BJP flays TRS alliance with MIM

Hyderabad, May 25 HindSam Ch. Narendra

BJP Telangana President and MLA G Kishan Reddy strongly condemned the likely alliance between the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM). Describing the MIM as a communal and anti-Telangana party which openly opposed the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in Assembly and Parliament, he advised that TRS should nto ally itself with a party which is known as `traitor’s party’.

He said the MIM was rejected by the Muslim community in recently held elections and it remained confined to the Old City of Hyderabad. He lamented that by sending a party delegation to MIM leader’s house to discuss the alliance, TRS president K Chandrasekhar Rao has insulted the people of Telangana,.

Kishan Reddy alleged that MIM was dominated by rowdy sheeters and its members were accused of attacking government doctors, GHMC staff and others.

The BJP State president recalled that the MIM strengthened itself under the shadow of the Congress, when it was in power and suddenly changed its loyalties

He asked Chandrasekhar Rao to have a second thought on going along with the MIM. He described the alliance as ‘unnatural’ relationship.

Kishan Reddy has also objected to the MIM party’s proposal of using the Charminar in the logo of Telangana government. He cautioned TRS from taking a unilateral decision on designing the logo and demanded to call an all-party meeting so that everyone’s view was taken into consideration

Advertisements

WELL MARKED LOW PRESSURE AREA ALONG ODISHA-AP COAST ON 25TH MAY,2014

Information on Well Marked Low Pressure Area over West Central and adjoining Northwest Bay of Bengal off South Odisha and Andhra Pradesh Coasts:

Yesterday’s Well Marked Low pressure Area over central Bay of Bengal now lies over West Central and adjoining Northwest Bay of Bengal off South Odisha and North Andhra Pradesh Coasts at 0830 hours IST of today, the 25th May 2014.

Forecast : Rain/Thundershower would occur at most places places over Odisha during next 48hours.

Heavy R/F Warning: Heavy to Very Heavy Rainfall would occur at one or two places over districts of Coastal Odisha and districts Maurbhanj, Jajpur and Dhenkanal. Heavy Rainfall would occur at one or two places over the districts of Interior Odisha during next 48 hours.

Advice for hoisting Storm Warning Signals:

NIL

Likely impacts and actions: NIL

Fishermen Warning :- Fishermen are advised to be cautious while venturing into sea.

Too: 25/1230 EF

(A.K.Majhi)

For Director In Charge

M.C.Bhubaneswar

Rash Behari Bose

Rash Behari Bose (25 May 1886 – 21 January 1945) left Calcutta on May 12, 1915 and he went to Japan During this period he met Herambalal Gupta and Bhagwan Singh of the Ghadar Party. Japan was an ally of Britain’s in the First World War and tried to extradite Rash Behari and Herambalal from Japan. Herambalal escaped to U.S.A. and Rash Behari ended his hide and seek by becoming a Japanese citizen.
Rahas Bihari Bose

Rash Behari Bose learned Japanese and became a journalist and writer. He took part in many cultural activities and wrote many books in Japanese, explaining India’s viewpoints. It was due to Rash Behari’s efforts that a conference was help in Tokyo from March 28 to 30, 1942, for discussion on political
issues.

Following a conference held in Tokyo on 28th March 1942, it was decided to establish the Indian Independence League. After a few days it was decided to make Subhash Chandra Bose as its president. The Indian prisoners that were captured by the Japanese in Malaya and Burma were encouraged to join the Indian Independence League and the Indian National Army. It was the efforts of Rash Behari, along with Captain Mohan Singh and Sardar Pritam Singh, due to which Indian National Army came into existence on September 1, 1942. It was also known as Azad Hind Fauz.
Rash Behari Bose left Calcutta on May 12, 1915 and he went to Japan During this period he met Herambalal Gupta and Bhagwan Singh of the Ghadar Party. Japan was an ally of Britain’s in the First World War and tried to extradite Rash Behari and Herambalal from Japan. Herambalal escaped to U.S.A. and Rash Behari ended his hide and seek by becoming a Japanese citizen. Rash Behari Bose learned Japanese and became a journalist and writer. He took part in many cultural activities and wrote many books in Japanese, explaining India’s viewpoints. It was due to Rash Behari’s efforts that a conference was help in Tokyo from March 28 to 30, 1942, for discussion on political issues. Following a conference held in Tokyo on 28th March 1942, it was decided to establish the Indian Independence League. After a few days it was decided to make Subhash Chandra Bose as its president. The Indian prisoners that were captured by the Japanese in Malaya and Burma were encouraged to join the Indian Independence League and the Indian National Army. It was the efforts of Rash Behari, along with Captain Mohan Singh and Sardar Pritam Singh, due to which Indian National Army came into existence on September 1, 1942. It was also known as Azad Hind Fauz.
Bose was born in Subaldaha village, Burdwan, in the province of Bengal. He was educated in Chandannagar, where his father, Vinodebehari Bose, was stationed. He later earned degrees in the medical sciences as well as in Engineering from France and Germany.

