Narendra Modi after many years expressed his feelings about Gujarat riots of 2002 in his blog. The blog came as reaction to the court verdict which upheld the SIT report which exonerated him. In his blog, Narendra Modi was seen quite defensive, but it is natural. He called the Gujarat riots of 2002 a mindless violence. You can read the full blog yourself on his website, but what touched me was this line “However, as if all the suffering was not enough, I was also accused of the death and misery of my own loved ones, my Gujarati brothers and sisters. Can you imagine the inner turmoil and shock of being blamed for the very events that have shattered you!
To those who feed their brains with the biscuits Indian media throws at them, it will not be surprising that they see this blog-post in connection with 2014 polls. But those who has not yet sold their brains to media propaganda, here are some facts which you can read here. In his interview to Prabhu Chawla, then in Aaj Tak, Narendra Modi said “ The communal riots in Gujarat were unfortunate and we are sad they took place.” When asked about Muslims he said “ I don’t like to think of minority or majority communities. As far as Gujarat is concerned, its five crore population should unite to take the state forward. You should not categorise society into Hindus and Muslims but into the rich and poor in order to ascertain the level of development.” Modi had also told Shekar Gupta, then in ndtv, during his walk the talk program, that loss of life during riots were unfortunate.
Rivals of Narendra Modi has come up with two theories about this blog post. One is that this blog post is not apologetic enough . Another theory is that this near apology is because he wants to somehow win 2014. It is not very surprising to see contradicting theories coming from people who are pathetically desperate to stop Narendra Modi somehow. It is true that blog by Narendra Modi is not apologetic, in fact it should not be. Narendra Modi has said umpteen times to various news channels that if he was found guilty for 2002, he should be hanged. Modi has offered himself to judicial system of this country. It is for Indian judiciary to see whether he is guilty. In fact, the SIT appointed by the apex court found that he is not. About the second theory, Narendra Modi knows better than his rivals that if he tried muslim appeasement, it will boomerang upon him. In fact he said nothing new, but the same things which he said since the days of those unfortunate riots. Rivals of Modi has a queer Idea about justice to 2002 riot victims. Narendra Modi was elected as Chief minister for the third time by the people which includes the people which his rivals claim to speak for. The Gujarat Chief Minister was found not guilty, by the SIT and it is very likely that the appellate courts will also accept this report. The way they speak against him, the way some leaders throw the filth of hatred against him, is very dangerous for a democracy like ours. Finally, I would like to suggest something to Gujarat Chief Minister and my choice as India’s next prime minister.
- Never ever try to get more apologetic- we know that you had done the very best to stop riots at that time.
- Please think of starting some legal cell, which will check filthy and wild imputations against you and your Government.
- Do not speak what you did for Muslims and Hindus, we like the same old Narendra Modi who always spoke for Indians.
- Continue your march ignoring the ugly noises that your rivals make.
- We need you as Prime Minister. Please ensure us the you will indeed be.
I wish a very happy Christmas to all those who are celebrating it today. I hail from a nation where 95% of its population are not Christians. But we exchange Christmas and Easter greetings more than the Christian majority nations do. Christian theology views Hindus as Idolaters, Polytheists and heathens – but that does not stop us from celebrating Christmas. I hope that the secularism of Hindus needs not much proof than this.
I take liberty to quote a verse from Bible “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves Matthew 7:15.” . We are living in a country where there is a huge opportunity for prophets of secularism. Many does not realise that they are communal in secular attire. This post is an attempt to expose one such false prophet of secularism- the communists.
The following is a screenshot of Today’s (25-12-2013) communist mouthpiece in Kerala- named Deshabhimani ( meaning : patriot). You can see a colourful front page with a santa’s picture wishing its readers a “Happy Christmas”. Not only that, they have an article in their edit page too.
Not only Deshabhimani, every other newspapers in Kerala has wished its readers a Happy Christmas. Even the so called Hindu Nationalist BJP’s mouthpiece “Janmabhumi” has.
