern conservative outlook in sync with aspirations of India's population. Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh supported Advani's speech in Pakistan, the one where he referred to Jinnah's August 11, 1947 speech to say that the Qaid-e-Azam had tried to create a secular state, not an Islamic one. Advani will need their support while he morphs from Hindutva hardliner to moderate conservative.
If the VHP and the RSS are still nostalgic about the Ayodhya movement and can't think beyond narrow secta-rian lines, they have lost the pulse of India. The Ayodhya movement led by Advani is 15 years old and its relevance against the backdrop of the post-Mandal commission surge of caste politics is now a distant memory. Vajpayee, who forged the NDA coalition which helped the BJP to come to power in 1998 and 1999, is too old to lead the party. Meanwhile, the BJP has lost its grip on large parts of India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, where the party is imploding. Since May 2004's Lok Sabha elections, there have been by-elections in two Lok Sabha and 16 assembly seats in UP. Of those, the BJP has only won one seat, Atrauli, where Kalyan Singh is boss. In the 16 assembly seats, its vote share is 11 per cent, about half of what it was three years ago. In seven of these seats, it got less than 5 per cent of all votes. The party's hope for expansion in south and east India hasn't happened. The BJP needs a change in direction and stability in leadership. The leadership tussle is now over, let's see if the party can change.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 13, Jun 2005 9:58:48 AM IST
The Hindu, 13th June, 2005. Editorial.
......
It is war in the Parivar
The Bharatiya Janata Party's biggest ideological crisis to date has come to a troubled, tortured end. On paper, everyone is happy — Lal Krishna Advani, who returned as party chief; the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which had its way on Mohammad Ali Jinnah; and the BJP's second rung, which hammered out a resolution acceptable to the parivar and its once illustrious son. That the truce is tenuous is betrayed by the wording of the resolution: even as it lavished praise on Mr. Advani's Pakistan trip, it negated the spirit of that mission by heaping scorn on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. On his tour, the BJP chief referred twice to Jinnah, and both times in the limited context of a speech the Quaid-e-Azam made to Pakistan's Constituent Assembly setting forth his vision of the ideal state — one which guaranteed equality and freedom of faith to all its citizens. No sober and rational person could quarrel with this "classic exposition of a secular, non-theocratic State," and Mr. Advani said as much, quoting none other than Swami Ranganathananda, head of the Ramakrishna Math. However, in the eyes of the parivar this was blasphemous. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad asked Mr. Advani to return to Pakistan while the RSS wanted him brought to heel for daring to step out of line.
Consider the extraordinary lengths to which the resolution went to denounce Jinnah: "the BJP reiterates that whatever may have been Jinnah's vision of Pakistan, the State he founded is theocratic and non-secular. The very idea of Hindus and Muslims being two nations is repugnant to it." Further, "there can be no revisiting the reality that Jinnah led a communal agitation to achieve his goal of Pakistan, which devoured thousands of innocent people in its wake and dispossessed millions of their homes and livelihoods." Mr. Advani climbed down from his position that he would not withdraw his resignation unless the Jinnah issue was debated by the BJP. So where does the BJP chief go from here? Did he make a tactical retreat so as to resume whatever he wishes to do another day? Only time can say who got the better of whom in a conflict so fierce that it brought the party to the brink. The soap opera abounds in irony. It was accepted wisdom that any battle within the BJP will be led by "moderate" Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In the event, the challenge came from a confirmed "hawk," who was thought to be inseparably linked to the parivar and its divisive ideology. The younger generation of leaders, many of whom were handpicked and trained by Mr. Advani, deserted him in his hour of need. Finally, what can be a greater paradox than the parivar's opposition to the two-nation theory? The first to propound the notion of a separate Hindu nation was not Jinnah but the parivar's ideological guru and original proponent of Hindutva, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. He mentioned the concept in his 1923 essay "Hindutva." He was to expand on the theme again and again. Addressing the 1937 session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, he said: "India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems in India." On August 15, 1943, he clinched the issue : "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations." Will the parivar follow up with a resolution extolling Savarkar's two-nation doctrine
....
Advani issue has sent shock waves in the Sangh Parivar.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 13, Jun 2005 9:53:42 AM IST
I feel though BJP in principle is the follower of religious tendency, but after the formation of NDA, secularism has influenced some of the leaders and there is no wonder if Sri Advani expressed his views in that direction. However, for a political strength and unity, it is better for BJP to follow this secularism policy also as Country requires a strong self dtermined and independant decession making leader to run the Government,instead of by those who form a coalition to rule the country simply to over throw a particular party.
For maintaining the religious existance, RSS and VHP are enough as long as they do not interfere in the rule of the Governemnt and do not provocate the feelings of citizens at the cost of their peaceful day to day life.
Posted by: Mr. VIRABHADRA SASTRI KALANADHABHATTA At: 13, Jun 2005 9:43:20 AM IST
Yes. There is a possibility.
But VHP and RSS has their own cadre to continue thier movement, without BJP. The BJP will be the loser, but not the RSS and the VHP.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 11, Jun 2005 9:50:52 AM IST
Advani resigned on Tuesday after coming under a sharp attack from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its allied bodies for his remarks praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. The crisis had gripped the party for the last four days following his decision to resign in the wake of RSS criticism. However, Congress and several other political outfits criticised Advani for change of stance and wearing a mask 'left over my Mr. Vajpayee'. Was Advani misunderstood and misquoted or is it a design to make BJP an acceptable political party to both majority and minority communities? Discuss.
Posted by: Site Administrator At: 10, Jun 2005 7:08:24 PM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