The NoMo sayers’ dilemma

May 21, 2014, 9:34 PM IST Bachi Karkaria

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/erratica/the-nomo-sayers-dilemma/

Will we be allowed to criticise, and can we dare to praise?

Never mind the nit-picking about the BJP’s piddly 31%, the lowest ever vote-share of a party that won a parliamentary majority. Maani leedhu, Manibhai, 282 whopping seats is no small singdana of an achievement. In a head-to-foot blow, it has socked our jaw and knocked our socks off, even the khaki ones. The historic victory made the new deity worthy of that global genuflection at Dasashwamedha Ghat as the Lord was installed in holiest of holies Banaras; the telegenic praan pratishtha ceremony complete with chandan, chants, conches, cymbals and SFX aarti. In this time of mandi-to-mall adoration, would anyone who dares dissent or even fails to fawn be roadrollered like a Rahul, crushed like a Kejriwal, or — ultimate shame! — be spat out like a stale aloo in Varanasi’s famous samosa?

But seriously, those of us who made it our mission to say NoNo to NaMo are in a quandary bigger than his boasts, his rallies and his margins of victory. We are damned if we don’t plunge into the gushing tide, and damned if we do. Let me explain.

Listening to his ‘Yes I Can’ acceptance speech last Friday at Vadodara, i genuinely felt a surge of optimism. Now, this was the seat that he jilted at the altar or left as unceremoniously as a wife; not unlike the sacrificial Jashodhaben, Vadodara had replaced Modi’s long-time consort, Maninagar, only in this election. But he bid goodbye to it, and roared ‘Here I Come’ to the nation and the world with such fervour that it could not fail to floor even the most caustic critic.

But could we NoMo sayers dare to nod in approval without fear of having our heads bitten off by our own Moaning Minority. And, at the same time, being laughed out of court by the I-told-you-so Idolisers? Baap re, we are trapped between a ‘Hai-Hai’ and a ‘Ha-Ha’.

Do i exaggerate? Here’s a real-time example. As the landslide began its relentless course, i tweeted ‘Considering the clean sweep, the jhadoo should have been Mr Modi’s election symbol’. Merely factual and innocuous enough, but i was immediately buried under an avalanche of troll tweets mocking me, hee-hee!, for my ‘U-turn’, indeed my ignominious capitulation.

So can i dare risk even the smallest hint that things could change for the better? And, in doing so, would i be letting down my side? Would i be ridiculed by the Modevotees for my earlier refusal to see the light, and be mocked as a Mir Jafar by my own tribe? Are we honour-bound to keep banging on about the negatives despite evidence of positives? Will a course correction, however slight or fair, be damned as heresy? Does giving up even an ounce of apostasy turn me into an Apostle of the Devil?
Narendra-Modi
The positions, these past months, had hardened. More so as we saw some of the most entrenched and trenchant among us falling for the plums to be had by switching to what looked increasingly like the winning side. Each new Modi-convert proved the religion-agnostic English idiom, ‘The Hindu worships the rising sun.’ Those who stayed back dug their heels in even harder, yes, out of genuine mistrust of the Modi ABC: autocratic, bigoted, controlling. If we now put even the smallest toe on his line, would it be tantamount to crossing over to the dark side?