Now, check the first page of leading news daily of Kerala “Mathrubhumi” on August 28th, 2013. You can see a Little Sreekrishna picture on the right side. August 28th was day when Kerala celebrated Sree Krishna Jayanthi- Janmashtami
Normal logic would imply that the mouthpiece of prophets of secularism should also wish their readers a happy Sree Krishna Jayanthi too. But check Deshabhimani newspaper of that day. There is no mention about that.
I know the above expose is too silly, but the debates on secularism in our country are much sillier. Here wearing a skull cap makes you secular, and calling oneself a Hindu makes you non secular. Sharing dais with Muslim leaders accused of terrorism makes you secular, but talking about Hindus accused of terrorism languishing in jail makes you communal. The communist meeting held last month asked its Hindu comrades not to do Ganapathy poojan- but the same party allowed the muslim comrades to do namaz at their meeting place. When such silly things happen in our political circles, you can excuse me of writing this silly post which expose their silliness.
- The High Court had not deleted the section 377 of IPC in its entirety. It only made the penal provisions of Section 377 inapplicable to Consented homosexual carnal intercourse. The Supreme Court has not criminalized Homosexuality. It held that the Judiciary has no power to make new “Laws”. In otherwords, that it has no power to criminalize or decriminalize any act. It has directed Legislature to do the needful.The SC has not commented about morality of homosexual behavior. The judgment is purely based on constitutionalism. The SC applied the doctrine of severability- and when they applied it with regard to precedents before it, it found that they cannot read down the particular section of IPC.
- The section was found by SC to be not violating the principle of equality. The section penalizes the act, not any particular group of people. The act being – carnal intercourse against the order of nature- In simple language, it is oral / anal sex. The argument that by criminalizing the act, LGBT community is being discriminated against does not hold, since even if a man-woman couple engages in this act, it is a crime (if we apply the logic). So it cannot be said that the section criminalizes a particular community alone.
- The SC has clearly stated that “Nonetheless in light of the plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent. It is relevant to mention here that the Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitute an offence. Such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation (Para 38).” This is what I explained in previous paragraph.
- As far as the question of Article 21 violation is concerned, SC held “Respondent No.1 attacked Section 377 IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on certain persons, especially those belonging to the LGBT community. In our opinion, this treatment is neither mandated by the section nor condoned by it and the mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 IPC ” (Para 51). SC has clearly stated that misuse of law by executive does not affect its constitutionality. It is certainly a relevant fact for the Legislature while amending the said section. There is no single conviction of consented gay or lesbian sex till date.
- It is also worth noting Para 40 of the Judgment “The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was singularly laconic inasmuch as except giving brief detail of the work being done by it for HIV prevention targeting MSM community, it miserably failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the State agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them. Respondent No.1 has also not furnished the particulars of the cases involving harassment and assault from public and public authorities to sexual minorities. Only in the affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AIDS Control it has been averred that estimated HIV prevalence among FSW (female sex workers) is 4.60% to 4.94%, among MSM (men who have sex with men) is 6.54% to 7.23% and IDU (injecting drug users) is 9.42% to 10.30%. The total population of MSM as in 2006 was estimated to be 25,00,000 and 10% of them are at risk of HIV. The State-wise break up of estimated size of high risk men who have sex with men has been given in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit. In paragraph 19, the State-wise details of total adult population, estimated adult HIV prevalence and estimated number of HIV infections as in 2009 has been given. These details are wholly insufficient for recording a finding that homosexuals, gays, etc., are being subjected to discriminatory treatment either by State or its agencies or the society”
- Since SC found that the said section is not unconstitutional because it does not violate fundamental rights. The section does not criminalize a particular community. Hence the question of reading it down does not even arise. SC judgment has discussed doctrine of severability at this point. “Unless a clear constitutional violation is proved, this Court is not empowered to strike down a law merely by virtue of its falling into disuse or the perception of the society having changed as regards the legitimacy of its purpose and its need.”
