Social Media Café: The 'Rise Up' Campaign Song - CBN.com - YouTube

Social Media Café: The 'Rise Up' Campaign Song - CBN.com - YouTube:

'via Blog this'

NIT-Allahabad student bags Rs 1.34-cr Facebook offer

NIT-Allahabad student bags Rs 1.34-cr Facebook offer:

'via Blog this'

Sanjeev Bhatt questions Nanavati Commission on Modi - India News - IBNLive

Sanjeev Bhatt questions Nanavati Commission on Modi - India News - IBNLive:

Ahmedabad: Suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt on Friday criticised the Nanavati Commission saying that in its interim report it exonerated Chief Minister Narendra Modi by way of a "clear overreach" of its mandate.

In his submission before the Commission, Bhatt said, "It has come to my knowledge that the Commission, during the submission of its interim report, had by way of a clear overreach of the mandate, as provided under the original terms of reference, went on to exonerate the Chief Minister."

"Further, even while disposing of the application on September 18, 2009 of Jan Sangharsh Manch, the Commission has stated that the Commission was of the opinion that there was no material to summon the Chief Minister," he said.

"It is respectfully stated that this opinion of the Commission, way back in 2009, on an application submitted in the year 2007, was not only unwarranted but patently premature and in disregard of the material already having come on record of the Commission," he further said.

Bhatt then went on to repeat his demand that Modi should be called for the questioning by the Commission "for his role in the 2002 riots".

(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter,Google+ and Pinterest)

'via Blog this'

India: Time To Focus On Electoral Reforms By Pradeep Baisakh

India: Time To Focus On Electoral Reforms By Pradeep Baisakh:

'via Blog this'

An Aarti From Time, A Brookings Chalisa- a Response to Times Cover on Narendra Modi « kracktivist

An Aarti From Time, A Brookings Chalisa- a Response to Times Cover on Narendra Modi « kracktivist:

1 Vote

Are they drowned in Modi’s magnetism? Is this worship exigency?

ANIL DHARKER , CYRUS GUZDER , NANDAN MALUSTE , TEESTA SETALVAD

Narendra Modi is no doubt a successful politician. There is almost a special kind of luck that accompanies him in the public domain, luck that can be explained in two decisive electoral victories and the attraction that follows such success. He is constantly in the news and a set of those who fear and adulate the man suggest that the more the institutions of justice berate him, the more his TRP soars. News constantly props up the picture of a decisive chief minister. Last week, Time had him on the cover and Brookings Institution had a favourable report on him. There is a curious timing behind these reports. They hint that he is prime ministerial material and that a realistic sense of politics demands that one engage with the emerging Indian future.

One can match statistics with statistics to show that Modi’s achievement is exaggerated, that other states have done well or that GNP and GDP could take contrary turns inGujarat. One can say, for instance, that in the five years between 2004-05 and 2009-10, Gujarat’s per capita income nearly doubled from Rs 32,021 to Rs 63,961. In the same period, neighbouring Maharashtra, the perceived laggard, saw its per capita income grow from Rs 35,915 to Rs 74,027. Several states besides Gujarat have shown double digit growth in their GDP in recent years, and Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh have bigger economies. Gujarat now runs a revenue deficit—it spends more than it earns—and its surplus has disappeared. Several other states have improved their fiscal positions meanwhile. Reforms? Five states passed the Fiscal Responsibility Bill before Gujarat did in 2005, and 20 states preceded Gujarat in implementing VAT. Surplus power? Facts on the ground and increasing protests show this to be an exaggerated claim. Human development indicators? Gujarat lags behind in access to primary and higher education, is high on the percentage of population prone to hunger and starvation, access to fiscal credit among the marginalised is low, girl child schooling shows poor figures. State and central government figures support all this.

We think there is also a different way of responding—by asking what is the criteria for decency and well-being? One has to go to the structural roots of the argument, move beyond a gasping portrait of Modi already basking in a future at Lutyens’ Delhi. Time magazine’s two-page picture of Modi on the lawns is suggestive of that. It is as if the props are there, the script is also there, the players are waiting, and all one needs is an auspicious time. The Brookings essay on Modi goes one better and writes him a certificate of good conduct that would help revoke the ban on his US visa. For Brookings, banning a future prime minister would be bad politics.

Why the unholy haste by the brookings institution and time to glamourise a glamour-hungry modi who could well face charges of mass murder?

