Except that the claim is false: British did not take India from the Mughals or other Muslims.brihaspati wrote:This is the claim put forward by Paki intellectuals and their sympathisers in the west - that all this violence comes from the trauma of losing power over India to the British, and that the British should have restored power to Muslims when they left
Why are we not assuming that this is what GOI has decided to covertly think of - that all Indians think covert ops are on - so wait and see - and the GOI waits and sees how far this "covert op" on the Indian public succeeds....hmmmmWhy are we not assuming that maybe India has decided that there is no pint in overt hostilities and instead decided to concentrate on covert ops onlee? They may be drawing up some plans even as i type...
It is 100 times easier to provide pin pricks today than it was in the late 80s with the JIT-X, since half of Pak is anyways burning without even any kindling.
If we have indeed gone the covert path, results will take some time and wont be immediate though it will ensure that the Paki establishment starts trembling when complete plans are implemented.
Of course, all this might just be a jingo's wet dream!!!!
True, just as the Muslims were never in complete power over non-muslims in all parts of India, the major portions of territory won by the British were from non-Muslims - in fact with the exception of Tipu - Muslims abandoned serious fight almost everywhere (except a few individuals in Bengal Nawabi and the Afghans). I was not however supporting Paki intellectual claims - merely stating the preposterous logic.surinder
brihaspati wrote:
This is the claim put forward by Paki intellectuals and their sympathisers in the west - that all this violence comes from the trauma of losing power over India to the British, and that the British should have restored power to Muslims when they left
Except that the claim is false: British did not take India from the Mughals or other Muslims.
After reading a brief on the new agency, it was just a chairman with 5 members, and each state will appoint some police official to coordinate with them. I don't have link right now.ramana wrote:Not true. PC the new MHA has met LKA the leader of the opposition to formulate the terms of the ordinance that will establish the FSIA- Federal Security and Investigative Agency. A few things to consider are who to lead it and the personnel and budget and the scope of operations to ensure it doesnt trample the consitituional provisions of the concurrent list. I think the message & need is understood.
Depends all on how independent it really can become from whatever regime exists at the centre. If it acts like the ATS, it can come under the pressures of political necessities of the regime in power. I think everyone understands that there is now a fundamental distrust of political elite, and just because an institution is being set up will not dispel this basic lack of confidence in the motivations of the current leafership and political apparatus in state power. I am not sure about the truth of the WB gov's decision to raise a state security force to tackle "terrorism" - which given my understanding of the nature of Communist politics can simply mean a private army of the party maintained at public expense to deal with problems for the regime not tackled by politics alone. I would not expect much difference in essence in the case of the central regime either - it will be handicapped by the basic fallacies of making individuals responsible and not look at the fundamental ideological and other factors that will continue to regenerate terror - a severe handicap in fighting terror.Not true. PC the new MHA has met LKA the leader of the opposition to formulate the terms of the ordinance that will establish the FSIA- Federal Security and Investigative Agency. A few things to consider are who to lead it and the personnel and budget and the scope of operations to ensure it doesnt trample the consitituional provisions of the concurrent list. I think the message & need is understood.
You both have missed the point, so I won't belabor the point.brihaspati wrote:
The US, and where it hurts, is too far away. It can also invite severe retaliation and Pak doesn't want to be eliminated altogether - the Muslim society has to be preserved at all costs so that it can multiply and come back to complete Jihad on a future date. It will only hit India, if at all.
No, the ground will be uninhabitable and unusable - no Christians will come in from outside. Yes they can try and convert the remainder, but it will take centuries to recover - not really profitable for the West.
BR does not hold an opinion.Well isn't that too strong a opinion for BR - my impression has been that there is a lack of enthusiasm in identifying the driving motivations in Pak and Jihadis from their root ideology, for it implies that in order to have lasting solutions you have to deal with a programme for complete erasure of that ideology as a practised one.