- It is very important to read Para 32 of the judgment where SC says “After the adoption of the IPC in 1950, around 30 amendments have been made to the statute, the most recent being in 2013 which specifically deals with sexual offences, a category to which Section 377 IPC belongs. The 172nd Law Commission Report specifically recommended deletion of that section and the issue has repeatedly come up for debate. However, the Legislature has chosen not to amend the law or revisit it. This shows that Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India, has not thought it proper to delete the provision. Such a conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that despite the decision of the Union of India to not challenge in appeal the order of the Delhi High Court, the Parliament has not made any amendment in the law. While this does not make the law immune from constitutional challenge, it must nonetheless guide our understanding of character, scope, ambit and import. “Those who got outraged against SC judgment should first ask the legislature why they did not do the duty.
- Another important thing to note in this judgment is about the affidavit filed by Home Ministry in High Court which says “Shri Venu Gopal further pleaded that an unlawful act cannot be rendered legitimate because the person to whose detriment it acts consents to it; that Section 377 has been applied only on complaint of a victim and there are no instances of arbitrary use or application in situations where the terms of the section do not naturally extend to Section 377 IPC; that Section 377 IPC is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. According to Shri Venu Gopal, Section 377 IPC provides a punishment for unnatural sexual offences, carnal intercourse against the order of nature and does not make any distinction between procreative and non-procreative sex. (Para 7)”
- If Home Ministry is to be believed, the Section 377 has been applied only on complaint of a victim. Complaint usually follows exploitation. So if someone exploits a man or woman, and it is technically not a rape (because there is no penile-vaginal penetration), and if that man or woman complains to police, then only this section comes into play. Otherwise it does not. In effect, SC has endorsed this stand of Home Ministry in its judgment.
- It is very sad to see people mixing up moral and legal issues of Homosexuality and misinterpreting the Judgment. The judgment has not at all touched the morality issue, but rather it is only about a constitutionality of a section. To conclude, what I understood is, SC has NOT criminalized any sexual orientation, nor has it decriminalized anything. But what it has done is that it asked the Legislature to do what it is supposed to do.
Today as I was going through a book written by Sukumar Azhikode, I came across these mantras of Upanishads which amazed me. The Mantras and the meaning is given below.
सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर |
सत्यान्न प्रमदितव्यम् ।
धर्मान्न प्रमदितव्यम् ।
कुशलान्न प्रमदितव्यम् ।
भूत्यै न प्रमदितव्यम् ।
स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्। देवपितृ कार्याभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्।
मातृ देवो भव । पितृ देवो भव । आचार्य देवो भव। अतिथि देवो भव ।
यान्यनवद्यानि कर्माणि तानि सेवितव्यानि । नो इतराणि ।
यान्यस्माकं सुचरितानि तानि तवयोपास्यानि ! नो इतराणि !!
Speak the truth. Practise Dharma.
Do not swerve from the truth.
Do not swerve from dharma.
Do not neglect personal welfare.
Do not neglect prosperity.
Do not neglect the study of the Vedas.
Do not neglect your duties to the gods and the Manes
Treat your mother and father as God.
Treat your teacher and guest as God.
Whatever deeds are faultless, these are to be performed-not others.
Whatever good works have been performed by us, those should be performed by you-not others
Many of the Upanishad Shanthi Mantras transcend beyond religious barriers.
ॐ सहनाववतु । सह नौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु । मा विद्विषावहै ॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
OM! May that Brahman protect us both;
May that Brahman nourish us both;
May we work in harmony with great vigor;
May our study be illuminating and fruitful;
May we not hate each other.
The last line struck some chords with me. “Whatever Good works have been performed by us, those should only be performed by you, not others”. Here the reader is cautioned against following anything blind. The Rishi of Upanishad exhorts the reader not to follow any badness, even if it is there in what the reader considers sacred. That is gem of a thought. You can see similar open minded thoughts in other Hindu scriptures also.
