Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: May 12, 2002
I must congratulate the Confederation
of Indian Industry (CII) for organising a discussion on Gujarat at its
annual conference recently. I also thank the organisation for inviting
the BJP to participate in it. This purely industrial confederation is taking
a deep interest in the burning political and social issues of the day,
and has made a welcome departure from the problems of business that are
normally discussed at its prestigious annual conference.
The regional chairperson of the
organisation, Anu Aga, had left the security and comfort of her home to
tour some of the relief camps in Gujarat. I, as well as the rest of the
audience, was moved as she gave a graphic account of the plight of riot
victims and raised some fundamental issues like that of human rights and
the looming threat over secularism in our country.
The CII's sympathy for the riot
victims is understandable and its concern over the level of violence in
Gujarat is laudable. But India is a large country and serious calamities
(sometimes man-made, like the present one in Gujarat, or God-ordained like
last year's earthquake) strike every now and then in various states. I
wonder if the CII's concern is confined only to the sufferings in one state,
or does it extend to all?
I wish the CII or someone from the
esteemed organisation had also visited Jammu and Kashmir during those years
when over three lakh Hindus were driven out of their homes and Kashmiri
Pandits were specifically targeted by Islamic militants. Due to the violence,
tourism, a major industry in the State, collapsed, with serious consequences
for the economy of the entire country.
Flying to Kashmir may have been
a difficult proposition in view of the disturbed conditions in the State.
But even then, may be the members of the CII could have found time to visit
refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi and other parts of the country. Could there
be a bigger shame for a civil society than to find such a large number
of its people living as refugees in their own country?
May be after such a visit, the CII
did not consider it necessary to express its concern openly or hold a discussion
on the plight of an entire religious group. May be it found a radical difference
between the Pandit blood shed in J&K and the Muslim blood shed in Gujarat.
I say so with a full sense of responsibility. There are 40,000 Hindu refugees
in the various camps in Gujarat and not a word was said about their plight
at the conference. No one visited them. Why?
Many of the victims of the J&K
violence are fellow businessmen and so are thousands of Gujarati Hindus
who have lost their livelihood due to the senseless violence in the State.
At least they must have expected the CII, as an organisation of businessmen
and industrialists, to be sensitive to their plight, particularly when
it devoted an entire session to the woes of Gujarati Muslims.
There is no record, as far as I
know, of the CII discussing the suppression of civil liberties in West
Bengal under a Marxist regime, with CPI(M) cadres replacing the state machinery
over the years. Or of the total lawlessness that prevails in Patna, where
businessmen, often people like kirana merchants, cloth shop owners etc.,
are routinely kidnapped for ransom. In Assam, there have been ethnic murders
and regular extortion of businessmen, particularly tea estate managers.
Punjab was in the grip of terrorism for almost two decades and all economic
activities had come to an end. Did the CII ever find time to discuss such
serious developments at an equally important forum?
It cannot be that the CII had no
tears to shed for all these people. Did fear of the consequences impose
silence on it? Its selective behaviour and partisan sympathies where human
rights issues are concerned can sometimes be disturbing, for the CII represents
the very cream of the people whose enterprises create wealth. If there
is a credible explanation for this selective sympathy, I am sure many citizens
would like to know it.
Something that struck me in the
conference as unique, if not conspiratorial, was the reversal of the usual
procedure of inviting the Prime Minister to inaugurate the annual conference
(as is done by FICCI and ASSOCHAM also) and then have other political leaders
for other events during the conference. I recall that the CII took the
lead in the early 1990s in getting a wide spectrum of political views by
inviting the then Leader of the Opposition (Atal Bihari Vajpayee) at one
of the events while the then Prime Minister came for the inauguration.
Perhaps it was just a coincidence
that this time it was the Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, who came
first and the Prime Minister last. But it cannot be that our wise businessmen
did not know that the politician in the Leader of Opposition would seize
the opportunity to interpret it as a message for a change of government.
If there was no political significance
to this move, there was ample opportunity for the CII leadership, before
the conference closed, to correct the wrong impression Gandhi sought to
give. Vajpayee was large-hearted enough to take no further note of the
issue after decrying Gandhi's interpretation of using the CII as a political
weathercock. But the institution of the Prime Minister is larger than even
Vajpayee. How can the country and its people overlook this insult? I am
sure that you would agree with me that you yourself would not like the
great CII to be caught in political crossfire. Imagine the CII doing this
when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister!
If the CII does not seek to give
the impression that it is partisan, that it is swayed by media hype and
that it is not averse to playing political satta in stormy weather, the
organisation's leadership has to be as much correct in its behaviour. It
must apologise to the nation. I think I am speaking for the countless enlightened
citizens of the country and for my colleagues in Parliament who also believe
that this insult to the highest institution in the land is unparalleled
and somebody must pay for it. I am awaiting the CII's response.
(The writer is a BJP MP)