A few observations:I would suggest a slight alteration of the language - India was never completely under Islam, large pockets of populations remained outside Islam and even politically independent. This is the claim put forward by Paki intellectuals and their sympathisers in the west - that all this violence comes from the trauma of losing power over India to the British, and that the British should have restored power to Muslims when they left - and the claim that only Islam can unite the subcontinent.
I did not understand this. Perhaps you can rephrase it?We consistently refuse to realize this fundamental mistake of seperating Jihad from Islam, and continue to make people responsible rather than the ideology.
VickersB wrote:"The Mumbai attack is NOT a Pakistani attack on India. It IS - for sure - a Islamic act with the absolute goal to take back the subcontinent for Islam."
Pakistan is ALREADY an Islamic Republic - remember Pakistan = Islam and Islam = Pakistan - I really don't see a difference
When u have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow
I don't think GOI has given valid reason. They want to ban it so that people can forget about it and vote for Rajmata.No re-runs of Mumbai terror attack, govt tells TV channels
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20081205/main3.htm
...
Explaining the kind of coverage sought by the ministry, the advisory stated: “News coverage pertaining to the event should project that India is not demoralised and has risen despite all terrorist attacks as normalcy has been restored.
...
RajeshA wrote:The Indian Response would come in a couple of months, if at all. I presume, that the Cold Start doctrine is a doctrine on paper only and that it takes some time, before the defense machinery is fully operational. Until that time, there would be other steps in the sphere of diplomacy and terror investigations taking place.
The element of surprise comes from the extraordinary delay.Prem wrote:RajeshA wrote:The Indian Response would come in a couple of months, if at all. I presume, that the Cold Start doctrine is a doctrine on paper only and that it takes some time, before the defense machinery is fully operational. Until that time, there would be other steps in the sphere of diplomacy and terror investigations taking place.
Cold start needs element of surprise to be successful.
There is a school of thought apparent in even non-left politicians that it is a misinterpretation of Islam that causes Jihadi terror - the majority of Muslims are "peaceful" and do not have the potential to become Jihadis when opportunities arise - because it is simply not a part of the core belief system of Islam - just a "misinterpretation". Therefore when Jihad happens, it is simply aberration on individual parts - thats somehow the general logic. This works out well for all concerned - the non-Muslim politicians using Muslim support, the Muslim theologians in expanding influence and inch closer to the ultimate objective, - except the victims themselves. I prefer to treat Jihadis as merely the face of the ideology itself which preaches Jihad - for as their texts clearly declare that after the conquest of Mecca, thenceforth Muslim movements are for Jihad and not for Hijra-mere migration, and that this Jihad is violent aimed at subjugation of non-Muslims. If Muslims can claim their right to ask for "submission" of non-Muslims to Islam openly, (no Muslim prevents such claims ) what is wrong in discussing "erasure" of a threat by removing its ideological basis and source of continuity in practice (although I am sure many non-Muslims will come forward to silence such discussions) - since Islam itself does not figure in any of our long or short term strategic considerations and is a grave blunder in understanding the nature and persistence of terror.Quote:
We consistently refuse to realize this fundamental mistake of seperating Jihad from Islam, and continue to make people responsible rather than the ideology.
I did not understand this. Perhaps you can rephrase it?
This is part of the indoctrination on the Indian population using media.You have to ask the questions. What is the end game. It lulls the elite and literate population into smugness.harbans wrote:I have always noted the most stupid "superpower", "global power" headlines, India incredible, India shining stuff is put up in TOI(let) and HT type HFL magazines and newspapers. There's something seriously wrong in the psyche of the Vir Sanghvi's, KPNs..i also have a feeling that some IM organizations and Azamgarh types were shocked at the Mumbai incident and displayed solidarity quite for the same reasons Gaddaffi caved in post 911 seeing the US reaction.
This Govt is making one blunder after the other. Totally inept and confused. No vision. This is their own making. Those who ignore to see the truth and brush it aside for some cliche 'Terror has no religion' and are desperate to do an equal equal..today are faced with this embarassing dilemna. One thing interesting is, that it is becoming tougher to rule. Accountability is being demanded. How far this brings about welcome change is still an unknown factor.