In Bhagavad Gita too, Sri Krishna, after explaining the Highest Knowledge of Atma Vidya, says to Arjuna ” “Do whatever is proper according to your opinion.”. The exact shloka is reproduced below.
इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्गुह्यतरं मया विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेछसि तथा कुरु || (18:63)
I have explained to you the most secret knowledge, Rationally analyse these thoughts and do what you wish to do.
Similarly Sri Krishna does not, unlike other Gods of Abrahamic religion, curse or threaten “Non Believers” to hell , but rather he says.
ये अपि अन्यदेवताभक्ताः यजन्ते श्रद्धया अन्वितःते अपि माम् एव कौन्तेय यजन्ति अविधिपूर्वकम् (9:2
Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.
When compared to the Abrahamic God who sees enemies in his non-believers, Sri Krishna says
समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः । (9:29)
I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone.
Sri Krishna also says, you can worship anyone or anything. I grant you what you have prayed for.
यो यो यां यां तनुं भक्तः श्रद्धायार्चितुमिच्छति ।
तस्य तस्याचलां श्रद्धां तामेव विदधाम्यहम् ॥ २१ ॥
Whatsoever form any devotee desires to worship with faith – that (same) faith of his I make (firm and) unflinching. (B.G 7.21)
The Vedas are foundations of Sanathana Dharam (Hinduism). We can also see such open mindedness in Vedas too as in the following mantras.
एकं सत् विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति ॥
Truth is one, learned men express it differently.
आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः ||
Let noble thoughts come to us from every sides.
Infact Rigveda concludes with a message of Unity, Read the following Manthra.
सं-समिद युवसे वर्षन्नग्ने विश्वान्यर्य आ |
इळस पदेसमिध्यसे स नो वसून्या भर ||
सं गछध्वं सं वदध्वं सं वो मनांसि जानताम |
देवा भागं यथा पूर्वे संजानाना उपासते ||
समानो मन्त्रः समितिः समानी समानं मनः सह चित्तमेषाम |
समानं मन्त्रमभि मण्त्रये वः समानेन वोहविषा जुहोमि ||
समानी व आकूतिः समाना हर्दयानि वः |
समानमस्तु वोमनो यथा वः सुसहासति ||
Come together , speak together: let your minds be all of one accord,
As ancient Gods unanimous sit down to their appointed share.
The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thought united.
A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your general oblation.
One and the same be your resolve, and be your minds of one accord.
United be the thoughts of all that all may happily agree.
You can see such liberal thoughts in almost all the Hindu scriptures – be it Mahabharata or Ramayana- Purana or even the later Bhakti era works by Tulsi Das.
It is really wonderful that this message of tolerance did not remain struck in these scriptures. Most of the Hindus may not be learned about these mantras and scriptures, but they are quite aware of these verses
आकाशात् पतितं तोयं यथा गच्छति सागरम् । सर्वदेवनमस्कारः केशवं प्रतिगच्छति ॥
Rain from the skies reach the ocean ultimately, worship to any God reach One.
स्वस्तिप्रजाभ्यः परिपालयन्तां न्यायेन मार्गेण महीं महीशाः ।
गोब्राह्मणेभ्यः शुभमस्तु नित्यं लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु. ||
May the well-being of all people be protected by the powerful and mighty leaders be with law and justice. May good success be with all cows (divinity) and scholars. May all (samastah) the worlds (lokha) become (bhavantu) happy (sukhino).
While we read, study and Practice Hinduism, we must keep in mind at least the above gentle messages by our Rishis. Be open to Good thoughts, It can come from anywhere. Reject badness, even if it comes from what we consider sacred.
