Every individual has the right to self respect and dignity, especially from its fellow countrymen. Irrespective of the religion, caste, creed and all other secular lingo, we all should be treated fairly. However, somewhere down the line I feel in the present modern setup of India, self respect of the Hindus has been taken for a ride by media and politicians alike. We have been considered harmless and so nobody cares if there is any sort of infliction on us. For them, it is more important to concentrate on issues which aim at pleasing the minorities. And make no mistake, minorities not only include Muslims, but also Christians and other non-Hindu religions. I have nothing against my fellow "minority" countrymen, for in all fairness I have never even thought of them as "minorities". For me they are as Indian as I am. They definitely need a change in their socio-economic conditions and we all should support the cause. Infact, we have mutual respect for each other and if not for petty politics, there wouldn't be an iota of doubt on our camaraderie.
The recent coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did make me think that Hindus have been sidelined into oblivion. Agreed, there were lots of Muslim casualties and it is a despicable act of barbarism to kill innocent children, women, and others. Rightly so they have been given coverage to show the ghastardly side of the politicians. However, was there not even a single Hindu who lost his life in the riots? Leave that, even the media coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did not for once make an attempt to sympathize with the karsewaks who lost their lives. That was equally shameful on the part of the murderers and those karsewaks were innocent too. All these days, media termed the Godhra train carnage only as "the aftermath of Godhra" and in a split second the news turned to the innocent Muslims who were killed in the riots. Even a common Muslim felt the pain of the massacre of the karsewaks so why couldn't the media capture the trauma their families went through? Why couldn't the likes of Barkha Dutt who were capturing possibly each and every house of the Muslim victims for the primetime news did not for once go to the karsewak's family? Why were all the cameras turned to the Muslim rehabilitation camps and none to the Hindu camps? I have also felt the pain seeing media bits of the way riots shaped into a deadly massacre. Infact, majority of the common Hindus condemned the shameful act of genocide and attacked the Gujarat government for poor handling of the situation. We all felt the pain of our fellow Muslim brothers and I am definitely sure they had also felt the pain when the karsewaks were burnt alive and helpless.
Then why did the media not capture that part of the riots? And to top it all, how derogatory it felt when the deaths of the innocent Karsewaks in the burning train were termed as sabotage by few men to induce polarization, to gain prominence. How shocking it was to see the politicians leaving no stone unturned to prove that the train carnage was accidental and not preplanned just for the sake of their insatiated urge for more votes. In just one action, they jolted the self respect of the Hindus. And it is not only Gujarat, the Kashmiri Hindus have also not got significant media coverage for reasons well known to the media. They and politicians awake on this issue only when assembly elections in Kashmir are about to happen. And in all honestly, why will they cover such stories? They shall not gain anything by inciting the Hindus for it has been historically proven that we don't really feel loss of self respect for anything and everything. We believe in the "sab chalta hain" ("everything goes") attitude. Why will the politicians talk about issues pertaining to Hindus? We do not form the chunk of their vote banks. And even if we do, we celebrate the voting day as a national holiday staying at homes.
We are not asking for favors. We also do not mind our dear PM to suddenly wake up and announce reservations for "dalit Muslims" as if dalit Muslims are not a subset of the larger dalit community. We have been seeing this for quite a long time and now we have become thick skinned. What we request is to feel for our sufferings in the same vein as others. We also have a sense of self respect and dignity and expect fair treatment meted out to us. It is high time that media acts responsibly and in an unbiased way. We have already lost hope in our politicians. Hence, media becomes all the more potent. I am not undermining the goods media has delivered. However, there is always some scope for improvement and this is definitely one grey area where the media needs to pull up its socks.
Hopefully, there will be an all out attempt on the part of the media to rehabilitate our Kashmiri Hindus just as they are doing for the Gujarati Muslims. At the end of the day, it is an Indian that will benefit and not a Hindu or a Muslim.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/saurabhsaksena/559/42312/the-curse-of-being-a-hindu-in-modern-india.html
Vande Mataram
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Curse of Being a Hindu in Modern India
Every individual has the right to self respect and dignity, especially from its fellow countrymen. Irrespective of the religion, caste, creed and all other secular lingo, we all should be treated fairly. However, somewhere down the line I feel in the present modern setup of India, self respect of the Hindus has been taken for a ride by media and politicians alike. We have been considered harmless and so nobody cares if there is any sort of infliction on us. For them, it is more important to concentrate on issues which aim at pleasing the minorities. And make no mistake, minorities not only include Muslims, but also Christians and other non-Hindu religions. I have nothing against my fellow "minority" countrymen, for in all fairness I have never even thought of them as "minorities". For me they are as Indian as I am. They definitely need a change in their socio-economic conditions and we all should support the cause. Infact, we have mutual respect for each other and if not for petty politics, there wouldn't be an iota of doubt on our camaraderie.