The visionary in INC was Rahul G whom I consider to be genuine leader, while Mumbai action was going on he was busy doing party work. That is true Sonia ( meaning of Sonia is WISDOM) contribution. The future is bright, buy some Karunanidhi style Shades ( aka Cooling Glasses).
Indian media under fire for Mumbai attacks coverage
Fri Dec 5, 2008 7:30pm IST
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... dChannel=0
By Rina Chandran
MUMBAI (Reuters) - Round-the-clock news coverage of the Mumbai attacks has made Indians nervous but analysts said on Friday it was also stoking anti-Pakistan public opinion and risks shaping policy before elections due by May.
Psychiatrists in India's financial hub are reporting increased cases of panic attacks and insomnia after last week's attacks, telecast live into millions of homes, by Islamist militants who killed 171 people.
"There was no sense of balance or reasoning. The coverage was so jingoistic and nationalistic, they've pushed public opinion on Pakistan to a point of no return," said Atul Phadnis, chief executive of consultancy Media e2e.
In the days since the attacks, the Indian flag is often used by broadcasters as a visual backdrop, with viewers' text messages expressing anger at politicians or Pakistan ticking across the bottom of screens.
Pakistan has condemned the attacks and denied any state involvement, as well as vowing to help the Indian probe.
A big protest in Mumbai on Wednesday, organised by text messages and on Internet social network Facebook and radio, was proof of growing media influence on opinion, said B. Manjula, chair of the Centre for Media and Cultural Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
"Everyone is being led to believe that by lighting a candle or carrying a poster they've done their part as a dutiful citizen without questioning whose opinion they are pandering to ... their actions only make for great visuals for TV," she said.
There are more than 60 English and regional-language news channels fighting for the attention of 80 million Indian homes.
Most were launched in the last three years when a booming economy helped drive advertising revenues. But the fierce competition has also meant that less experienced journalists have been thrust into the field, Manjula said.
"This is a complex issue with various dimensions to it. Simply reducing it to 'politicians are villains' and 'Pakistan is the enemy' without discourse or debate is a deep failing of the media, but it does influence public opinion," said Manjula.
Across the border, the Pakistani media decried what it saw as the undue haste with which India blamed Pakistan for the assault, but is not urging the government to take a particular line.
The liberal Daily Times newspaper said in an editorial on Friday the distrust and hostility engendered by "black-and-white" media opinion on both sides would block proper communication.
The News, Pakistan's biggest English-language newspaper, said in an editorial on Thursday an outbreak of jingoism in Indian media was being matched by only a slightly less severe one in Pakistan.
"We need the media to tread a cautious line, support our government in its efforts to take the heat out of the situation and not to inflame our already tinder-box population," it said.
(Additional reporting by Robert Birsel in ISLAMABAD)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1227832 ... .343233:b0
* NOVEMBER 28, 2008, 10:04 A.M. ET
India's Antiterror Blunders
Years of appeasing militants has made the problem worse.
By SADANAND DHUME
New Delhi
As the story of the carnage in Mumbai unfolds, it is tempting to dismiss it as merely another sorry episode in India's flailing effort to combat terrorism. Over the past four years, Islamist groups have struck in New Delhi, Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, among other places. The death toll from terrorism -- not counting at least 119 killed in Mumbai on Wednesday and Thursday -- stands at over 4,000, which gives India the dubious distinction of suffering more casualties since 2004 than any country except Iraq.
The attacks highlight India's particular vulnerability to terrorist violence. But they are also a warning to any country that values what Mumbai symbolizes for Indians: pluralism, enterprise and an open society. Put simply, India's failure to protect its premier city offers a textbook example for fellow democracies on how not to deal with militant Islam.