“SC criminalizes gay sex” was the heating topic to debate last day. Today’s newspapers have printed all those outrages and have created further fuss. Political parties are also outraged, and so is Sonia Gandhi, Chairman of the ruling front. She says “I am disappointed that the Supreme Court reversed the previous Delhi high court ruling on the issue of gay rights. We are proud that our culture has always been an inclusive and tolerant one”. Finance Minister of the country even remarked “What we have done is go back in time to 1860 and I’m terribly disappointed, we must explore ways and means in which this judgement can be reversed very quickly. Legislation is one way to reverse it but that may take time.” Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi did not keep mum as usual. He also said “”These matters should be left to individuals, as they are matters of personal freedom,”.
My question to all of those outraged, both those who are lauding the judgment for wrong reasons and those who are abusing the judge “Have you read the Judgment? “ (Read it here) I have asked a dozen people today and except one, none has read it. One who is against gay and lesbian sex, lauds SC judgment as a good decision and the one who are pro-gay-lesbian rights drags Vishnu and Shiva to the debate to establish that Indian culture includes gays and lesbians? Both these extremes responses come from the people who have not read the judgment and they are not likely to read it too.
What is my stand on LGBT community and rights? I have no particular stand on LGBT community. They are humans and should have the rights enjoyed by every other humans. My religion, i.e. Hinduism neither prescribes nor proscribes the homosexual behaviour. The issue before the honourable Supreme court was not whether homosexual behaviour is crime or not, but it was whether the Section 377 of the code is unconstitutional? Since the HC had held the section unconstitutional, the question before SC also was whether the HC‘s decision is right?
Supreme Court on Homosexuality
Most of those who are disappointed with SC judgment yesterday are those who thought that SC has called Homosexuality immoral. But as far as I read the judgment, I could not find SC taking a stand on the issue. At one point, it even says “Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation”.
SC on constitutionality of Section 377 IPC
The real issue before SC, as I said earlier, is not about the morality of homosexual behaviour, but whether the relevant section of the penal code is unconstitutional or not. Another issue is whether the Court can read it down (strike it down)? These questions are answered not on the basis of sexual morality, but on the basis of precedents before the court.
Article 13 and Section 377
I will reproduce the relevant part of the judgment to let you read why SC does not think that Section 377 violates Right to equality? For those who has no patience to read it fully should read the sentences bolded.
31. From the above noted judgments, the following principles can be culled out: (i) The High Court and Supreme Court of India are empowered to declare as void any law, whether enacted prior to the enactment of the Constitution or after. Such power can be exercised to the extent of inconsistency with the Constitution/contravention of Part III. (ii) There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of all laws, including pre-Constitutional laws as the Parliament, in its capacity as the representative of the people, is deemed to act for the benefit of the people in light of their needs and the constraints of the Constitution. (iii) The doctrine of severability seeks to ensure that only that portion of the law which is unconstitutional is so declared and the remainder is saved. This doctrine should be applied keeping in mind the scheme and purpose of the law and the intention of the Legislature and should be avoided where the two portions are inextricably mixed with one another. (iv) The court can resort to reading down a law in order to save it from being rendered unconstitutional. But while doing so, it cannot change the essence of the law and create a new law which in its opinion is more desirable.
32. Applying the afore-stated principles to the case in hand, we deem it proper to observe that while the High Court and this Court are empowered to review the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and strike it down to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution, self-restraint must be exercised and the analysis must be guided by the presumption of constitutionality. After the adoption of the IPC in 1950, around 30 amendments have been made to the statute, the most recent being in 2013 which specifically deals with sexual offences, a category to which Section 377 IPC belongs. The 172nd Law Commission Report specifically recommended deletion of that section and the issue has repeatedly come up for debate. However, the Legislature has chosen not to amend the law or revisit it. This shows that Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India, has not thought it proper to delete the provision. Such a conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that despite the decision of the Union of India to not challenge in appeal the order of the Delhi High Court, the Parliament has not made any amendment in the law. While this does not make the law immune from constitutional challenge, it must nonetheless guide our understanding of character, scope, ambit and import.
33. It is, therefore, apposite to say that unless a clear constitutional violation is proved, this Court is not empowered to strike down a law merely by virtue of its falling into disuse or the perception of the society having changed as regards the legitimacy of its purpose and its need.