Time cites a social scientist in a preemptive act, a jumping of the gun proclaiming a once and future king before the democratic and legal process is over. Indian courts are yet to assess whether the evidence collected by investigators and assessed by the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court can make out a case to prosecute Modi, his cabinet colleagues, ideologues, administrators and policemen. The charges are criminal culpability to conspire to commit mass murder, subvert the justice process and destroy critical evidence and records. Why then, we may ask, the unholy haste by Time magazine and the Brookings Institution when courts are seized of the matter, Modi could (or may not) be charge-sheeted for criminal offences, when general elections are nearly two years away?

The analysis presented states that Muslims are voting for Modi as the Congress is too weak to do anything for them. The question one has to ask is: Is such a lazy social science enough? Which section of Muslims is voting for Modi? Two, is a vote for Modi a legitimation of Modi or is it a shotgun wedding of a community that is desperate to survive and see that its people still wrongfully locked in jail are released?

Anyone who watched the Sadbhavna festival would realise that the Muslims who came were paying court to a king. There was no rapprochement, no forgiveness. If anything, the ritual expressed its distance from Muslim life. The Sadbhavna yatra was more a power game like ancient times where people swore fealty to the lord. The state government, in the ultimate display of control, has refused activists access to accounts of the public monies spent on an autocratic chief minister’s personal agenda.

One has to read the metaphors of the Time report. Modi is presented as wearing the white of a penitent embarking on fasts. The writer, Jyoti Thottam, suggests it’s an act of purification,
humility and bridge-building. To read Modi’s Sadbhavna fasts in this way insults the idea of fast as a moral weapon and confuses it for a strategic tool. White, anyway, is the most hypocritical colour of politicians. The question one has to ask before one uses words like humility and purity is: What is the moral nature of the act?

But Modi should not be seen only a personality. He is a Rorschach inkblot set before society, provoking basic questions. Modi, in terms of civic indicators like investment, rule of law and governance is scoring high. These statistics have been rigorously contested in the public domain, by the Gujarati media, by the opposition, even the state government’s own figures. And what about the CAG reports on Sufalam Sujalam project, the Kutch melas and the public disinvestment scams? A dispassionate assessment exposes the Modi makeover for the brazen public relations job it was meant to be.

The question that needs asking is whether modi fits into a vision of a society where the minorities have a place, where dissent has a place.

And then how does one look at and talk about his institution-building? He has refused to allow the Lokayukta to function freely. He has silenced the bureaucracy with threats, incentives of plum posts, juicy extensions that let senior bureaucrats retain power and visibility. His privatisation of medicine has to be independently assessed in terms of ethics, care, cost and well-being. Ahmedabad, home to at least four universities and some of the finest institutes, still cannot produce a critical debate on him, as many institutes have quietly imposed a gag order on dissenting intellectuals. The Congress, though weak as an opposition, has highlighted a major issue. Land is being bequeathed to major corporations like Tatas and Adanis on easy terms, transforming public lands into private goods. At the Gujarati taxpayer’s expense.

The Brookings narrative adds a second halo to Modi. It converts him tacitly from a politician to a statesman receiving courses on climate change and even writing a book on it. Behind both essays is an even more tacit semiotics. It is what we must call the Americanisation of Modi. It creates a political palatability to his reception abroad. Leave aside the American’s love of the Asian dictator with a keen and ready investment plan, there is first the Horatio Alger syndrome, portraying him as a self-made man, as a protestant ascetic, a journey Time portrays in the from-smalltown-boy-to-CEO-of-Gujarat, succeeding without family connections or fancy education. He seems very different from the young Congress elite, with their pampered backgrounds. Unlike other Indians, he keeps his family at a distance. There is no family coterie hanging around him, unlike around Laloo Prasad Yadav or Karunanidhi or Yediyurappa. The Brookings report then steps in by showing Modi to be a keen student of American politics, wondering whether Indian states can have the sort of freedom states in the United States do. He is entrepreneurly, eco-friendly, and all in all, a global man awaiting his time, open to World Bank reforms and yet a home-grown nationalist. Modi is also presented not just as prime ministerial material but as the Indian answer to China, a note that will play deep into the American and Indian psyche, presenting them a streamlined politician for the future.

The question one is asking is not whether Modi is a future prime minister. The logic of Indian electoral politics will answer that. The question is: Where does Modi fit into a vision of decent society in which the minorities and those in the margins have a place, in which dissent has a place? Is Modi’s future a participative future and a pluralistic one? His technocratic credentials are not in doubt, but his vision of democracy needs to be examined. Oddly, Modi might fail by the norms set by his own hero, Swami Vivekananda. Modi has failed to provide a civilisational answer to the crisis of Gujarat. Investment and development, even with the distorted statistics bandied around, are poor substitutes for such a vision. In Americanising him, the reports reveal the modernist flaw deep within his programme.