The litany of errors is long. Unlike their counterparts in the West, or in East Asia, India's perpetually squabbling leaders have failed to put national security above partisan politics. The country's antiterrorism effort is reactive and episodic rather than proactive and sustained. Its public discourse on Islam oscillates between crude, anti-Muslim bigotry and mindless sympathy for largely unjustified Muslim grievance-mongering. Its failure to either charm or cow its Islamist-friendly neighbors -- Pakistan and Bangladesh -- reveals a limited grasp of statecraft.
Finally, India's inability to modernize its 150-million strong Muslim population, the second largest after Indonesia's, has spawned a community that is ill-equipped to seize new economic opportunities and susceptible to militant Islam's faith-based appeal.
To be sure, not all of India's problems are of its own making. In Pakistan, it has a neighbor founded on the basis of religion, whose government -- along with those of Iran and Saudi Arabia -- has long been one of the world's principal exporters of militant Islamic fervor.
Bangladesh also hosts a panoply of jihadist groups. As in Pakistan, public sympathy with the militant Islamic worldview forestalls any meaningful effort against those who regularly use the country as a sanctuary to plan mayhem in India. America's unsuccessful Pakistan policy -- too many carrots and too few sticks -- has also contributed to a fundamentally unstable neighborhood.
Nonetheless, the reflexive Indian response to most every act of terrorism is to apportion blame rather than to seek a solution that will prevent, or at least minimize, its recurrence. Even Indonesia -- a still-poor Muslim-majority nation where sympathy for militants runs deeper than it does in India -- has done an infinitely better job of recognizing that the protection of citizens' lives is any government's first responsibility. A superbly trained, federal antiterrorism force called Detachment 88 has ensured that country has not suffered a terrorist attack in more than three years.
By contrast, India's leaders -- who invariably swan around with armed guards paid for by the taxpayer -- can't even agree on a legal framework to keep the country safe. On taking office in 2004, one of the first acts of the ruling Congress Party was to scrap a federal antiterrorism law that strengthened witness protection and enhanced police powers.
The Congress Party has stalled similar state-level legislation in Gujarat, which is ruled by the opposition Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. And it was a Congress government that kowtowed to fundamentalist pressure and made India the first country to ban Mumbai-born Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" in 1988.
The BJP hasn't exactly distinguished itself either. In 1999, the hijacking of an Indian aircraft to then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan led a BJP government to release three hardened militants, including Omar Sheikh Saeed, the former London School of Economics student who would go on to murder Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
More recently, the BJP, driven by tribal religious solidarity and a penchant for conspiracy theories, has failed to demand the same tough treatment for alleged Hindu terrorists as it does for Muslims. Minor parties, especially those dependent on the Muslim vote, compete to earn fundamentalists' favor.
In sum, the Indian approach to terrorism has been consistently haphazard and weak-kneed. When faced with fundamentalist demands, India's democratically elected leaders have regularly preferred caving to confrontation on a point of principle. The country's institutions and culture have abetted a widespread sense of Muslim separateness from the national mainstream. The country's diplomats and soldiers have failed to stabilize the neighborhood. The ongoing drama in Mumbai underscores the price both Indians and non-Indians caught unawares must now pay.
Mr. Dhume is a Washington-based writer and the author of "My Friend the Fanatic: Travels with an Indonesian Islamist" (Text Publishing, 2008).
AndPakistan has condemned the attacks and denied any state involvement, as well as vowing to help the Indian probe.
And this pseudo liberal media consultant's views are to be taken for granted?There was no sense of balance or reasoning. The coverage was so jingoistic and nationalistic, they've pushed public opinion on Pakistan to a point of no return," said Atul Phadnis, chief executive of consultancy Media e2e.