So the court is of the view that only if there is a constitutional violation by a law, the court is empowered to strike it down. Then Supreme Court answers whether the section is hit by article 14,15 and 21.
Article 14,15 and Section 377
The Supreme Court does not elaborate much on this aspect, but only says the following
“What Section 377 does is merely to define the particular offence and prescribe punishment for the same which can be awarded if in the trial conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other statutes of the same family the person is found guilty”
Article 21 and Section377
The following observations are made by SC regarding the question whether Section 377 of IPC violates Article 21 of the constitution
51. Respondent No.1 attacked Section 377 IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on certain persons, especially those belonging to the LGBT community. In our opinion, this treatment is neither mandated by the section nor condoned by it and the mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 IPC. The law in this regard has been discussed and clarified succinctly in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 281 as follows: “11. It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate legislation”
52. In anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature.
54. We hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable.
56. While parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that this Court has merely pronounced on the correctness of the view taken by the Delhi High Court on the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and found that the said section does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General.
After going through the judgment, what I understand is that.
- SC has not criminalized any community or any sexual behaviour.
- SC has only said that the right and duty to legislate lies with legislature, not with the Judiciary.
- There are only a few convictions under Section 377 and most of them are for forced unnatural sex.
- SC has only pronounced on constitutionality of Section 377 and not on the moral question of homosexuality.
Following are my doubts, which I request you to clear.
- Why has not legislature yet amended the Law?
- Why should SC take up the job of legislature?
- Why is this sudden hue and cry about Section 377 which was not there till a decade ago? Were there no homosexuals then?
Aam Aadmi Party was able to sweep 28 seats of Delhi, and their leader Aravind Kejriwal said “For the first time in the history of India, people have voted for a honest party.” Anyone who hears him will think that his party has been voted to a majority, such was his “Victory” speech. The election results in reality was that BJP getting 31 seats , AAP coming second with 28 seats and CON reducing itself to a single digit, its lowest tally ever.
While I should congratulate Arvind Kejriwal for successfully using an apolitical anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare for a political campaign and self-projection. It will be outrageous not to credit him for his courage to stand against a chief minister who ruled Delhi for fifteen years and defeating her. But when I say all these, I am really fed up with arrogance and Holier than Thou attitude emanating from him and his supporters.For the first time in the history of India, people voted for a honest party, claims Kejriwal. There are a dozen parties in India which got voted to power and all of them claimed they were honest. For example NTR got 202 seats out of 289 in Andhra, Telugu Desham party stormed to power within nine months of its formation in the 1983 Assembly elections, thus forming the first non-Congress government in Andhra Pradesh. Assam Gana Parishad is another example of such an anti-Congress wave. Compared to the achievements of TDP and AGP who rode to power over an anti-congress wave, AAP looks small.
People of all times vote for the party which they think are Honest. They voted for BJP in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and C’Garh because they thought they are honest. When an incumbent party is voted to majority for the second and third time, it is safe to assume that it is because the Government led by it has rose to their expectations. That is why Gujarat, C’Garh and Madhya Pradesh saw BJP coming back to power in the last two assembly elections there.
Arvind Kejriwal said people have rejected Congress and BJP in these elections. It is quite true that the people who voted Congress party for keeping “communal” BJP out of power has voted overwhelmingly to AAP this time. But then had the people of Delhi rejected BJP like they rejected CON, it would not have got 31 seats. Sincere analysis would prove that BJP and AAP together have made people reject CON.
I was quite surprised to see Media focussing on Delhi results which indicate a hung assembly, instead of fantabulous performance by BJP in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Which another party has achieved this feat of getting 80% seats in recent times? But media chose to ignore it because that suited their agenda. Many Marxist friends of mine were quite enthusiastic to commend AAP’s rise in Delhi, and they saw a “Change” in him. But they chose not to see the “Change” in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and C’Garh. So be it.
