On Congress declining the invitation to attend 'pran pratishtha' ceremony of Ram Temple in Ayodhya, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi says,
"Congress boycotted the inauguration ceremony of the new Parliament building. Congress boycotted G20 Summit...After 2004 till 2009, Congress boycotted Kargil Vijay Diwas.
"Congress did not give any statement for 10 days after the Pokhran nuclear test conducted in May 1998 under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government. Congress had also boycotted the Bharat Ratna ceremony of former President Pranab Mukherjee, who belonged to their party. The public is also boycotting them from power...".
Union minister & Telangana BJP president G Kishan Reddy says,
How much Congress party, Rao and S B Chavan were responsible for Babri demolition?
On Dec 5 1992; which leader said, "We will make BJP sing Bhajans ?
It was none other than the then Union Home Minister S B Chavan.
Another quote from a popular leader also on Dec 5, 1992 will be relevant to refer to.
# “I will tell you the arth (meaning) of the Supreme Court verdict. It does not mean we have to stop kar seva. Actually, the Supreme Court has given us the right to continue kar seva. Rokne ka to sawal hi nahin hai (There is no question of stopping us). Tomorrow we will not be violating any court order if we perform kar seva)”. – Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Dec 5, 1992
In retrospect it may be easily stated that P V Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister had failed to frame his own plans to 'protect' Babri masjid.
Moreover, a lacklustre Home Minister S B Chavan too did not help much. “The shattering denouement occurred because in the end it amounted to a judgement call in which he (Rao) was left playing by the rules of an indoor game, while the Sangh took to the battlefield,” wrote Zafar Agha in ‘India Today’ in December 1992.
Among Rao’s associates and colleagues – Sharad Pawar (then Defence Minister) and the then HRD Minister Arjun Singh hardly had faith in the RSS’s words of assurances. Some years later Subodh Kant Sahay told me that on the advice of Pawar, he had met Prime Minister Rao and “warned” him that the Kalyan Singh government could hardly be trusted with.
The Congress government had lost all initiatives to checkmate Sangh Parivar from bringing down the Masjid or the structure when it declined to act against Kalyan Singh government in UP.
At a later stage, several Congress leaders including from north east like Late P A Sangma had said: “S B Chavan acted fast in sending fax notes to UP Chief Minister. In one such belated letter to Kalyan Singh, our Home Minister had specifically mentioned that Kar Sewaks were buying Trishuls which could be used for offensive and damaging purposes”.
However, only a week prior to December 6 mega episode, S B Chavan had dismissed L K Advani’s reported statement that Kar Sewa will be performed with bricks and shovels.
Chavan perhaps surprised many members in the Rajya Sabha and chiefly his party colleagues when he had said: “.....I have checked with Advaniji and he has said he was misquoted by the media”.
Sound Bytes: Refer .... a few quotes:
# “.....They should arrest me at the earliest because, after all, it is I who fulfilled one of the major objectives of our party”. – Kalyan Singh on Dec 8, 1992 – two days after Babri demolition
# “We will be performing Kar Seva with bricks and shovels on the 2.77 acres of disputed land”. – L K Advani in mid November 1992
# “The mosque is a sign of a slavery in Independent India.....”. – M M Joshi in Nov 1992
# “The Ram Janmabhoomi Movement had a propulsion and life with or without BJP....You may well say that Hindu bashing or denigrading the moral and the spiritual force of Hinduism as an allergy is secularism. But I do not agree equating Ram Janmabhoomi with the Babri Masjid”. – L K Advani
The Congress leadership – especially the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and more particularly Sonia Gandhi certainly had complaints against Rao.
Talk to Congress leaders, to this day many of them almost unhesitatingly hold him responsible for the erosion of the grand old party’s support base in the cow belt. Sonia Gandhi allegedly denied entry of Rao's body to AICC head quarters. The party also denied Rao a funeral in Delhi, a place of party heroes.
Up to this day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi mocks at Congress leadership and the dynasty for denying ‘entry’ of P V Narasimha Rao’s body to the 24 Akbar Road AICC headquarters.
True, a number of Congress leaders regard him as a ‘usurper’ to the Nehru-Gandhi throne and a conspirator who worked against the ‘dynasty’ and also for the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
##
Congress leaders such as Mani Shankar Aiyar in 2016 stole the limelight at a book release function especially because he made a blistering attack on the Congress Prime Minister of 1992. "Narasimha Rao was completely convinced that by talking to the Sadhus and Saints he could solve the problem (Ayodhya's Ram temple issue)," Aiyar had said in presence of author Vinay Sitapati among others.
Others also maintained that the former Prime Minister Rao's "pro-Hindu mindset" had ultimately encouraged the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Speaking on the occasion many others, including former Congressman Natwar Singh who also worked closely with Rao, described the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, as "the biggest failure" of the then Prime Minister Rao.
Aiyar went on to recall that on November 14, 1992, his "Ram-Rahim yatra" for peace and communal harmony was stalled at Faizabad and he was arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police. "I was summoned by Rao, he told me he had no problem with my yatra but he did not agree with my definition of secularism as India is a Hindu-majority country. I told Rao that's exactly how the BJP argues," Aiyar had said.
However, author Sitapati, a product of National Law School at Bengaluru and Harvard University, maintained that Late Rao had actually only "erred" in judging the situation. Sitapati did not agree to Mani Aiyar’s contention that Rao was to be blamed for the demolition of the Masjid.
“It was only the Congress creation that Rao conspired for the mosque's demolition".