Union of India can enact anything and overrule the states in Concurrent List. The issue is "Law & Order" is in State List. An important view is that Law & Order refers to normal policing and does not cover national security issues which will fall under National Defence or Residuary item which is part of Union List. IIRC a draft has been floating around for some time and can be enacted in one day by Ordinanceramana wrote:Not true. PC the new MHA has met LKA the leader of the opposition to formulate the terms of the ordinance that will establish the FSIA- Federal Security and Investigative Agency. A few things to consider are who to lead it and the personnel and budget and the scope of operations to ensure it doesnt trample the consitituional provisions of the concurrent list. I think the message & need is understood.
Actually, I think the "war on the web" is not going in the Islamist's favour. There is a steady increase in the number who are openly coming out with their views - and I have seen strong solidarity with Indian people's sentiments against Jihadi violence, and for the first time I see a conscious effort to openly identify Islamic propaganda and a readiness to take up anti-islamic positions. Increasingly people in the west have been communicating to me about their realizations about the nature of the Islamic propaganda and the connivance of western governments or elites in such propaganda.during my spare time I spend some time googling for this and that. I am finding a new group of bloggers who are totally twisting news items to suite their views. Most of them are from the Islamic world, which is not a surprise. But, what the rest of the world needs to realize is that such deviated views will impact everyone in the end.
vsudhir wrote:Biraders,
Drudge shows that predictions for oil Futures are hovering at $25 a barrel. Thats a body blow to the islamist/ wahabist / salafist jihad machine. Without barrel-fulls of dollahs, how to spread ze peaceful mess-age of pi$$ and luv? How to finance new madrushass, pay ulema salaries, xerox n' fax firey friday sermons round the world? How to buyoff the dirty kaafir govrmands and media machines?
In the same vien as abhisekcc posted in the global economy thread a few days ago, the fall in commodity prices coupled with the crash in global stock indices hits finances of the soul harvesters (EJs) and the ghoul harvesters (wahabis) hard, very hard indeed. AoA indeed.
The powers of parliament to enact such a law and setup such an agency was never an issue. The issue was the powers and scope of such an agency. The basic structure to denote something as a federal crime and hence prosecuted by a federal agency and federal courts is lacking. The very concept of a federation is payed lip service to in the constitution, as it in essence still follows the unitary model, as setup by the British before independence.Raj Malhotra wrote:Union of India can enact anything and overrule the states in Concurrent List. The issue is "Law & Order" is in State List. An important view is that Law & Order refers to normal policing and does not cover national security issues which will fall under National Defence or Residuary item which is part of Union List. IIRC a draft has been floating around for some time and can be enacted in one day by Ordinanceramana wrote:Not true. PC the new MHA has met LKA the leader of the opposition to formulate the terms of the ordinance that will establish the FSIA- Federal Security and Investigative Agency. A few things to consider are who to lead it and the personnel and budget and the scope of operations to ensure it doesnt trample the consitituional provisions of the concurrent list. I think the message & need is understood.
InnocentSaiK wrote:mmm.. live ass policies. what else do we got?
genuine approach is to do it and tell and not announce it ahead, and go about doing it. this govt will never learn.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Scan ... 798959.cms
Its insane for any strategic thinking to say what its thinking.
: If you announce it before hand and then go looking, it is that much harder to find proof no? If we find any proof then we may also need to act on it and that is so hard no?very balanced op-ed. Wonder what gives the DDM such false courage that they do this? Are they trying to pressure the govt under influence?This is not the time for rhetoric on television
By Moshe Kohli
To win a war against an efficient and invisible enemy, we do not need rhetoric on television, but a balanced evaluation and response. Even terrorist bases have access to television channels. We, therefore, must only broadcast what we need to, and deny the terrorists information. I am certain that their control rooms would have been delighted to see the carnage and get information on our military operations. The enemy thrives on such coverage.
What is being publicised in media is ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s heroism. God bless his soul. But for a senior officer to be running around inappropriately equipped and protected, may well be excessive zeal and not bravery. Here, I would like to say that I sincerely hope our government would actually equip our police and armed forces better. Karkare died simply because he was not wearing an appropriate bullet-proof vest. Very sad indeed.