The recent coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did make me think that Hindus have been sidelined into oblivion. Agreed, there were lots of Muslim casualties and it is a despicable act of barbarism to kill innocent children, women, and others. Rightly so they have been given coverage to show the ghastardly side of the politicians. However, was there not even a single Hindu who lost his life in the riots? Leave that, even the media coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did not for once make an attempt to sympathize with the karsewaks who lost their lives. That was equally shameful on the part of the murderers and those karsewaks were innocent too. All these days, media termed the Godhra train carnage only as "the aftermath of Godhra" and in a split second the news turned to the innocent Muslims who were killed in the riots. Even a common Muslim felt the pain of the massacre of the karsewaks so why couldn't the media capture the trauma their families went through? Why couldn't the likes of Barkha Dutt who were capturing possibly each and every house of the Muslim victims for the primetime news did not for once go to the karsewak's family? Why were all the cameras turned to the Muslim rehabilitation camps and none to the Hindu camps? I have also felt the pain seeing media bits of the way riots shaped into a deadly massacre. Infact, majority of the common Hindus condemned the shameful act of genocide and attacked the Gujarat government for poor handling of the situation. We all felt the pain of our fellow Muslim brothers and I am definitely sure they had also felt the pain when the karsewaks were burnt alive and helpless.
Then why did the media not capture that part of the riots? And to top it all, how derogatory it felt when the deaths of the innocent Karsewaks in the burning train were termed as sabotage by few men to induce polarization, to gain prominence. How shocking it was to see the politicians leaving no stone unturned to prove that the train carnage was accidental and not preplanned just for the sake of their insatiated urge for more votes. In just one action, they jolted the self respect of the Hindus. And it is not only Gujarat, the Kashmiri Hindus have also not got significant media coverage for reasons well known to the media. They and politicians awake on this issue only when assembly elections in Kashmir are about to happen. And in all honestly, why will they cover such stories? They shall not gain anything by inciting the Hindus for it has been historically proven that we don't really feel loss of self respect for anything and everything. We believe in the "sab chalta hain" ("everything goes") attitude. Why will the politicians talk about issues pertaining to Hindus? We do not form the chunk of their vote banks. And even if we do, we celebrate the voting day as a national holiday staying at homes.
We are not asking for favors. We also do not mind our dear PM to suddenly wake up and announce reservations for "dalit Muslims" as if dalit Muslims are not a subset of the larger dalit community. We have been seeing this for quite a long time and now we have become thick skinned. What we request is to feel for our sufferings in the same vein as others. We also have a sense of self respect and dignity and expect fair treatment meted out to us. It is high time that media acts responsibly and in an unbiased way. We have already lost hope in our politicians. Hence, media becomes all the more potent. I am not undermining the goods media has delivered. However, there is always some scope for improvement and this is definitely one grey area where the media needs to pull up its socks.
Hopefully, there will be an all out attempt on the part of the media to rehabilitate our Kashmiri Hindus just as they are doing for the Gujarati Muslims. At the end of the day, it is an Indian that will benefit and not a Hindu or a Muslim.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/saurabhsaksena/559/42312/the-curse-of-being-a-hindu-in-modern-india.html
Vande Mataram
The recent coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did make me think that Hindus have been sidelined into oblivion. Agreed, there were lots of Muslim casualties and it is a despicable act of barbarism to kill innocent children, women, and others. Rightly so they have been given coverage to show the ghastardly side of the politicians. However, was there not even a single Hindu who lost his life in the riots? Leave that, even the media coverage of "Gujarat revisited" did not for once make an attempt to sympathize with the karsewaks who lost their lives. That was equally shameful on the part of the murderers and those karsewaks were innocent too. All these days, media termed the Godhra train carnage only as "the aftermath of Godhra" and in a split second the news turned to the innocent Muslims who were killed in the riots. Even a common Muslim felt the pain of the massacre of the karsewaks so why couldn't the media capture the trauma their families went through? Why couldn't the likes of Barkha Dutt who were capturing possibly each and every house of the Muslim victims for the primetime news did not for once go to the karsewak's family? Why were all the cameras turned to the Muslim rehabilitation camps and none to the Hindu camps? I have also felt the pain seeing media bits of the way riots shaped into a deadly massacre. Infact, majority of the common Hindus condemned the shameful act of genocide and attacked the Gujarat government for poor handling of the situation. We all felt the pain of our fellow Muslim brothers and I am definitely sure they had also felt the pain when the karsewaks were burnt alive and helpless.