Yet, i must confess, it seems almost churlish to ignore this massive mandate or see the writing on the sensex. Help! I feel like Mazboor No. 1. Having been a card-carrying NoMo-ite, how do i acknowledge the imminent ‘achhey din’ of growth without being branded a ‘bandwagon climber’? How do i welcome the new AD without being called a BC?

How Modi defeated liberals like me

SHIV VISVANATHAN

May 22, 2014 01:45 IST

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/how-modi-defeated-liberals-like-me/article6034057.ece#comments

Please do read the Comments also.

What secularism did was it enforced oppositions in a way that the middle class felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs, its perspectives. Secularism was portrayed as an upwardly mobile, drawing room discourse they were inept at

On May 17, Narendra Modi revisited Varanasi to witness a pooja performed at the Kashi Vishwanath temple. After the ritual at the temple, he moved to Dashashwamedh ghat where an aarti was performed along the river. The aartiwas more than a spectacle. As a ritual, it echoed the great traditions of a city, as a performance it was riveting. As the event was relayed on TV, people messaged requesting that the event be shown in full, without commentary. Others claimed that this was the first time such a ritual was shown openly. With Mr. Modi around, the message claimed “We don’t need to be ashamed of our religion. This could not have happened earlier.”

At first the message irritated me and then made me thoughtful. A colleague of mine added, “You English speaking secularists have been utterly coercive, making the majority feel ashamed of what was natural.” The comment, though brutal and devastating, was fair. I realised at that moment that liberals like myself may be guilty of something deeper.

At the same time moment, some Leftists were downloading a complete set of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks fearing that the advent of Mr. Modi may lead to the withdrawal of these books. The panic of some academics made them sound paranoid and brittle, positing a period of McCarthyism in India. It also brought into mind that both Right and Left have appealed to the state to determine what was correct history. With the advent of the Right, there is now a feeling that history will become another revolving door regime where the official and statist masquerade as the truth.

Secularism as a weapon

I am raising both sets of fear to understand why Left liberals failed to understand this election. Mr. Modi understood the anxieties of the middle class more acutely than the intellectuals. The Left intellectuals and their liberal siblings behaved as a club, snobbish about secularism, treating religion not as a way of life but as a superstition. It was this same group that tried to inject the idea of the scientific temper into the constitutions as if it would create immunity against religious fears and superstitions. By overemphasising secularism, they created an empty domain, a coercive milieu where ordinary people practising religion were seen as lesser orders of being.

Secularism became a form of political correctness but sadly, in electoral India it became an invidious weapon. The regime used to placate minorities electorally, violating the majoritarian sense of fairness. In the choice between the parochialism of ethnicity and the secularism of citizenship, they veered toward ethnicity. It was a strange struggle between secularism as a form of piety or political correctness and people’s sense of religiosity, of the cosmic way religion impregnated the everydayness of their lives. The majority felt coerced by secular correctness which they saw either as empty or meaningless. Yet, they correctly felt that their syncretism was a better answer than secularism. Secularism gave one three options. The first was the separation from Church and State. This separation meant an equal distance from all religions or equal involvement in all religions. There was a sense that the constitution could uphold the first but as civilisations, as communities we were syncretic and conversational. One did not need a parliament of religions to be dialogic. Indian religions were perpetually dialogic. The dialogue of medical systems where practitioners compared their theologies, their theories and their therapies was one outstanding and constructive example.

There was a secondary separation between science and religion in the secular discourse. Yet oddly, it was Christianity that was continuously at odds with science while the great religions were always open to the sciences. Even this created a form of coerciveness, where even scientists open to religion or ritual were asked to distance themselves from it. The fuss made about a scientist coming to office afterRahukalam or even discouraging them from associating themselves with a godman like Sai Baba was like a tantrum. There is a sense of snobbery and poetry but more, there is an illiteracy here because religion, especially Christianity shaped the cosmologies of science. In many ways, Ecology is an attempt to reshape and reinvent that legacy.

Tapping into a ‘repression’

What secularism did was it enforced oppositions in a way that the middle class felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs, its perspectives. Secularism was portrayed as an upwardly mobile, drawing room discourse they were inept at. Secularism thus became a repression of the middle class. For the secularist, religion per se was taboo, permissible only when taught in a liberal arts or humanities class as poetry or metaphor. The secularist misunderstood religion and by creating a scientific piety, equated the religious with the communal. At one stroke a whole majority became ill at ease within its world views.

