Saturday, 24 March 2018

Chandrababu’s reply to Amit Shah #ShahExposesCBN

Dear  Amit Shah ji,

What I am saying is, what I am saying is, you are national party president and I am also national president

I have written a single page letter, but your reply with 9 pages which is not equal justice.

What I am saying is, you have new party office in Delhi, and I have new party office in Amaravathi, until you don’t help us in making level playing field for our parties you can not write letter in 9 pages.

When you break coconut, it breaks into two equal halves,  similarly when you grant funds to Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat they should be in equal size. Then only it will be called as equal justice.  

Narendra Modi was 3 times Chief Minister of Gujarat, and I am 3 times CM of Andhra Pradesh, what I am saying is equal justice must be given to two coastal states.

I have placed the Hyderabad in the world map when I was CM of Andhra Pradesh, now  you are asking me about the accounts before I put Amaravati on World Map. 

Till I make Amaravati as global investor destination no has right to ask for accountability of given funds.

I convinced  Sujana Chowdary, ex-minister in NDA not to leave country though he  is one of the biggest load defaulter along with Nirav Modi, Vijaya Malya. 

What I am saying is special status means when I give letter in closed envelope about our funds, you should also do same, but releasing the papers to media is not equal justice and special status.

I am the  senior most politician in the country, I should be offered the next seat to PM in all the cabinet meetings as partner of NDA and should follow my orders to place our country in the World map.

You know, my friend Bill Gates visits me regularly to know the latest global technology developments and trends. 

You know Dr Ambedkar was given Bharat Ratna only because of my proposal. 

 It was me who advised Atal Bihari Vajpayee to appoint APJ Abdul Kalam as president. 

I only inspired Barak Obama to contest for US president. You know, I denied the PM post when my son requested me to serve Andhra Pradesh people only..This is my commitment and dedication. 

What I am saying finally is ask your party members and national media outlets to withdraw all 9 pages letter, here I will ask my media friends to not to publish the details in my local media

What my demand is special status for Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh should be given for level playing field and party president should not write letter of 9 pages directly to me, which is not equal justice.

Disclaimer: The above article (unless explicitly and clearly mentioned) is a work of fiction. Readers are advised to read it in right spirit and not confuse the content with real happenings. Even if it resembles someone, it's probably just a coincidence.

Thursday, 2 November 2017

How the Politics of the Left Lost Its Way

One hundred years ago, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia and set up the first long-lasting Marxist government. The Russian Revolution’s impact was wide-ranging. One important – and overlooked – effect was how it changed the idea of the term “Left” in political terminology. Following the Bolshevik takeover, the term Left became more strongly associated with collectivism and public ownership.
But originally the term Left meant something quite different. Indeed, collectivism or public ownership are not exclusive to the Left. The word fascism derives from the fasces symbol of Ancient Rome, a bundle of rods containing an axe, which signify collective strength.
The British Union of Fascists originally used the fasces on its flag.
Another effect of 1917 was to undermine further the democratic credentials of the Left. These had already been undermined by early socialists such as Robert Owen, who had been opposed to democracy. After Soviet Russia and Mao’s China, part of the Left was linked to totalitarian regimes with human rights abuses, execution without trial, little freedom of expression and arbitrary confiscation of property.
Origins of Left and Right
The political terms Left and Right originated in the French Revolution. In 1789, in the National Constituent Assembly, deputies most critical of the monarchy began to gather on the seats to the left of the president’s chair. Conservative supporters of the aristocracy and the monarchy congregated on the right side.
Those on the right wished to maintain the authority of the crown by means of a royal veto, to preserve some rights of the aristocracy, to have an unelected upper house, and to maintain major property and tax qualifications for voting.
Those on the left wished to limit the powers of the monarchy and to create a democratic republic. They demanded an end to aristocratic privileges and limitations to the powers of the church and the state.
Hence Left originally meant liberty, human rights, and equality under the law. It meant opposition to monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, state monopolies, and other institutionalised privileges. The original Left opposed justifications of authority derived from religion or from noble birth. It supported democracy and private enterprise.
France’s Estates General, the precursor to the National Constituent Assembly.
Ostensibly, the Left has always stood for equality. But what does this mean? Does it mean equality under the law? Such equality was explicitly denied by Karl Marx and his followers, who argued that after the revolution the bourgeois class should be denied legal rights. This was put into practice after the revolution in Russia in 1917.
The pursuit of equality is not confined to socialists. Liberals such as Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill promoted the more equal distribution of income and wealth, as well as equality under the law. Liberals favour markets and private property, partly because they help protect individual autonomy. So can liberals be described as Left? Today’s Left has become so widely associated with public ownership that it would not include radical liberals in its broad movement.
The term Right has also shifted in meaning, from nationalist and traditionalist apologies for the privileges of aristocracy, to greater advocacy of free markets and private ownership, which ironically had been the territory of the original Left of 1789.
Wrong turnings?
The Marxist government in Russia quickly evolved into a one-party state. A regime of purges and terror ensued. I argue in my book Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost that a slide towards totalitarianism is inevitable within Marxism. This is because the Marxist concept of class struggle and its proposal for a proletarian government undermines the notion of universal human rights, developed in the Enlightenment and proclaimed in the French Revolution.
Communism has co-opted the Left.
By the 1970s some on the Left went further, to oppose any export of Western ideas, and to reject any notion that poorer countries deserved to enjoy the same human rights that were promoted in Europe and North America. Proposals to extend these rights or values were seen as apologies for “Western imperialism”. And, in their enthusiasm for “anti-imperialist struggles” many on the Left supported terrorists and religious extremists, including the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and the regime in Iran. This is far from the views of the original Left.
Of course, people that consider themselves as Left-leaning are not obliged to follow the ideas of the original Left. But it is important to understand how strains of Left thinking have twisted and turned from their original source. And recognise that alternatives are possible – particularly when the language of politics today is so broken. George Orwell wrote in 1946:
One … ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
The term Left has gone through major changes of meaning in the last two centuries. With this decay there has been a large degree of chaos. Meanwhile parties on the Left around the world are in crisis as a result of ideological fragmentation. If we are to have progressive change in society we need to first reconfigure the political map and no longer be restricted by what has come to define Left and Right.
Geoffrey M Hodgson is a Research Professor, Hertfordshire Business School at the University of Hertfordshire.