Moreover, Karkare went to the spot on an impulse, not knowing much about the threat. He did not fire a single shot and he and his colleagues were vulnerable targets for the terrorists. No doubt, a very honest and efficient officer, Karkare became an easy prey. Unfortunately, his vehicle was then used by the terrorists for further mayhem. Karkare would have been of immense value sitting in the control room and directing the operation with his wide knowledge and experience. India needed him — and all others who died in that ordeal — to live, not die.
We have a tendency to give such deaths a halo of “martyrdom.” The same thing happened in Kabul, when our embassy was attacked. The IFS officer and Brigadier Ravi Datt Mehta got the highest awards for bravery. Was it really bravery? Or were they just unfortunate because their car was blown up?
While the officers made a supreme sacrifice, it was not really gallantry. But yes, they died in harness and must be duly recognised, and their kith and kin looked after. Innocent people sitting in trains also die in bomb blasts. Hundreds of people died inside the Taj and Trident hotels. They would never get gallantry awards. The staff at the Taj and Trident, we are told, did an exemplary job protecting and guiding guests, and many even laid down their lives. Their sagas of courage remain unsung.
The government and the media need to draw a line somewhere and recognise the difference between raw courage beyond the call of duty and death on duty. Due to this reason, the real valour and grit of Major Unnikrishnan, and Hav Rajbir and others will be eclipsed. They actually gave their lives in the face of active fire and a visible enemy. The time has come for India to awaken. Let us savour our 61 years of Independence. The time has come, to remind ourselves that we have been invaded and ruled for 800 years earlier.
Is that the ugly reason why we are resilient. I cannot understand why the TV anchors are whipping up a hysteria against politicians. I understand that there has been a failure of intelligence. I am certain the issue will be addressed and complacency punished. Celebrities have no right to be judgmental and influence the gullible public. We must unite as a nation and address the situation in house, and not on the world stage. If I can use the cliché: You don’t wash yourdirty linen in public. We are a fiercely proud nation and people. Let us all rise from our self-created islands of being Mumbaikars or Chennaites or whatever. Let us be Indians!
Lets us all salute the Brave Unknown Indian, and rise to deliver an exemplary, swift and befitting reply to the perpetrators and supporters of these heinous crimes against civilised society. “No ******** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******** die for his country”.
— Attributed to General George Patton Jr. from A Genius for War by Carlo d’Este
The author was a Major in the Indian Army
Truth woes, Centre’s cauldron bubbles
By Farrukh Dhondy
“What women want has always been
A mystery to men —
The cock is but a strutting fool
The eggs come from the hen”
From Poems of Poultry by Bachchoo
The attack on the south Mumbai hotels and the slaughter of innocents at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus by terrorists, an episode which is being catalogued as “26/11”, has resulted in several and varied reactions from politicians, from the public and from the media.
I am writing this from Mumbai where the mobile phone networks of my friends and the people I mix with are abuzz with rumours of terrorists still on the loose and a threat from these to schools, hospitals, malls, temples and churches. There is, at the same time, a universally spread text message on the phone from the Mumbai police and statements from their chief in the media assuring the public that there were only ten terrorists, nine of whom were killed leaving one of their number in police custody. He is one Azam Amir Qasab who, by all accounts, is singing like the proverbial canary.
These last few days, through the siege of the two hotels and of the home of the Jewish sect that occupied Nariman House, the television coverage has brought on very many “stalwarts of Mumbai” who are all of the opinion that their faith in politicians has been shaken, that the fraudulence of political promises to protect the people and the city has been exposed. The citizens, they assert, demand change. The spokespeople, businessmen, important executives, people whom the newspapers regularly photograph at their parties and at public functions, vehemently assert that the attitude of all politicians has exacerbated their frustration.
Vilasrao Deshmukh, former chief minister, questioned on television about the situation in the state he is supposed to govern, seemed unaware that Qasab was in police custody and confessing. He turned to an aide to confirm the fact that one terrorist was alive.