Narendra Modi sensed this unease, showed it was alienating and nursed that alienation. He turned the tables by showing secularism — rather than being a piety or a propriety — was a hypocrisy, or was becoming a staged unfairness which treated minority violations as superior to majoritarian prejudices. He showed that liberal secularism had become an Orwellian club where some prejudices were more equal than others. As the catchment area of the sullen, the coerced, and the repressed became huge, he had a middle class ready to battle the snobbery of the second rate Nehruvian elite. One sensitive case was conversion. The activism of Hindutva groups was treated as sinister but the fundamentalism of other religions was often treated as benign and as a minoritarian privilege. There was a failure of objectivity and fairness and the infelicitous term pseudo-secularism acquired a potency of its own.

While secularism was a modern theory, it was impatient in understanding the processes of being modern. Ours is a society where religion is simultaneously cosmology, ecology, ritual and metaphor. Most of us think and breathe through it. I remember a time when the epidemics of Ganesha statues were drinking milk. Hundreds of believers went to watch the phenomena and came away convinced. I remember talking to an office colleague who returned thrilled at what she had seen. I laughed cynically. She looked quietly and said, “I believe, I have faith, I saw it. You have no faith so why should the Murti talk to you.” I realised that she felt that I was deprived. She added that the mahant of a temple where the statue had not drank milk had gone into exile and meditation to make up for his inadequacy. I realised at that moment that a lecture on hygroscopy or capillary action (the scientific explanations) would have been inadequate. I could not call her illiterate or superstitious. It was a struggle about different meanings, a juxtaposition of world views where she felt her religion gave her a meaning that my science could not. I was reminded that the great Danish physicist, Niels Bohr had a horseshoe nailed to his door. When Bohr was questioned about it, he commented that it won’t hurt to be there. Bohr had created a Pascalian Wager, content that if the horseshoe brought luck it was a good wager, but equally content that if it was inert it did no harm. I wish I had replied in a similar form to my friend.

For a pluralism of encounters
Modi
I realise that in many places in Europe, there has been a disenchantment with religion. I have seen beautiful churches in Holland become post offices as the church confronted a sheer lack of attendance. But India faces no such problem and we have to be careful about transplanting mechanical histories.

Ours is a different culture and it has responded to religion, myth and ritual. The beauty of our science Congress is that it resembles a miniature Kumbh Mela. But more, our religions have never been against science and our state has to work a more pluralistic understanding of these encounters. Secularism cannot be empty space. It has to create a pluralism of encounters and allow for levels of reality and interpretation. Tolerance is a weak form of secularism. In confronting the election, we have to reinvent secularism not as an apologetic or disciplinary space but as a playful dialogue. Only then can we offer an alternative to the resentments that Mr. Modi has thrived on and mobilised. I take hope in the words of one of my favourite scientists, the Dalai Lama. When George Bush was waxing eloquent about Muslims, the Dalai Lama commented on George Bush by saying, “He brings out the Muslim in me.” I think that captures my secular ethic brilliantly and one hopes such insights become a part of our contentious democracy.

(Shiv Visvanathan is a professor at Jindal School of Government and Public Policy.)

Modi hater falling in line.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta | May 17, 2014 5:30 am
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/modis-moment-alone/99/
Narendra Modi has scripted one of the most gloriously spectacular political triumphs in the history of independent India. There is no other way to describe this election. Just think of the magnitude of the achievement. For the first time since Independence, a non-Congress party has got a majority on its own. By enlarging its footprint, it has become a genuinely national party and transformed India’s political landscape, perhaps forever.
Bharat Mora Maa
The Congress has been brought to the verge of extinction. Every known rule of Indian politics has been transformed. Caste-based political parties have been sidelined at a national level. A party has been able to create a broad-based support, across social classes, across rural and urban areas, across different castes. A chief minister from a small state has become a national figure. And perhaps most importantly, this election has belied the cliché that all politics is local.

This election was fought on national themes. The voters have not been swayed by narrow horizons. They have voted what they thought was in the national interest. The idea of India is not an intellectual abstraction. It is created and enacted by millions of voters thinking about the future of India as a whole, joining in a national discourse and delivering their verdict. This is a community of fate charting its future together.

