The pseudo-liberals and the “secular brigade” see red in every step the BJP-led Government takes to introduce an element of modernity, nationalism and spiritualism in the moth-eaten education system bequeathed to us by our colonial rulers. They are livid with rage over every single appointment of a professional with background on any position of authority as a betrayal as they perceive it to be their fiefdom and strongly resent any encroachment by those they consider Apolitical untouchables”.
Their ill-concealed venom against the RSS is understandable as they have convinced themselves that but for the Sangh-a socio-cultural organisation of highly disciplined and committed cadres-they would have by now decimated NDA that lacks ideological and political cohesion. That is why they make it a point to launch a vicious campaign against all political appointments by the Government on the ground that the person concerned has an RSS background as if belonging to that patriotic organisation is a sin of the highest order. That also explains their impotent rage every time the Prime Minister talks of his six decades old association with the RSS, lauds the RSS for its services to the society and asks the media to judge the organisation by its conduct and not through the prejudiced minds of its detractors.
It is, therefore, no surprise that the Opposition, particularly the Congress and the Communists, opposed the appointment of Prof Bhishma Kumar Agnihotri as the -'Ambassador at large' for NRIs and People of Indian Origin (PIO) and an advisor in the Indian embassy in Washington with the personal rank of ambassador. The entire Opposition barring the former PM Chandra Shekhar staged a walk out in the Lok Sabha last week over the stout defence of the appointment by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan. The Minister rightly asserted that it was a political appointment and the appointee's association with the RSS was no crime.
There is absolutely no merit in the Opposition's contention that never before any Government had made such an appointment. They have conveniently forgotten that Congress leaders S.S. Ray and V. K. Krishna Menon, to name only a few, had been appointed ambassadors. If there is nothing wrong in appointing cryptoCommunists and defeated Congress leaders to sensitive diplomatic positions, how come the appointment of an eminent professor and lawyer as advisor will hurt the national interests?
Agnihotri is an eminent US based NRI who was till recently, Chancellor of Southern University Law College, LA. Former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar may not know him, but NRI and PIOs in US and other countries are aware' of his role in protecting their rights. His contribution in the struggle for racial justice was duly recognised by the YWCA by giving him an award. The eminent professor was in the forefront of the campaign by Friends of India International in the wake of nuclear tests and during the Kargil conflict that left an indelible mark on public opinion in the United States of America.
The IFS lobby and pseudo liberals and their friends in the media have questioned the appointment even though most of the critics are per se not against political appointments in the diplomatic corps. They are aghast that a person who is the RSS Sarsanghchalak in USA and is associated with the 'Overseas friends of the BJP' and 'Friends of India Society in USA' should man such a key position. Agnihotri makes no secret of his association with the RSS where he learnt his first lessons in patriotism and idealism. But he is amused at the ignorance of these eminent commentators. For one, the RSS has only one Sarsanghchalak and his name is well known-K. S. Sudarshan. Secondly, there is no RSS outside India.
Former Foreign Secretary J. N. Dixit, who is a respected commentator on security and international relations, was less than fair to the legal luminary by raising the question whether the latter would function as an impartial advisor or as an advisor within the framework of his political affiliations. This amounts to questioning one's integrity and professionalism without any basis. Dixit is again on a wet wicket when he comes to the untenable conclusion that Agnihotri's appointment as advisor will “diminish the credibility, authority and influence” of the Indian Ambassador Lalit Man Singh. Did Arun Singh's appointment as an adviser in the Defence and External Affairs Ministries undermined Jaswant Singh's authority? An advisor is an advisor and not the boss of the Ambassador. If the advisor has access to the Prime Minister, as observed by Dixit, the embassy can use his services for pushing through its proposals.
There is no need for Lalitman Singh to spend sleepless nights over the appointment. Agnihotri's main job is “Ambassador at large” for NRIs and PIOs all over the globe. It is for the Government to say why he was also appointed an advisor to the embassy in Washington. One wonders if it was done to give him a diplomatic status in the Any excuse is good enough for the “secular brigade” to caution the nation against “saffronisation” of education and administration. If Prof M.L. Sondhi is appointed chairman of the ICSSR, they decry it as a part of the plan to “saffronise” all key positions in the academia. When he is removed from the post for certain irregularities and flouting rules and regulations of the ICSSR, the “secular brigade” sees red in the move and says it is yet another attempt at “saffronisation”.
HRD Minister Dr M.M. Joshi is the favourite whipping boy of this cash-rich anti-RSS lobby. “Saffronisation” of education was discussed at length in both Houses of the Parliament last week. The Opposition was full of fury but short on facts. Dr Joshi demolished their arguments with his forceful articulation of the Government's education policy. As usual the “secular media” ignored most of what the Minister said in refutation of the oft-repeated allegations.
He pointed out that the Government was implementing in letter and spirit the recommendations of a parliamentary sub committee headed by Congress leader S. B. Chavan that had suggested introduction of value based education and identified five universal core values namely satya, dharma, shanti, prema and ahmisa.
The Chavan Committee had also recommended that the process of acquainting students with the basics of all religions should begin at the middle stage in schools and should continue up to the university level. It would convey to the young minds that basic concepts behind every religion were common. Only practices differ. The Committee had insisted that what was required was not religious education but education about religions.
If saffronising education means
educating the students about religions and to make them understand that
difference of opinions about religious practices should not lead to hatred
against each other, this is the most desirable thing to do. This is what
sarv pantha sambhava is all about. What are the pseudo-liberals agitated
about? Do they want the education to be run on the lines of madarsas where
young students are brainwashed to hate all non-Muslims?