---

(The authors are trustees of Citizens for Justice and Peace) in the Outlook,Magazine

'via Blog this'

The bomb theory - Babri Masjid demolition

The bomb theory:

COVER STORY

The bomb theory 

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN

RASHTRIYA Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan's "explosive" theory that the Babri Masjid was demolished by the use of a bomb (thereby implying that it was not the handiwork of frenzied kar sevaks of the Hindutva combine) appeared to pro vide a new twist to the latest chapter of the Ayodhya controversy. However, it fell flat within a week of its enunciation. Sudarshan had no supporting evidence or supporters. Even his die-hard supporters like former Bajrang Dal chief and Lok Sabha member from Faizabad Vinay Katiyar rejected the theory.

The destruction of the Babri Masjid in progress on December 6, 1992.

Why did the RSS chief come out with the surmise? As D.B. Rai, who was the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Ayodhya during the demolition and is one of the accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case, told Frontline that Sudar shan's statement could be seen only as a "concoction to save some senior Bharatiya Janata Party leaders charge-sheeted by the CBI". According to Rai, the fact that the new story was put out eight years after the demolition showed that it was an afterthou ght. "It also points to its political content," he added.

Rai's comments must be seen as a voice from within the Sangh Parivar because Rai had resigned from Indian Police Service (IPS) after the demolition to join the BJP. He contested the Lok Sabha elections and won from Sultanpur. Rai is categorical that ther e was no bomb blast on December 6, 1992. Only firecrackers were burst by the kar sevaks after the demolition, he told Frontline.

Many other Sangh Parivar insiders agree with Rai's point of view. They say that the "senior BJP leader" whom Sudarshan wants to save is Home Minister L.K. Advani, though Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and Sports Minister Uma Bhar ti are also involved in the case. It is no secret within the Sangh Parivar that among the top BJP leaders, Sudarshan is most favourably disposed towards Advani. The RSS chief is a strong critic of the style of functioning of Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee and his close associates.

In fact, developments within the Parivar since the Chinthan Baithak (introspection meet) of December 1998 have revealed Sudarshan's penchant to run down Vajpayee's leadership. As an alternative leader for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), S udarshan has Advani in mind. An indictment of Advani in the CBI case could block Sudarshan's plans.

Both Sudarshan and Advani apparently hold the view that Vajpayee has not been helpful in easing the burden of the case on the Home Minister. In this background, Sudarshan's statement has to be seen as a manifestation of the internal struggle within the S angh Parivar, particularly within its political arm, the BJP.

It was on December 8 that Sudarshan first made the claim that the Babri Masjid was destroyed by an explosion triggered from inside it. "Today I want to share a secret with you. The truth has started trickling in and the truth will come out fully very soo n," he told RSS workers at the meeting in Thiruvananthapuram. He added that the "kitchen cabinet" of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was aware of this explosion.

He repeated the story three days later at Bilaspur in Madhya Pradesh, with the additional input that the blast took place under the "guidance" of Narasimha Rao's "kitchen cabinet". He claimed that his statement was based on a fax message sent to Narasimh a Rao by a former member of his Cabinet from Maharashtra. According to Sudarshan, members of the "kitchen cabinet" were present at Ayodhya on that day.

The RSS chief averred that he knew the members of the "kitchen cabinet" and that he would reveal their identity at an appropriate time. He said that the Gandhian Nirmala Deshpande was also aware of the "bomb story". Sudarshan's argument was that the expl osion had "become essential" since repeated attacks by kar sevaks had only resulted in the peeling of the plaster of the structure. But the theory collapsed within 48 hours. At Bilaspur he was asked if he possessed a copy of the fax. Sudarshan responded that it now appears to have been misplaced.

Subsequently, there were unwitting revelations by Sudarshan's predecessor Rajendra Singh alias Rajju Bhaiya in the December 17, 2000 issue of the RSS organ Panchjanya. Rajju Bhaiya said in an interview that "the dhancha (structure) was dest royed by kar sevaks who could not be controlled." "None of us wanted the structure to be demolished like this. Advaniji and Seshadriji tried repeatedly that the kar sevaks should not destroy the structure. They told the kar sevaks not to do it. Sudarshan ji tried hard, but the kar sevaks were adamant," he was quoted as saying.