But Modi is a political phenomenon without precedent. In the annals of democratic politics, there are few stories to match his. He is a politician who embodies the quintessence of politics: converting adversity into opportunity. That single characteristic, more than any other, sums up his appeal. It stood out in distinction to a political culture where a ruling dispensation lost no opportunity to miss an opportunity, where privilege masqueraded as victimhood, and care for the poor as a paternalistic excuse to keep them poor.

In a discourse suffused with all that cannot be done, he came to be an embodiment of all that can be done under adversity. He rose from a humble background, and in some ways, understood the possibilities democracy affords for mobility more than its princely custodians. He was an outsider, demonised by the intelligentsia, with a Central government arrayed against him. But he has broken through and will now produce the biggest churning that India’s power structure has seen since Independence.

He has tenaciously fought every charge. He has overcome the opposition of his own party establishment. But he has done what his opponents failed to do. He continued to think politically, sensing the national mood, mounting a formidable political machine, by sheer dint of will crisscrossing the country, connecting with crowds from West Bengal to Kerala, and demonstrating an old truth: politics is about creativity, will, organisation, imagination, aspiration. Those who think of it purely in structural terms are bound to remain victims of that structure.

Modi became the voice of change. We can talk about the way parts of his campaign fished in social polarisation in places like UP. But for the most part, he presented himself as something new: to walk into Bihar and talk about transcending caste politics, to utter the sentence no secularist in India has had the courage to utter, that poverty has no religion, to dream of reviving India’s growth prospects, to talk about jobs, to tap into the restlessness for doing things. He became an embodiment for a desire for change.

Congress prepared the ground for him: it mismanaged the economy, acted as a rotten plutocracy, and its top leadership engaged in one of the most spectacular acts of political hara kiri we have seen. The AAP, though its electoral performance was meagre, managed to expose the rottenness of this ancien regime.

Most non-BJP alternatives discredited themselves thoroughly, both intellectually and politically. Non-BJP secular forces have, for years, tied themselves into knots of intellectual disingenuousness and institutional hypocrisy. They hitched their stars to the Congress that, instead of making institutions more credible, robust and fair, consistently used its power to undermine them.

In its actual behaviour, it could not claim the moral high ground on any issue. When disenchantment with the Congress set in, the protest vote had nowhere else to go but to the only available alternative. We have seen, since 2004, something like a stability surge in many elections: once disenchantment sets in, the vote gravitates towards the other viable alternative.

The Congress and its minions had been running the self-defeating line that this election was just about money and propaganda. This line is self-defeating because it expresses open contempt for voters. This has been a big failing of non-BJP forces. Anyone who talked about new narratives was always pulled back into the muck of social arithmetic. Talking about governance and development was being elitist, there were some authentic social forces lurking underneath that represented the true spirit of Indian politics. They thus ceded this space entirely to the BJP. Irony of ironies: the BJP was left holding the candle of development and progress.

The same disingenuousness marked the debate on leadership. Any mention of leadership was condemned as a yearning for authoritarianism. The blunt fact is that the election was made semi-presidential because we did not have a prime minister the last few years. It was intellectually otiose to think that leadership does not matter. The more parties ran away from projecting leadership or addressing issues of stability, the more they yielded the field to Modi.

This was an election about leadership, and Modi grew in stature at every step. He has an uncanny machine to project his power. But he also has an unprecedented capacity to connect. And what the attacks on him did was reinforce the one attribute of leadership: his capacity to stand his ground and not be swayed by every wind. Ironically, the person accused of being a media creation came across as the man capable of standing his own ground.

There will be other occasions to discuss what this means for the future of Indian democracy. The fact that the BJP does not have a single Muslim Lok Sabha MP will be an issue they will have to address proactively, not presumptuously wave away. The decimation of the opposition is a structural worry. There is little doubt that India’s future now depends on what Modi decides to do with his mandate. He has an unprecedented opportunity to take India to new heights. Will this be a new dawn, a false dawn, or just another day? Only time will tell. But this is Modi’s moment. It will be churlish to describe it as anything else.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and a contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’