|
|
|
The BSP-Congress alliance is the only solution to Mulayam
Singh Yadav's goonda raj and the BJP's communal agenda" -
Jitendra Prasada, UP Congress chief. "The PM exposed the
United Front's true face by hobnobbing with Thackeray" -
Sharad Pawar.
Please marvel at the virgin innocence of these Congress-
men who, before backing the UF against the BJP, obviously
didn't know about Mulayam Singh's methods, nor of routine
political opportunism.
Their latest ally, Kanshi Ram, is on record saying that
though he does not personally care for Khalistan, "I like
their methods". As for the BSP's own criminal nexus, the
militancy of Harijans in Bihar since 1991 is an ample cue
to its existence. But once the BSP serves its purpose,
the Congress can shirk that off, a la Mulayam and the UF.
All of which is neither here nor there, since the only
thing on every politico's mind is the Congress's innova-
tion to national politics - the religion/caste-based vote
bank. In keeping with which, Kanshi Ram has told his
satellites that a Dalit-Muslim -combine is crucial for
victory.
And who is to be the active compaigner for the holy
alliance? The diplomatic and secular Shahi Imam, of
course.
It doesn't take a genius to gauge what kind of dialectic
will be used in the attempt to forge Muslims, Scheduled
Castes/Tribes and Other Backward Classes into a single
vote bank. Give the alliance any name you. like ("demo-
cratic", "secular", "progressive", "anti-fascist" etc),
but what is it if not a straightforward anti-Hindu front?
The thing is that though a huge lot of Dalits is neo-
Buddhist, an equal number are Hindus (and very devout at
that) - which is the group that will be sought to be
weaned away by drilling in the atyachaar committed by
upper castes. Do there exist any opinion-makers who, at
risk of being politically incorrect, can mark this trend
as dangerous for India's internal security?
The ideology of the Congress is power and gold - that I
can understand. But to condone the prachaar of Dalit-
oriented parties in these present times, one has to be
quite cracked: backward groups are the aboriginal, big
majority (bahujan) of India, persecuted by Aryan invaders
and their foreign religion, Hinduism.
The anti-Hindu sentiment sought to be aroused by the BSP
and its ilk is so like the anti-Jew propaganda of Hitler-
ian Germany that it's scary. Brahmins are rendered as:
originally foreign, a minority, obeying insane purity
rules, keeping themselves separate, having a supportive
network, favouring their own kind, ruthless, rich, and
deliberately keeping others in penury, etc.
Sadly, most of it was true: today, oppressors can hardly
be classed by caste. But while brutal historic facts
about the Mughals are officially suppressed or twisted to
"keep the peace" among communities, encouraging unity
among Hindus is not such a smashing idea, it seems.
It's really quite clever (after all, it's an old British
ploy). Consolidated minorities will be used against the
national majority, which can be further .fragmented and
rendered impotent a la Mandalisation. In keeping with
our national character, we've already forgotten Mandal:
let me refresh your memories:
The Mandal Commission report recommended that after the
SCs/Sts' 22.5 per cent reservation in government services
and education, the policy should be extended to OBCs.
The beauty of it is that the report says "classes" --then
goes on to enumerate castes.
Enter: the then prime minister, V P Singh. Faced with
the possibility of the Supreme Court striking down the
counsels of the report, he quickly announced that his
government would go ahead with its implementation giving
27 per cent reservations to OBCs.
Then, as now, the move was calculated to divide parties
and voters along caste lines. To those who still believe
that his abrupt decision was "value based", I can only
say that V P Singh was formerly, what else? a Congress-
man.
Now, we have the chairman of the All-India Muslim OBC
Sangathan saying, "People have a misconception about
OBCs, they think it refers to caste. OBC includes people
who are socially and economically backward." And what are
these "classes"? Julaha (weaver), Momin, Raeen (maali),
Fakirbandarwala, Qureshi (butcher), etc.
Not "castes", mind you lest you think Muslims practise
Hindu apartheid! Thus, if one is a nice and plump Momin
(and many of them are), one is still eligible to avail of
reservations, while keeping at bay a penniless Brahmin -
and many of them are.
Yes, I know, it works the same way when the eligible are
Dalit Hindus. Which is why I'm against all reservations:
it's divisive and unjust. Any person who is backward,
regardless of caste and religion, needs aid, period. But
while Germans have long stopped paying for the evils of
Nazism, the present generation of "upper-caste" Hindus
must eternally pay for the sins of their fathers.
The truth is that today's privileged are no longer the
ancient varnas: they are politicians and hoodlums - many
of whom are Dalits and Muslims. Many Indians, and not
just Harijans, are still in bonded labour, while the rich
of any caste and creed use reservation certificates to
enter schools or gain posts. Poverty and evil are not
the jahgirs of any one varna, nor do they flow in blood-
lines.
Since the overthrow of a government which had been given
the majority's mandate - sabotaged by a front of politi-
cians as the common man watched helplessly - it's clear
that Hindus should just go about their business of en-
riching the exchequer, subsidising all the hurt and
oppressed, embracing illegal immigrants, etc - with no
say in national matters.
When the BJP is branded as untouchable by dint of its
Hindutva, by extension, aren't all who voted for them,
too? When there's such a row among "democratic" politi-
cians and writers over the PM meeting Thackeray - the
head of Maharashtra's legitimately elected party - isn't
the majority which brought it in being stigmatized, too?
Does democracy mean the vilification of a majority to
please the minorities? However misguided each BJP voter
may or may not be, his vote is construed as invalid on
the basis of his religion alone - even while others are
granted concessions only on the basis of theirs. There's
no escaping that Hinduism itself has become achhot.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