Imagine the hue and cry if Narendra Modi talks the H word- the whole nation will debate his majoritarian communalism. If BJP promotes Sanskrit or Yoga, it is also communalism. But accidentally I saw a website maintained by Andhra Pradesh Government which is named christianminorities.ap.nic.in. We have minority ministry for centre and state, but never knew in Andhra Pradesh there is a special status for Christians. Contents of the site would prove the status enjoyed by Christian minority in Andhra.
The following welcome note can be read in the website itself.
The Andhra Pradesh State Christian (Minorities) Finance Corporation has been formed in November 2008. The main objective of the corporation is to assist the Christians community for their socio-economic development in collaboration with Banks and other Development Agencies. The Source of funding for the corporate is from Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Three conclusions can be reached easily from above note
- Congress Government under YSR started it in 2008. In April 2009 assembly elections were held. This corporation was set up to woo Christian vote bank.
- Main objective of the corporation is to assist the Christian community. Not even minority community, Christian community need a special assistance?
- The funding of this corporate is by Government of Andhra Pradesh. Public money for blatantly communal corporation?
As we move on we can read about the schemes by this corporation, they are
- Christian Mass Marriages
- Pre Matric Scholarships (Government of AP)
- Post Matric Scholarships (Government of AP)
- Tuition Fee Reimbursement (Government of AP)
- Pre Matric Scholarships (Government of India)
- Post Matric Scholarships (Government of India)
- Merit-Cum-Means Scholarships (Government of India)
- Training, Employment and Placement
- Free Coaching for Competitive Examinations
- Subsidy for Bank Linked Income Generation Schemes
- Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem ( Stopped due to High Court Stay Order)
- Financial Assistance for Construction/ Renovation/ Repairs to Churches (Stopped due to High Court Stay Order)
- Financial Assistance to Christian Hospitals, School Buildings, Orphanages, Old Age Homes, Community Halls-cum-Youth and Resource Centers; and for Youth Awareness Programmes and promotion of Christian Culture.
Those in un- bolded letters are quite common to see in most of the states. But I am yet to see Christian only scholarships in any other states. But the “schemes” above in bolded letters needs quite elaboration.
Till 2009, Andhra Goyt used to give subsidy to Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In July 2009, The HC stayed the state funding of subsidy. It seems that the court has vacated the stay, but the website says it has been stopped.
It is worth noting that the Andhra Government has a financial assistance scheme, which is perhaps still continuing, to promote Christian culture. Why should any Government which vow on secularism promote Christian culture with state funds? Does not it tantamount to saying that Christianity is state religion of Andhra? What if BJP says it would promote Hindu culture?
There is another scheme to felicitate eminent Christians in Andhra? A Secular Government felicitating eminent personalities of a particular religion only? Following is the notification of that scheme
A P State Christian (Minorities) Finance Corporation, Minorities Welfare Department, Government of AP solicits nominations from Heads of Churches, Christian Institutions, Community Leaders etc., for felicitating eminent Christians who have excelled in different fields of life and rendered exemplary services for the last 10 years in secular areas like 1) Social Work (2) Education (3) Literature (4) Medicine (5) Fine Arts/Theatre at the time of Christmas High Tea Programme hosted by the Government of AP through General Administration Department during December 2013. Those selected will be felicitated with a cash award of Rs.10,000/- along with a plaque in recognition of their services.
The majority-minority concept in India itself is a flawed one. Minority protection presupposes a strong, proselyting and united majority. But in India Hindus are not a united majority, instead they are divided into groups and subgroups. Here the majority community is a collection of thousands of minority groups who are less in number than Muslims and Christians. Hinduism is not a proselyting religion which propagate that other religions are false.
The above schemes are perfect examples of how blatantly communal and discriminatory schemes which are unconstitutional are introduced in the name of secularism. Secularism nowadays, is even a defence to rape for some eminent journalist accused of rape. It is quite sad to see Congress party, which is vocal on “secularism” is engaging in raping the constitution of India.