The fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) secured an unprecedented victory in the elections to five state
Assemblies is just one part of the story. The picture is, however,
complete only after taking into account what the electorate did to Irom
Sharmila in Manipur and to the Left in Uttar Pradesh.
Between the BJP’s smashing victory and
the decimation of Sharmila and the Left, hangs a tale, a milestone in
the chequered saga of India’s decline and her continuing struggle to
reinvent and resurrect herself. Irom Sharmila, was on a “fast” for 16
years protesting against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in
Manipur. The 44-year-old contested elections in Manipur’s Thoubal
constituency and secured just 90 votes. The Left front, consisting of
six parties, had contested 140 seats out of 403 in UP. After
independence, the Left was a force to reckon with in the state. But in
the recently concluded elections, they secured merely 0.2 per cent
votes.
Pictures of Sharmila with feeding tubes
were showcased by the ‘Left-liberal’ cabal the world over to sell a
narrative that Manipur was occupied by an expansionist and authoritarian
India, a la Kashmir. Now the disconnect between the anti-India
narrative and the local sentiment stands exposed.
Then, how does the anti-India tirade get
a disproportionate currency to its traction in the society? How do the
likes of Rohith Vemula, Kanhaiya, Sharmila and Burhan Wani assume a
larger than life image and come to dominate the domestic and global
discourse?
To solve this riddle, one has to go back
in history. India, accounted for 33 per cent of global GDP till the
12th century. Doubting Thomases can refer to the path-breaking works of
Angus Maddison and Paul Bairoch, two internationally acclaimed
economists.
With Bakhtiyar Khilji sacking Nalanda
and other reputed Universities in 1193, the structured system of
education in India came to an end. Repeated Islamic invasions played
havoc with the cultural life of the country, destroyed bulk of the
existing knowledge, ended organised pursuit of scholarship and put a
stop to any further research in philosophy, science and technology.
After Aurangzeb’s demise in 1707, Muslim
power started disintegrating. By the time Lord Clive won the battle of
Plassey in 1757, India’s share in global GDP dropped to about 25 per
cent. Busy fighting successive battles for their sheer survival, Hindus,
the flag bearers of the original culture of this ancient land, were
left with only memories of history and heritage.
The 1857 uprising motivated the British
to cobble together an intellectual paradigm that established them as a
superior race, divide their subjects into mutually hostile groups on the
basis of caste, religion, race and regions, to help them perpetuate
their empire. The anglicised Indians (with few exceptions) assumed the
identity and a past which the British had crafted for them. While the
imported Communist movement, swallowed the British version of India, a
host of leaders, including Veer Savarkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak, RSS
founder Dr K B Hedgewar and a bulk of the masses did not fall in the
imperialist trap.
Echoing the British view, Communists
held India was not a nation, rather a conglomerate of several nations.
No wonder that communists actively conspired with the departing British
and Muslim League for the creation of a theocratic Pakistan. They still
continue to pursue their divisive agenda, seek to divide Hindus in the
name of caste and unite the Muslims on the basis of their shared faith,
Islam.
Gandhiji, saw through the British policy
of divide and rule, opposed fraudulent conversion of Hindus to other
faiths, worked for integration of Dalits with the rest of Hindu society
and rejected the concept of class war. He did not see different castes
among Hindus as conflicting identities either. Following his tragic
assassination in 1948, Congress dropped Gandhian ethos and leaned
towards the Left.
When the Congress split in 1969, Indira
Gandhi needed Communist support in the Parliament. As a part of the
deal, Nurul Hasan, a card holder, became the education minister in her
Cabinet and is largely responsible for what JNU has become today.
Congress, since then, has outsourced its intellectual paradigm to the
Left.
Four unrelated developments, did not
allow the script on predictable lines . After Mao Tse Tung’s demise in
1976, China gradually turned into a capitalist economy under a Communist
dictatorship. In 1991, Soviet Union, yet another role model for bulk of
the Indian Left, too disintegrated. Taking cue from the global collapse
of Communism, India opted for economic reforms leading to the emergence
of news channels. The Left’s stranglehold on views and news started
loosening. And now, social media has made public discourse even more
inclusive.
Congress today is a family enterprise, a
covert operation to convert cash into political power and vice versa,
without any ideological baggage. The likes of irrepressible Digvijaya
Singh only parrot Leftist cliches in search of elusive Muslim votes when
they extend support to people resorting to Islamic terror, or to Maoist
violence. Congress has turned poverty into an enterprise, and homes of
the poor, tourist destinations. Modi doesn’t have to play this charade
to pretend to know poverty. He was born into poverty. His pro-poor
schemes have naturally more credibility with the target groups.
The divisive template built by the Left
and aped by Congress is cracking. Hopefully, election results will no
longer be hostage to caste and religious divide. National security, pride, coupled with inclusive development are the new pass words to power.
By Balbir Punj
Author is former Rajya Sabha member and Delhi-based commentator on social and economic issues
Courtesy: New Indian Express
Courtesy: New Indian Express
No comments:
Post a Comment