Then why did the media not capture that part of the riots? And to top it all, how derogatory it felt when the deaths of the innocent Karsewaks in the burning train were termed as sabotage by few men to induce polarization, to gain prominence. How shocking it was to see the politicians leaving no stone unturned to prove that the train carnage was accidental and not preplanned just for the sake of their insatiated urge for more votes. In just one action, they jolted the self respect of the Hindus. And it is not only Gujarat, the Kashmiri Hindus have also not got significant media coverage for reasons well known to the media. They and politicians awake on this issue only when assembly elections in Kashmir are about to happen. And in all honestly, why will they cover such stories? They shall not gain anything by inciting the Hindus for it has been historically proven that we don't really feel loss of self respect for anything and everything. We believe in the "sab chalta hain" ("everything goes") attitude. Why will the politicians talk about issues pertaining to Hindus? We do not form the chunk of their vote banks. And even if we do, we celebrate the voting day as a national holiday staying at homes.
We are not asking for favors. We also do not mind our dear PM to suddenly wake up and announce reservations for "dalit Muslims" as if dalit Muslims are not a subset of the larger dalit community. We have been seeing this for quite a long time and now we have become thick skinned. What we request is to feel for our sufferings in the same vein as others. We also have a sense of self respect and dignity and expect fair treatment meted out to us. It is high time that media acts responsibly and in an unbiased way. We have already lost hope in our politicians. Hence, media becomes all the more potent. I am not undermining the goods media has delivered. However, there is always some scope for improvement and this is definitely one grey area where the media needs to pull up its socks.
Hopefully, there will be an all out attempt on the part of the media to rehabilitate our Kashmiri Hindus just as they are doing for the Gujarati Muslims. At the end of the day, it is an Indian that will benefit and not a Hindu or a Muslim.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/saurabhsaksena/559/42312/the-curse-of-being-a-hindu-in-modern-india.html
Vande Mataram
Monday, June 4, 2007
A V Rajwade: The Prime Minister`s right
I gave my first (and last) job interview in SBI more than 50 years back. During those days, the interview used to be with a committee of the bank’s directors. And one of them bowled a googly: “What would be your reaction if I say that our Prime Minister (Jawaharlal Nehru at that time) talks too much?” (Note the “if”). I somehow managed to deflect the ball, saying “Sir, if our Prime Minister does talk too much, it is his privilege.”
I was reminded of this incident in the context of the Prime Minister’s now famous speech at the CII conference and the, mostly critical, press comment it has elicited. While our present Prime Minister can hardly be accused of talking too much, it was certainly his privilege to say whatever he did at the conference, particularly when he had been invited to comment on the social responsibility of business. I would also not quarrel with his preaching the virtues of austerity and hard work: economic historians attribute the greater advancement of northern Europe as compared to southern Europe to protestant (Calvinist) virtues like thrift and education. In any case, he had the right credentials, being a man of impeccable integrity and humility (old timers in RBI have told me how he would stand in the queue to see the doctor in the RBI central office, even when he was governor).
But this apart, somebody like the Prime Minister does need to raise the issue of what the major stakeholders in the economy can do for the country, instead of merely asking what the government can do for them. (John Kennedy made the point in his inaugural address — think of what you can do for the United States, not merely what the United States can do for you.) How one hopes that the Prime Minister publicly raises similar issues with other stakeholders in the economy like the politicians in general and his cabinet colleagues in particular; the civil service and the middle class in general; and even the poor in this country. As for the politicians, for example, would he call upon all those who stand for elections and declare assets in crores of rupees, to at least have a PAN card? (Many crorepati candidates in the UP election did not have them.) Would he tell his Supreme Leader that education and employment reservations based on caste and religion would merely perpetuate the divisions in the society, and that it is more equitable to make these on the basis of economic criteria? That the present system has created a vested interest in having one’s own caste declared as backward or scheduled, sometimes leading to tragic loss of life as happened in Rajasthan last week? That fostering a culture of dependency on the state for everything is not the best way forward for the country? That every subsidy to other than BPL is at the cost of rural roads, water supplies and schools?