Rajju Bhaiya also claimed that Narasimha Rao, Sharad Pawar and Rangarajan Kumaramangalam were fully aware of the situation in Ayodhya. The crowd there was determined to do kar seva. He himself spoke to Narasimha Rao and Sharad Pawar about it several time s, he said. He added that he had asked Narasimha Rao to petition the Supreme Court to direct the Allahabad High Court to take a decision on the disputed site before December 6. Narasimha Rao refused to intervene and, according to the former RSS chief, th ese delaying tactics incensed the kar sevaks.

Soon after, Nirmala Deshpande, who is co-chairperson of the Gandhi Samadhi at Rajghat, in a media interview, also came out with statements that demolished Sudarshan's case. "I never said a bomb explosion caused the destruction of the Babri mosque," she s aid, adding that she was not an expert who could detect the use of explosives.

Deshpande, whose interview seven years ago had created a controversy on whether explosives were used in the demolition, denied she had given a clean chit to the three Union Ministers. "They were asking kar sevaks to come down from the domes not to preven t the mosque from being demolished but to avoid their getting killed under the debris of the domes," she said.

Perhaps the unkindest cut came from Vinay Katiyar, an active participant in the Ayodhya agitation. He described Sudarshan's theory as an "insult to the kar sevaks who laid down their lives for the Ram temple in Ayodhya". The explosion, he said, was that of people's sentiments and not a chemical explosion.

ANU PUSHKARNA
RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan.

Nirmala Deshpande, however, seemed to exonerate the three Ministers. According to her, the demolition was completed by hired professionals and not by devoted kar sevaks. But Vinay Katiyar stressed that no expert was hired for the job. "The walls of the 6 00-year-old structure were already collapsing under the impact of the iron pipes - taken out from the barricades - used by the kar sevaks. It was then easy for the kar sevaks to pull down the sturdy domes with the help of ropes snatched from the security forces. This explains the leaning of the domes before they collapsed," he said.

Katiyar claimed that the two lakh kar sevaks ignored the appeals made by BJP and VHP leaders. "The fact that some of them even pulled at VHP general secretary Ashok Singhal's dhoti for attempting to prevent them from mounting the domes indicated their an guish and fury," he said. According to Vinay Katiyar, the kar sevaks were not content with the symbolic kar seva they were asked to offer and their pent-up anger resulted in the temple movement getting out of the leaders' hands.

The fallout of Sudarshan's statement was that the Justice M.S. Liberhan Commission, inquiring into the Babri Masjid demolition, asked him to appear before it on December 20.

'via Blog this'

In secular Britain, a clash over public prayer - The Washington Post

In secular Britain, a clash over public prayer - The Washington Post:

In secular Britain, a clash over public prayer

Anthony Faiola/The Washington Post - The Rev.Alan Glover, curate of St. Mary's Anglican Church in Bideford, is furious over the move in increasingly secular Britain to ban prayer at official public meetings in Bideford, and potentially across England and Wales.

•   Text Size
• Print
• E-mail
• Reprints

By Anthony Faiola, Published: March 8 | Updated: Friday, March 9, 12:46 AM

Bideford, England — Perhaps the locals should have anticipated sparks on a town council stocked not only with a practicing pagan, a staunch atheist and an agnostic former stripper but also two evangelical Christians and a Methodist church organist. But few could have predicted that one small town’s fight over the abolition of Christian prayers at public meetings would escalate into Britain’s own culture wars.

Even as the Republican primaries highlight America’s divide over the separation of church and state, Britain finds itself locked in a debate over religion that is entangling not just the British government but even Queen Elizabeth II. The move to ban public prayers in tiny Bideford — and potentially across all of England and Wales — has erupted into a national proxy fight over the question of whether Christianity should still hold a privileged place in a modern, diverse and now highly secular society.

418

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Personal Post

Gallery

What in the world?: We will post a photo every day from a random country around the world. You tell us where it is from.

The match that lit the fires was struck in this quaint town, site of the last witch trials in Britain. Local lawmaker Clive Bone, an atheist, was backed by four of his peers in challenging the long-standing tradition of opening public meetings with blessings by Christian clergy. After losing two council votes on the prayer ban, Bone took the town to court — winning a ruling last month that appeared to set a legal precedent by saying government had no authority to compel citizens to hear prayer.

The Conservative-led British government has quickly attempted to counteract the ban and defend the official status of Christianity — more specifically, the Church of England. At a time when half of Britons claim no religious affiliation, however, the Conservatives are also going one step further — blaming a loss of “traditional values” for such social ills as binge drinking and last year’s riots in London.

In a nation where the Labor Party spin-doctor Alastair Campbell once said, “We don’t do God,” the Conservatives in power have unleashed a number of moves seen by opponents as an attempt to claw back lost ground for Christian traditions — including a vow by the national education minister to send a King James Bible to every school in England.