Monday, 23 October 2017

Who is celebrating creator of Pakistan in India

By Balbir Punj

It can happen only in ‘secular’ India that a person who was responsible for the vivisection of the country is feted in all quarters

The charade of ‘secularism’ was at its peak in India last week when the country ‘celebrated’ the 200th birth anniversary of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and father of Muslim separatism in the subcontinent.  Worse, this farce has gone unnoticed and unchallenged.

While several newspapers carried articles eulogising the “virtues” of Sir Syed and his lasting “services” to the country, former President Pranab Mukherjee delivered the commemoration address at AMU’s Athletics Ground last Tuesday. Terming Sir Syed as a “visionary leader of India”, Mr Mukherjee heaped praise on his creation, AMU, calling it as a “perfect example of Indian nationalism and ethos”.

If India can hail Sir Syed a hero, why deny such an honour to Muhammad Iqbal and Mohammed Ali Jinnah? The trio — Sir Syed, Jinnah and Iqbal — is revered as the spiritual founders of Pakistan. All three are described in Pakistani school books as the Muslim leaders who stressed Hindu-Muslim separateness, promoting a divisive mindset responsible for creation of Pakistan.

In an article in Express Tribune on Iqbal and Sir Syed, Pervez Hoodbhoywrote:  They share many commonalities. Both were knighted for services to the British Empire, both advocated purdah and had strongly traditional religious backgrounds”. The Express Tribune is a multi-edition English daily of Pakistan and Mr Hoodbhoy a noted Pakistan nuclear physicist.

Pakistan, to underline its distinct identity, has not named any of its public buildings or institutions after pre-Partition personalities like Gandhiji, Netaji or Bhagat Singh. However, there are dozens of institutions of eminence named after Sir Syed — recognising his contribution to the ideology of Pakistan. Apart from holding numerous functions in Sir Syed’s memory, the Pakistan postal department also issued a commemorative stamp of ‘10 to mark his 200th birth anniversary last week.

While Iqbal and Jinnah had started as nationalists and later joined the British bandwagon to Balkanise India, Sir Syed was committed to the two-nation theory right from the beginning of his public life. He worked to bring English education to Muslims so that they could gang up with the British against Hindus and he succeeded in that.

Sir Syed belonged to a feudal Muslim family who joined the East India Company in 1838 and became a judge at a small causes court in 1867, retiring from service in 1876. During the first War of Independence of 1857, he remained loyal to the Empire and saved several European lives and won the trust of the British.

On April 1, 1869, he went, along with his son Syed Mahmood, to England where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India on August 6.   His close association with the British proved mutually rewarding.

In 1887, he was nominated as a member of Civil Services Commission by Lord Dufferin. In the following year, he established the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political co-operation with the British and ensure Muslim participation in the British Indian Government.

Sir Syed was bestowed the title of Khan Bahadur and was subsequently knighted by British Government in 1898. He was created a Knight Commander of the Order of Star of India (KCSI) for his loyalty to the British crown through his membership of the Imperial Legislature Council. Like Abdullahs of the Kashmir of our times, Sir Syed too had a forked tongue. He could change his tune depending on the occasion and audience. But his basic agenda of widening the gulf among Hindus and Muslims — and cementing ties between his co-religionists and the British masters — remained unchanged.

In this context, Sir Syed’s speech made at Meerut on March 16, 1888 is very relevant. Excerpts:  “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other… Oh, my brother Musalmans, for seven hundred years in India you have had imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English government shows to the foreign nations under her there is no example in the history of the world.

“We ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mohammedan can deny this: That God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of the Mohammedans except the Christians.Therefore, we should cultivate a friendship with them, and should adopt the method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis.”

Sir Syed showed his contempt for Congress and its leaders by terming them as “Bengalis” as the bulk of Congress leadership those days came from Bengal.In the last ten years of his life, he brazenly sided with the British, vehemently opposed the Congress and propagated the two-nation theory assiduously. His brain child, AMU, played a decisive role in the creation of Pakistan. In fact, as early as 1941, MA Jinnah had recognised the contribution of AMU students to his cause and termed the university as “the arsenal of Pakistan”. On August 31, 1941, addressing the students of AMU, Liaquat Ali Khan declared: “We look to you for every kind of ammunition to win the battle for independence of (the) Muslim nation.”  Khan went on to become the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The Aga Khan also paid a tribute to the students of Aligarh 1954 in these words: “Often, in civilized history a University has supplied the spring board for a nation’s intellectual and spiritual renaissance… Aligarh is no exception to this rule. But we may claim with pride that Aligarh was the product of our own efforts and for no outside benevolence and surely it may also be deemed that the independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh.”

Without AMU there would probably be no Pakistan today. And without Sir Syed’s “vision” that translated into the two-nation theory, there would have been no AMU with such destructive potential.

(The writer is a political commentator and a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP)

Courtesy: The Pioneer
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...