The civil service also needs to be told clearly that they are here to serve the citizens of this country and that they should not be producing shoddily drafted, less-than-clear laws, rules and regulations leading to endless delays, corruption and the harassment of citizens; that the secretary’s job is not merely to frame policy, but to also pay attention to how it can be implemented in the most citizen-friendly fashion; that even top civil servants need to give up their Brahminic indifference to mundane matters like form and system design, procedures, and so on. The endless and sometimes conflicting tax circulars regarding service tax, for instance, are only one example. The middle class in general also needs to be made aware that it has probably been the biggest beneficiary of fast growth in the economy over the last couple of decades, and is still the beneficiary of the maximum share of subsidies; and that these subsidies will have to be withdrawn as resources are needed elsewhere.
As for the broader constituency of the people of India, including the poor, it is the responsibility of those who believe in economic reforms, including the Prime Minister, to “market” them. Take the current issue of agricultural land for industry. The fact is that God stopped manufacturing land a long time back; industry can produce far more jobs on one acre of land than agriculture can; that unless there is a huge movement of workers from agriculture to industry and services, rural standards of living cannot improve. This does need to be emphasised, lest only those who see every change as a crime will gain populist support.
Tailpiece: When the home minister visited the recently bombed mosque in Hyderabad, he did so in a convoy of 24 cars. Is this any less ostentatious than a businessman riding in a Mercedes? Unfortunately, in our democracy, the politician’s worth depends on the number of armed guards, hangers on, and assorted officials in vehicles following him.
I was reminded of this incident in the context of the Prime Minister’s now famous speech at the CII conference and the, mostly critical, press comment it has elicited. While our present Prime Minister can hardly be accused of talking too much, it was certainly his privilege to say whatever he did at the conference, particularly when he had been invited to comment on the social responsibility of business. I would also not quarrel with his preaching the virtues of austerity and hard work: economic historians attribute the greater advancement of northern Europe as compared to southern Europe to protestant (Calvinist) virtues like thrift and education. In any case, he had the right credentials, being a man of impeccable integrity and humility (old timers in RBI have told me how he would stand in the queue to see the doctor in the RBI central office, even when he was governor).
But this apart, somebody like the Prime Minister does need to raise the issue of what the major stakeholders in the economy can do for the country, instead of merely asking what the government can do for them. (John Kennedy made the point in his inaugural address — think of what you can do for the United States, not merely what the United States can do for you.) How one hopes that the Prime Minister publicly raises similar issues with other stakeholders in the economy like the politicians in general and his cabinet colleagues in particular; the civil service and the middle class in general; and even the poor in this country. As for the politicians, for example, would he call upon all those who stand for elections and declare assets in crores of rupees, to at least have a PAN card? (Many crorepati candidates in the UP election did not have them.) Would he tell his Supreme Leader that education and employment reservations based on caste and religion would merely perpetuate the divisions in the society, and that it is more equitable to make these on the basis of economic criteria? That the present system has created a vested interest in having one’s own caste declared as backward or scheduled, sometimes leading to tragic loss of life as happened in Rajasthan last week? That fostering a culture of dependency on the state for everything is not the best way forward for the country? That every subsidy to other than BPL is at the cost of rural roads, water supplies and schools?
The civil service also needs to be told clearly that they are here to serve the citizens of this country and that they should not be producing shoddily drafted, less-than-clear laws, rules and regulations leading to endless delays, corruption and the harassment of citizens; that the secretary’s job is not merely to frame policy, but to also pay attention to how it can be implemented in the most citizen-friendly fashion; that even top civil servants need to give up their Brahminic indifference to mundane matters like form and system design, procedures, and so on. The endless and sometimes conflicting tax circulars regarding service tax, for instance, are only one example. The middle class in general also needs to be made aware that it has probably been the biggest beneficiary of fast growth in the economy over the last couple of decades, and is still the beneficiary of the maximum share of subsidies; and that these subsidies will have to be withdrawn as resources are needed elsewhere.
As for the broader constituency of the people of India, including the poor, it is the responsibility of those who believe in economic reforms, including the Prime Minister, to “market” them. Take the current issue of agricultural land for industry. The fact is that God stopped manufacturing land a long time back; industry can produce far more jobs on one acre of land than agriculture can; that unless there is a huge movement of workers from agriculture to industry and services, rural standards of living cannot improve. This does need to be emphasised, lest only those who see every change as a crime will gain populist support.
Tailpiece: When the home minister visited the recently bombed mosque in Hyderabad, he did so in a convoy of 24 cars. Is this any less ostentatious than a businessman riding in a Mercedes? Unfortunately, in our democracy, the politician’s worth depends on the number of armed guards, hangers on, and assorted officials in vehicles following him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)