Even normally behind-the-scenes Queen Elizabeth is dusting off the monarch’s historic role as “defender of the faith” and supreme governor of the Church of England, suggesting in recent weeks that by targeting public prayer, secular society has gone too far.

“The concept of our established church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly underappreciated,” the queen, deploying her trademark power of understatement, said in what was widely viewed as a thinly veiled reference to the prayer debate.

The parameters of discussion in Britain remain sharply different from those in the United States. Though a small fringe here still argues against legal abortion and publicly funded contraception, such issues were considered settled even by many Conservatives long ago. And Prime Minister David Cameron, though not without pushback from his far right, has gone further than President Obama by openly backing same-sex marriage, arguing that equal rights are a fundamental facet of Christian values.

But Christians here maintain that their traditions are under assault, citing, for example, allegations that liberal city officials have discriminated against devout Christian parents in adoption cases. They see the potential ban on public prayer as the last straw.

For now, however, in this historically significant hamlet in the rich green countryside of southwest England, public prayers are on hold for the first time since officially starting during the Nazis’ Blitz of England in 1941. Instead, the mayor is holding private prayer sessions in his office before public meetings — a step that cities and towns across the nation may soon need to follow.

Personal Post

Gallery

What in the world?: We will post a photo every day from a random country around the world. You tell us where it is from.

“I can understand there are local governments in places like London that don’t want prayer because they don’t have religion there anymore,” said Bideford Mayor Trevor Johns, a retired farmer and devout Methodist. “But we’re out here in the West Country, where we still have God, and where we believe that church and state are intertwined.”

Bone, a transplanted Londoner and retired management consultant who has given up his seat on the council, said: “This isn’t about freedom of religion. I will defend their right to pray in their churches to my dying breath. Just don’t make us listen to it anymore. It is a backwards tradition that alienates people in this country.”

Cameron steps in

Even before the ruling came out, Cameron, a moderate Conservative by British standards, was wading into the explosive issue of religion. In a landmark speech in December, the prime minister conceded that he was entering “the lion’s den” in a diverse and secular nation by declaring, “We are a Christian country, and we should not be afraid to say so.”

The national government backed up that pronouncement only days after the Feb. 10 ruling against public prayer. Cameron’s local communities minister, Eric Pickles — who has strongly argued that a multicultural Britain must bring “the Christian faith and English language” back to the national forefront — took extraordinary action to override the court. He unilaterally tucked a new clause into a piece of legislation explicitly giving local councils the right to hold prayer. The step sparked immediate allegations of government bias and judicial interference, with the issue likely to be clarified in the English courts.

The government’s move came amid what supporters of a secular Britain describe as a rare campaign by the government to give new footing to the eroding Christian tradition here. Education Minister Michael Gove, for instance, has also moved to make it easier for religious groups to receive state funding to set up schools.

“It is extraordinary to me to see a modern British government promoting religion,” said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society. “It’s an indication that the Conservatives are flying a kite to see whether the tactics of the American Republicans might fly here. I have a strong suspicion they won’t. Britain is not America, and in trying to establish a religious right, Cameron will find himself shot in the foot.”

A locked door in Bideford

In Bideford, where the first Native American to be baptized on British soil is still buried under St. Mary’s Anglican Church, the uproar over town prayer began because of a locked door at the town hall.

On a national holiday in late 2007, Bone and four other council members who objected to public prayer were forced to wait outside the shuttered doors while other council members and a town clerk with the keys were attending an official prayer service down the street. Bone and the others began talking among themselves, with Bone winning their support for putting forward a motion banning public prayer. The motion was presented twice and failed both times. Only two of the five local lawmakers who favored the ban are still on the town council.

Bone then sought legal backing from the National Secular Society to take the case to court. The Christian Institute in London quickly approached the town council, which embraced its offer to cover the legal costs of defending public prayer, setting up Bideford as a national test case. Much of the town — and Britain — appeared taken by surprise when the court ruled in Bone’s favor.

On the narrow, hilly streets here, local gossip is rife with chatter about Bideford’s rise to national headlines. But many residents insist that the matter is contentious largely among politicians, with few others expressing strong views one way or another.

One person with a decided opinion, though, is the Rev. Alan Glover, 64, the curate at St. Mary’s — a stately church that holds 1,000 but where less than 180 regularly attend Sunday services.

“What a load of rubbish this all is,” Glover said. “I’d never imagined that anyone could be offended by a kind prayer. If you don’t like it, side with tolerance and don’t listen.”

'via Blog this'