Deshmukh was, unwisely as it turned out, on his first visit to the scene of the attack after the security forces had cleared the building, accompanied by Ram Gopal Verma, a film producer and by his own son, an actor. When asked why he had brought these people along he said because “they are not terrorists”. There might be a dimension to Mr Deshmukh’s sense of humour which one cannot easily fathom. The former home minister of the state, R.R. Patil, perhaps shares this sense of humour.
He told the media that in a big city like Mumbai small incidents like this are bound to happen. So routine, then, nothing to get a tizz about. In the event, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul, Manmohan Singh, the ghost of Indira or whoever makes policy within the Congress didn’t find this terribly funny or enlightening and called in their resignations. In the best traditions of Western parliamentary democracy, Mr Shivraj Patil resigned as home minister because the media continued to point to lapses in security, to the porosity of our coastline, to the absurdity of having armed police forces with dud armaments, to the absence of a rapid reaction force in Mahrashtra or Mumbai and other lacunae for which, on his watch, he may well be held ultimately, even symbolically responsible.
The government at the Centre seems to operate with these constitutional niceties in mind. The home minister is responsible for home affairs, the finance minister for financial ones and so on. Mr Deshmukh’s disregard and Mr R.R. Patil’s complacence demonstrate something else. Though each of them didn’t immediately see the necessity of resigning and told the press that they would retain their positions and carry on as normal, it was the Central government, fearful of having to account for events at the ballot box, that forced them to leave office.
As the siege of the hotels continued into its third day, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of all parties to work out an emergency strategy. L.K.Advani, the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Rajnath Singh, the president of the BJP declined to attend it. They went campaigning in the regional elections of Rajasthan instead and gathered hundreds of thousands of people to their rallies. Their spokesmen said that they didn’t see the necessity for an all-party strategy meeting.
The defence of the realm, the duties of the Navy and Coast Guard, the security and policing of our cities and even intelligence gathering and dissemination were routine matters for any government to consider and handle and didn’t need all party consensus. The implication was that the Prime Minister was running an incompetent government and shouldn’t seek to be bolstered by the pretence that events in Mumbai were tantamount to a war —an eventuality in which all-party consensus may, in a democracy, be legitimately sought.
Advani’s rejection of the all-party conference and Deshmukh and R.R. Patil’s almost nonchalant and lackadaisical stances are tracers of the nature of our democracy. India is, and has been since Nehru and the Congress, conceded the principle of linguistic states and of separate civil codes dictated by religion, a votebank democracy. Caste and narrower regional allegiances and, in some parts of the country, tribalism, are superimposed and take over from the elementary divisions of region and language. The Yadavs of one state form one party and the Yadavs of another vote for their own. Mayawati stirs the layers and depths of the democratic cauldron bringing to the surface those who have been regarded and have regarded themselves as at the bottom and closest to the heat.
The democracy which rules our country is not one which responds easily to the rallies called by SMS-wallahs. The Patils, Thackerays, Deshmukhs, Mayawatis and the Mukhtar Abbas Naqvis of our world know this. Mr Naqvi was contemptuous on national television of the rallies held in Mumbai by concerned and protesting citizens. He called them “women with lipstick and powder”. Mr Naqvi may lack the descriptive power of a Charles Dickens, but he clearly meant to say that the anti-politician rallies of south Mumbai were the preserve of people who form and are formed by opinion, not people who belong to the almost mafia-like discipline of the votebank.
A democracy in which debated opinion is treated as a plaything and luxury of the chappateratti, in which one shout from Balasaheb Thackeray will bring more people to south Mumbai than a hundred texts from talented stage actors and from columnist poseurs, may not be healthy but it is a fact. It is the inevitable result of the one adult one vote democracy bequeathed to us by our wise Constitution. Protest politics has its place. My phone rings incessantly with messages urging me to go to the Gateway of India and carry a candle and the rival sound of the preparation for a slum wedding comes through the window from the fishermen’s colony fifty yards away.