Senior journalist Shekhar Gupta agreed that the ploy to "demonise" Rao on the Babri issue was a Congress attempt only to win over the Muslims. Gupta suggested the Congress wanted to give a big picture image - "....Look, Rao is responsible for the Babri demolition and not the party".
"The Muslims of UP are not fools; they knew pretty well who opened the locked gates of the disputed structure," Gupta had said rather tersely in reference to a decision of the then Rajiv Gandhi government.
Aiyar, however, maintained that even after the mosque's demolition, Rao told a Congress Parliamentary Party meeting in Delhi that "even kings in ancient India used to consult sages and Sadhus and so did I".
Aiyar still had problems with Rao and hence remarked rather rudely - "Was this a mindset of a 20th century Prime Minister or 12th century? This mindset actually encouraged the destruction of Babri Masjid”. The Congress leader maintained that the then Prime Minister Rao could have dismissed the then Kalyan Singh government and impose President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh.
"In fact, there was a precedent of such President's Rule. In apprehension that things can go out of control in Tamil Nadu, the then DMK government was dismissed and central rule imposed earlier without recommendation from the state Governor,” Aiyar had said in reference to the decision of the Chandrashekhar government in 1990.
Sardar Patel, Dr Ambedkar differed with Nehru's 'romanticism' on foreign policy: Dr Jaishankar
New Delhi
In the run up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, besides the Ram Temple hype the BJP and the Modi government have also stoked a debate on the Nehruvian foreign policy and the perceived blunders vis-a-vis foreign policy especially on China and Kashmir.
In contrast, according to External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar, the Modi government has been dealing with the communist country with "realism".
He also said that there was a difference of opinion between Nehru and his deputy Sardar Vallabhbai Patel on how to tackle Mao Zedong's China.
"... The Modi government is more in conformity with the strain of realism which originated from Sardar Patel in dealing with China…I argue for dealing with China on the basis of realism that extends all the way from Sardar Patel to Narendra Modi," he said in an interview.
On the other hand, he mentions: "If you look at the last 75 years of our foreign policy, we have had a strain of realism about China and we have had a strain of romanticism, non-realism about China. It begins from day one where there is a sharp difference of opinion on how to respond to China between Nehru and Sardar Patel".
This is food for thought for the Congress party and the 'foreign policy' experts.
Dr Jaishankar made the remarks in the context of his new book, 'Why Bharat Matters'. The book has become a talking point of the month among diplomats and others too.
Eminent foreign policy expert C Raja Mohan, says in his article in 'Indian Express' : - "His (Dr Jaishankar's) evaluation of the “roads not taken” in India’s foreign policy during the early years after independence will trigger much political controversy, but it sets the stage for the long overdue historicisation of Indian foreign policy".
It is worth mentioning that Jaishankar’s critique of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “naivete” on Pakistan and China and “ideological predilections” against the West is not made from the easy benefits of clear hindsight.
The Minister draws on the perspective of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Jan Sangh hero Syama Prasad Mookerjee, scholar-politician and Dalit leader B R Ambedkar, and intellectual Minoo Masani, who in the 1940s and 1950s were questioning Nehru’s choices and decisions.
Dr Jaishankar also said -- that he has tried to analyse the views of other leaders in 1940s and 1950s. For example - Sardar Patel on China, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee on Pakistan (Kashmir), Dr Ambedkar - on China and America.
"Not many people know how strongly he (Ambedkar) was disturbed by the manner in which our relationship with the US did not fare well in that period...Minoo Masani I refer to in terms of where sometimes the practice of Non-alignment can end up doing...I have tried to be very objective," Dr Jaishankar insists.
"My purpose of writing that chapter is to remind people - look at what you take as a given ... this was the only course which India could have followed may not be true. That time, many years ago there was a very intense debate...After all these are three key relationships (of India) - China, Pakistan and America...".
In more ways than one, the External Affairs Minister Dr Jaishankar is practically in Late Arun Jaitley's shoes for Narendra Modi and his Moditva phenomenon. The Minister has come out with his new book, 'Why Bharat Matters'. The Modi government does not have many credible English orators and after Jaitley, that honour safely can go to Dr Jaishankar, who has a credibility of his own.
Well, the new book could have been called 'Why India matters' too ... But a serving Minister handpicked by Modi himself in 2019 understands pretty well the political importance of 'Bharat' ... as a name.
Dr Jaishankar has served in key hubs including Beijing, Russia and Washington and is India's second 'diplomat-turned-neta' and foreign minister after Natwar Singh -- the former Congressman.
Natwar Dingh served as foreign minister under Dr Manmohan Singh but was booted out within 15-16 months once the Volcker report embarrassed Sonia Gandhi and the party.
To put in perspective, one can say Dr Jaishankar was made the foreign minister in 2019 'replacing' Sushma Swaraj. In fact, the breaking news came out in the limelight on May 30, 2019 -- the day of the second time swearing in of Modi.
Of course owing to her ill health and doctor advising her to 'avoid dust' Sushma did not contest 2019 Lok Sabha polls. She expected a Rajya Sabha berth and probably wanted to continue as the foreign minister.
However, on the swearing in day, Sushma walked into the Rashtrapati Bhawan but 'sat separately' and the media could 'break' the story.
Dr Jaishankar says: "This (the debate around Bharat) is not something which is a narrow political debate or a historical cultural debate, it is a mindset. And, if we are actually preparing seriously for the 'Amrit Kaal' in the next 25 years and if we are talking of a Viksit Bharat or developed Bharat, that can only happen if you are an 'Atmanirbhar Bharat'".
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment