For Muslims, the USP of Kejriwal is his effective challenge to Congress/BJP cartel - Ghulam Muhammed

Monday, November 25, 2013

For Muslims, the USP of Kejriwal is his effective challenge to Congress/BJP cartel

As the Delhi assembly elections are nearing, both Congress and BJP have gone into an overdrive to attempt and wipe out the first effective challenge to their hegemonic cartelization of Indian politics, by filing complaints after complaints with the Election Commission, in a desperate attempt to debar Kejriwal and his AAP party from the election itself. Though the Election Commission is an independent body, the pressure on it to go strictly by the rules, in the case of AAP shows how discriminatory Indian system could be when high stakes for ruling class is involved.

In this context, the Muslims are still undecided if they can hazard their votes on AAP or go the traditional way of blindly voting in Congress. However, in wider perspective of this development of an alternative, that has dared to challenge the two corrupt national parties, should not be missed by them, to ‘teach a lesson’ to Congress, that they too can deal with Congress the way it deals with them. This is a golden chance for Muslim voters of Delhi, to break the logjam of political monopolization by these two Brahminical formulations, that have no regard, no respect for the people of India and are in the business of politicking merely to amass their illgotten wealth by robbing the national assets without any fear of accountability. Both parties are committed to Corporates, who are funding them openly and reserve their quid pro quo in award of opportunities to them through illegal means.

For Muslims, the antecedent of Kejriwal may not be clear; whether he is a RSS man, or Congress proxy, or foreign agent and they are not willing to junk Congress. However, as long as Kejriwal with all his ambiguities and alleged warts, is giving the two giants a run for their money; he should be wholeheartedly supported.

If Muslims want to be liberated from Congress stranglehold, this is their golden chance to pull Congress down to a level, that it may have to beg Muslim support for the coming Lok Sabha election and should be forced to earn their votes. There does not have to be free lunch for Congress now on.

As portents are clear that Kejriwal will be made to suffer through dramatic intervention by Election Commission, neither Kejriwal nor Muslim voters of Delhi will be able to gauze their electoral strength through the polls. But if he survives, Muslim should not miss a chance to humble Congress in its den.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

Is India's potential prime minister driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? - By Sarmila Bose - Aljazeera

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/india-potential-prime-minister-driven-anti-muslim-prejudice-2013111973628103751.html

Is India's potential prime minister driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? Narendra Modi's use of the 2002 Gujarat violence in electoral campaigning is not an isolated case. Last updated: 24 Nov 2013 10:07 Sarmila Bose Sarmila Bose is Senior Research Associate, Centre for International Studies, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. Since 2002, when violence against Muslims racked the state of Gujarat in India, its Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, has been tainted with the allegation of complicity in a pogrom. Riots had occurred in Gujarat before, but 2002 acquired a particularly dark reputation. Despite being elected thrice as chief minisiter of Gujarat, Modi was widely believed to have ruined his chances ever to lead the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the national level. But a decade later Modi is leading the BJP's 2014 campaign as de facto prime-ministerial candidate. Modi's political rehabilitation was predictable. Gujarat enjoys a reputation for enterprise and commerce, independent of its politicians. While being vilified on human rights grounds, Modi focused on building an image of encouraging pro-business economic development. Money talks and public memory is short. Within a short time, for business it was business as usual in Gujarat. This may not have been sufficient to capture national leadership, but the failure of the incumbent Congress-led government and the lack of a rival within the BJP contributed to Modi's success. If Modi wins next year, would India have elected an allegedly murderous anti-Muslim bigot as its leader? Sectarian beginning I visited Gujarat in early 2002 amid the still smouldering violence, again mid-year and finally at the end of the year during the state election campaign. For a better understanding of what Modi's rise means, we need to remember what his goals were in Gujarat in 2002, what his party represents, and the polarising electoral politics in India and other countries. When the Godhra train incident, in which dozens of Hindus were killed and which triggered the anti-Muslim violence, happened in February 2002, Modi had been chief minister of Gujarat for only about four months. He had been dispatched to replace the sitting BJP chief minister, to stem the slide in support. Before that Modi had been a party strategist, but had never been fielded in electoral politics and had no experience of governance. He had only a year to ensure BJP's re-election. As he put it, he had come to play a "one-day match". Modi's party has long been accused of whipping up religious conflicts to win votes. In his book The Politics of India since Independence, Paul Brass observed that in 1990-91 the BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) played a significant role in deliberately instigated violence in north India. In 1990 BJP President L K Advaniwent on a "rathyatra" - a "chariot" procession - across several states, triggering riots in its wake. Using religious mobilisation for political ends, the BJP went from practically no presence in parliament in 1984 to becoming the second largest party by 1991. However, the manipulation of incidents of violence for electoral gain is not unique to the BJP. Brass found that it is a central feature of Indian politics by the 1980s, with Indira Gandhi adept at the "politics of crisis". Riding to power on violence is also an established practice elsewhere. Paul Collier found that where the "bottom billion" lives, violence has been the predominant route to power, and democracy tended to increase political violence. Incumbents who wanted to remain in power found "scapegoating a minority" a strategy that "worked". Steven Wilkinson has argued (in Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India) that it was not institutional weakness that explained the variations in state response to riots in India, but instructions given by politicians whether or not to protect minorities. When multiple parties compete, minority votes have more value than where there are only two contenders, like Gujarat. In 2002 I found Godhra itself subdued during the campaign, while the state election was fought in its name. T-shirts bearing a photo of the burnt-out train had the slogan (in Gujarati): "We won't let our village become Godhra." Godhra had become a concept, which had little to do with the neglected town. To many people thronging to hear Modi during his campaign in 2002, he was a hero. Some told me that the previous chief minister had been too "soft"; in Modi they had found the "strong" leader they sought. The charismatic demagoguery of Modi was on full display in that campaign. It may not be obvious to those who have only heard him speak in slightly halting English, but in 2002 I found Modi to be an immensely effective orator in Gujarati. He played the crowds' emotions skilfully, and stoked their prejudices with bone-chilling messages about "enemies of the state". Modi's campaign was unabashedly "communal" - he campaigned as though he was running against "Mian Musharraf", the military ruler of neighbouring Pakistan, ignoring the Congress candidate who was actually his opponent. The manoeuvre blended aggressive Hindu nationalism with jingoistic patriotism for a potent, toxic mix. Given his campaigning skills, it was astonishing that the BJP had not fielded him in elections before. If such a politician had chosen to work for all citizens, he could have done much good, and Muslims would have voted for him too. But in 2002 Modi was focused on winning the "one day match" he had come to play. To ensure sufficient consolidation of the Hindu vote, he seemed prepared to write-off the Muslim minority altogether. He did not need, or want, their votes. National elections are a different game, with numerous parties and the high likelihood of another coalition. Modi has shifted focus to governance and development. However, as Christophe Jaffrelot detailed in his work on the Hindu nationalist movement, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), where Modi was "pracharak" (activist), was built on the stigmatisation of "others". RSS leaders openly drew inspiration from European fascism. A 'common' practice Perhaps there is nothing special about Modi, except that he seems more capable, and more ruthless, than others. The use of violence for electoral gain is widespread in the world and in India. The BJP was already in power in India from 1998 to 2004 and has been the main opposition since. Former BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had the image of everybody's favourite uncle, even though he too had been an RSS "pracharak". So had L K Advani, former deputy prime minister and home minister, who had undertaken the "rathayatra".  Gujarat was known for religious riots long before the BJP or Modi. The ugly truth about India's democracy is that life is cheap here and Indian voters have long been used by politicians as expendable pawns in their battles for power. Modi may have anti-Muslim prejudices, but that did not seem to be his primary motivation for failing to protect Muslims in 2002. Rather, it seemed to be his single-minded focus on winning by manipulating the Godhra incident and its violent aftermath to consolidate the Hindu vote. He seemed callously indifferent to the fate of the victims of this strategy. In this regard he has plenty of company in India and in other countries. Many politicians who practise the politics of hate do not necessarily hate any group personally as much as they incite their followers. Yogendra Yadav - an Indian political analyst who has entered politics -argues that while Modi is not the only one to indulge in authoritarianism or majoritarianism, multiple flaws of India's democracy appear to converge in him. Logically, if Modi let Muslims in his state die in 2002 to ensure victory through Hindu consolidation, he would protect them if he needs Muslim votes in multi-cornered contests, or if he is likely to win without resorting to polarisation. Equally, if sacrificing some other group might better serve his electoral purpose, perhaps they would be at risk rather than Muslims.  The cold-blooded nature of these calculations is chilling.  Repugnant when practised by run-of-the-mill politicians, it seems terrifying in the hands of a man of high-ability. There is no effective humanist opposition to this phenomenon in Indian politics. The only bulwark might be the sheer heterogeneity of national politics in India. Modi's rise may be a troubling prospect, but the problem is bigger than Modi.   Sarmila Bose is Senior Research Associate, Centre for International Studies, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Zafar Sareshwala: The Muslim who bats for Modi | Comments by Ghulam Muhammed

My comments posted on Times of India article: The Muslim who bats for Modi:

Zafar Sureshwala is a representative of business class people from Gujarat, who are not very deep into any ideology except when it translates into hate and revenge stages. There is an invisible tug of war going on in Gujarat and even all over India, between an ideology of Hindutva pitched against Islam and Muslims. Though it will appear that Modi and Zafar both are the two end of a tug of war, Modi's deeper ideological commitments, especially while in power which he is ruthlessly misusing, cannot be matched to Zafar's commitment of Islam and its wider impact on India and Muslims of India. His tabligi background, nurtured in the backdrop of British colonial efforts to wean Muslims from Jihad and restrict them to 5 times prayers, has no matching power to pull Modi in the tug of war to Muslim side. The result is obvious. Zafar and the people like him do not represent the existentialist-threatened-Muslims of India, who had lost to British and then turned inward to keep their religious identity intact. Muslims are once again are faced a similar threat from Modi and his Hindutva and again their response will be to close the ranks against this threat. People like Zafar will be left out of the community consensus, enjoying their AUDI distributorship windfalls. The battle this time will last much longer, as unlike British, Hindutva is  not going anywhere and Muslims will have to be prepared for a much longer period of trials and tribulations. Those that value their faith and their religious identity, will condemn Zafar Sareshwala for breaking the ranks and submit to a worldly power that is in essence grounded in a quagmire of hotch-potch of racism, caste-ism, pseudo-nationalism. Good luck to both, Modi and Zafar. Let the best side win.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deep-focus/Zafar-Sareshwala-The-Muslim-who-bats-for-Modi/articleshow/26290224.cms?



Zafar Sareshwala: The Muslim who bats for ModiMohammed Wajihuddin,TNN | Nov 24, 2013, 05.43 AM IST

Foe to friend: Sareshwala, who went from fierce critic to fan, has been dubbed an opportunist by many in the community.

Bright prayer mats are the only thing that lend colour to Zafar Sareshwala's otherwise spartan Mumbai home. Five times a day, Sareshwala — who is a member of the Tablighi Jamaat, a puritanical strand of Islam — lays these mats down for namaaz, and says prayer inspires the "important mission" he is called upon to perform — a spirited defence of Narendra Modi.

The 50-year-old bearded businessman has become a familiar face on TV news debates and is the go-to person for journalists looking for a byte from a rare breed — a Muslim supporter of the BJP's prime ministerial candidate.

Considered one of Modi's trusted backroomboys, he is said to have the Gujarat chief minister on speed dial, predictably earning brickbats for "backstabbing" community members who oppose Modi's Hindutva ideology. But Sareshwala, whose family hails from Ahmedabad, maintains that engagement with Modi and the BJP is the only way forward for the Muslims of Gujarat. "Muslims cannot remain isolated from a party which has been in power in Gujarat for so long, and Modi should not remain untouchable forever. Permanent animosity against a political party and its prime ministerial candidate will not help improve the community's condition," he explains.

Sareshwala's own leap of faith has been a long one — back in 2002, he was among Modi's fiercest critics though the only losses he suffered during the 2002 Gujarat riots were financial. A mechanical engineering graduate and expert in Islamic finance and banking, he was working in England at the time, but Parsoli Corp, an Islamic investment company he had set up in Ahmedabad with his two younger brothers, incurred losses of Rs 3.8 crore. Their industrial valve manufacturing factory was also burnt down, and the wealthy Sareshwalas, once among the largest zakat (charitable tax) donors in the community, found themselves in dire straits.

Back in the UK, Sareshwala joined a group of activists planning a suit against Modi in the UN-affiliated International Court of Justice. He even contemplated moving his family to England. Ironically, it was Modi who made him rethink his plan. "Kya wahan angrezon ki ghulami karte rahoge. (How long will you serve the British) You are needed in India," Modi had said to him during a phone conversation in 2005.

Earlier, in 2003, Sareshwala and London-based Islamic scholar Maulana Isha Mansoori had a long meeting with Modi to thrash out differences. He claims the Koran and the Prophet's traditions, his two main guides, did not stop him from engaging with enemies. "The Prophet signed Sulah Hudaibiya, a seemingly humiliating treaty, with the then pagan Meccans who had oppressed him and his followers. This is the example that I follow and want my fellow Muslims to follow too," says the businessman, who returned to Ahmedabad with a two-pronged task — strengthening his family financially and providing help to his community.

A BMW dealership that his brother acquired while rebuilding the family's finances has led Sareshwala's critics to label his proximity to Modi "sheer opportunism". "I have no problem if Sareshwala has made peace with Modi only because of his business. But after capitulating to a tyrant, he is now collaborating with him to make India a Hindu rashtra where minorities, especially Muslims, will be second-class citizens," says Javed Anand, secretary of Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD) and coeditor of Communalism Combat. Human rights activist Shabnam Hashmi says Sareshwala has sided with Modi to "serve his own interests", but director Mahesh Bhatt, a supporter of Sareshwala and other riot victims, is more dispassionate. "Zafar is my frenemy. I am friends with him despite my fundamental dislike of his politics," he says. Does Bhatt believe his frenemy's claim of befriending Modi to ensure Muslim grievances are addressed? "I will believe that the day he (Sareshwala) stands with me in the house of Ishrat Jahan's mother," says the director.

Sareshwala, who receives loads of hate mail and is frequently referred to as 'Mir Sadiq' and 'Mir Jaffer', historical figures who betrayed their community to help the British, is unfazed by criticism. His grouse is against "publicity-hungry" activists who pretend to side with the community. "Funds were being collected to fight court cases but the Muslims in Gujarat were completely isolated. There was no one who would talk to Modi on their behalf," he claims. His family, including his three children, supports his stance and Sareshwala says his father, who died last month, advised him to stand his ground.

Sareshwala cites his list of accomplishments since he has had Modi's ear. In 2006, after a series of encounters in Gujarat, the police started rounding up Muslim clerics, many of whom ran madrassas. Sareshwala claims that after he set up a meeting between Modi and the maulvis, the operation was dropped. Last year, he ensured rehabilitation for 3,500 hawkers from old Ahmedabad being displaced by a government redevelopment plan. Sareshwala has also facilitated dialogues between Modi and prominent community members, like Urdu weekly Nai Dunya's editor Shahid Siddiqui and Lord Adam Patel, chief patron of London-based Council of Indian Muslims. While Siddiqui's interview became hugely controversial and ended with his expulsion from the Samajwadi Party, Lord Patel says, "Sareshwala appears to be honest, but I've reservations about Modi's politics."

Sareshwala doesn't, pointing out that Modi's Hindutva agenda is being downplayed. "Just as Muslims in Gujarat are getting financially strong, Muslims elsewhere too will if Modi becomes PM," he says. The community focus, he adds, must be on creating educational and business opportunities, entrepreneurships and jobs. "Once we are financially strong, we will be able to influence the country's policies," he concludes

My Comments posted on Dailybeast.com article: Exclusive - John Kerry defies the White House on Egypt policy

My Comments posted on Dailybeast.com article: Exclusive - John Kerry defies the White House on Egypt policy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/18/exclusive-john-kerry-defies-the-white-house-on-egypt-policy.html

Ghulam Muhammed 2 minutes ago

It seems Kerry is unaware of how powerful presence of American Jewish Zionists in State Department and in Defense establishment is not capable of giving out an objective foreign policy initiative in Middle East that will represent the wider US concern for democracy and human rights. All such anti-American 'experts' should be exposed and weaned out of the system, if US has to have a viable Middle East foreign policy that is not mortgaged to Israeli interests.

----- ----- ----- -----


Photo by The Daily Beast

• facebook
• tweet
• post

Politics

Exclusive: John Kerry Defies the White House on Egypt Policy

By Josh Rogin

November 18th 20135:45 am

followMore Stories by Josh Rogin

The secretary doesn’t agree with Obama’s team, especially Susan Rice, on how to deal with Egypt. Unfortunately for Rice, Kerry is the one on the ground—and he’s doing things his way.

Before Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent trip to Cairo, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told him to make strong statements in public and private about the trial of deposed President Mohamed Morsi. On his own, Kerry decided to disregard the White House’s instructions.

The tension between the national security adviser and the secretary of state spilled over into public view in the past week, when Rice laid out her critical appraisal of the Egyptian government, which contradicted Kerry’s assessment that Egypt was “on the path to democracy.” The now public rift has been simmering behind the scenes for months and illustrates the strikingly divergent Egypt policies the White House and the State Department are pursuing.

The turf battles and internal confusion are hampering the administration’s approach to Egypt, say lawmakers, experts, and officials inside both governments.

“John Kerry doesn’t agree with Susan Rice on big portions of our Egypt policy, and he made a deliberate and conscious decision not to mention Morsi in his Cairo meetings,” an administration official told The Daily Beast. “Susan Rice wasn’t happy about it.”

“There are real differences in the fundamental approach to Egypt between Susan Rice and John Kerry.”

Two other administration officials confirmed the Kerry-Rice rift over Egypt. The secretary and national security adviser’s disagreement about how to handle the tumultuous and troubled U.S.-Egypt relationship is only the latest example of how the White House has steered America’s approach to Egypt in a way that conflicts with the views and desires of the State Department and the Pentagon, said the two officials.

“The roadmap [to democracy] is being carried out to the best of our perception,” Kerry said November 3 at a press conference during his surprise stop in Cairo, standing alongside the Egyptian foreign minister. “There are questions we have here and there about one thing or another, but Foreign Minister Fahmy has reemphasized to me again and again that they have every intent and they are determined to fulfill that particular decision and that track,” he said.

Never once during his trip did Kerry publicly mention Morsi, whose trial on charges of murder and other alleged crimes began November 4. Administration officials and sources close to the Egyptian government said Kerry also did not raise the Morsi trial in his various private meetings with Egyptian officials.

Rice delivered less praise and more admonishment for the Egyptian government in remarks at The Aspen Institute’s Washington Ideas Forum on November 13.

“We have tried to indicate to the Egyptian people and the Egyptian government that we support them in their transition back to an elected democratic government,” she said. “But that government needs to be inclusive. It needs to be brought about through a process in which all Egyptians can participate, and without violence. So when, in August, in the process of trying to clear the protesters from some of the squares in Cairo, over 1,000 people were killed, the United States, I think quite rightly, said, you know, ‘We have a problem with that. And we can’t pretend to conduct business as usual on the context of a government, however friendly, taking that kind of action against its people.’”

Well before Kerry and Rice disagreed publicly on Egypt, the White House and the State Department clashed privately over the administration’s Egypt policy. During a months-long administration review of U.S. military aid to Egypt, the State Department and Defense Department pushed internally to preserve most of the assistance, while the White House insisted most military aid be suspended, pending more progress by the Egyptian government.

“There are real differences in the fundamental approach to Egypt between Susan Rice and John Kerry,” said one Washington Egypt expert with close ties to the administration. “We wouldn’t have had any aid suspension at all if it had been up to John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.”

Rice, who has spent the bulk of her career dealing with Africa, has a long record of emphasizing human rights and democracy concerns. Kerry leans more toward economic diplomacy and engagement with regimes who may not be on their best behavior. Hagel has close relationships with Egypt’s military leaders and has spoken to Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi more than 20 times since the overthrow of the Morsi government.
But several officials also said the rift stems from the State Department’s institutional bias toward working with governments in power and maintaining important relationships. In Cairo, Kerry followed the recommendation of his own bureaucracy, which was not to mention Morsi’s name. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, concerned about its own security since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, also is wary of making strong statements about the Morsi trial.

The White House maintains that all parts of the Obama administration share the same overall goal: to help Egypt get back on track toward being a functional democracy operating under the rule of law.

“The entire national security team—including Ambassador Rice, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Hagel—is working in lock step to implement the president’s policy on Egypt: namely, to encourage Egypt’s transition to an inclusive, democratically elected, civilian-led government that respects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians,” Patrick Ventrell, a spokesman for Rice, told The Daily Beast. “The current interim government has laid out a clear roadmap for Egypt’s return to democratic rule, and across the administration we are working with Egypt’s leaders to strongly encourage them to meet their commitments.”

A senior State Department official told The Daily Beast that Kerry often raised the issue of the Egyptian government’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood during his trip, even if he didn’t utter Morsi’s name.
“[Kerry] repeatedly pressed the interim government on politically motivated and arbitrary detentions, arrests, and trials in every meeting he had,” the official said. “He also used the word ‘inclusive’ about a dozen times per meeting, stressing that the Muslim Brotherhood needed to be a part of the process.”

Nevertheless, officials and experts said the administration’s Egypt policy is hampered not only by internal tensions but also by being ad hoc and reactive, without a long-term strategy dictated by President Obama.
“What’s missing from any of the administration’s statements or actions is a clear vision of how they will preserve American interests in Egypt over the long term,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center and a former State Department official. “The president clearly made an analytical judgment that authoritarianism in the Middle East was not stable in the long term. If he still believes that, then he has to have some concerns about Egypt’s trajectory and American interests, and how to address those concerns is missing from American policy today.”

In Egypt, officials are receiving diverging messages from the U.S. government’s various parts, causing confusion as they try to decide how to react to recent U.S. actions. For example, the administration has not told the government of Egypt what exactly it must do to get the partial aid suspension lifted, said a source close to the Egyptian government.

“They are getting different messages from different people in Washington. There is confusion in Egypt as to what is actually U.S. policy,” the source said. “There is a vagueness and an unclear policy.”

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the administration is lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would allow for some military aid to Egypt to continue, but the effort is faltering. Lawmakers in both parties are still upset the administration refuses to make a determination that the Morsi overthrow was a coup.

The administration is following a law that would restrict military aid for any country that has a coup, despite its reluctance to use that word. A bill to give the administration specific authorities to continue some aid was pulled from the agenda of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting last week because various senators could not agree on what restrictions they should put on the administration’s ability to disperse the aid.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee, told The Daily Beast in an interview that he is opposed to giving the government of Egypt any more aid until it takes major steps toward restoring the rule of law.

“I’m not going to authorize more assistance to Egypt until they march toward a transition to a civilian-controlled government,” he said. “My goal is to not reinforce the coup but to reinforce the transition.”

Asked about the Kerry-Rice split on Egypt policy, Graham said, “I’m in the Susan Rice camp.

comments posted on Indian Express Edit Page article:National Interest: Or else, Modi - By Editor Shekhar Gupta - The Indian Express

My comments posted on Indian Express Edit Page article:National Interest: Or else, Modi - By Editor Shekhar Gupta:

Shekhar Gupta is enormously enamored of India's Liberal Secularism that according to him will change political parties, rather let them change India. He seems to have forgotten, that even after over 50 years of rule and hundreds of thousands of communal riots, Congress has not changed, even though it is the prime champion of Liberal Secularism as well as the Constitutional Secularism. Compared to BJP, Congress is more an opportunist and not idealist or ideologically hide-bound like BJP/RSS. If Congress did not bother to change
and could rule for such a long stretch, without people or India itself changing it a bit, how Gupta can is so sure that India's liberal secularism will change BJP/RSS combine.

This is wishful thinking. For a seasoned journalist and front row observer
of Indian political drama, it is possible he is unable to sit back and take a
long range view of what is ailing India. He certainly has not bothered to
borrow the binocular that is used by 200 million Muslims, to find out how
minority syndrome views the concocted majorities and how much it can match Shekhar Gupta's hubris.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/national-interest-or-else-modi/1195519/0

National Interest: Or else, Modi

Shekhar Gupta : Sat Nov 16 2013, 00:59 hrs

Why spooking the voter cannot be his opponents' only strategy The first person to call me that September morning in 2002 was a friend who had been present at a political (NDA) dinner the previous night and said I was under attack there from many BJP ministers. Apparently, the only ones to rise to my defence instinctively were Sushma Swaraj and Arun Shourie, also members of the Vajpayee cabinet. The first, my friend since 1977 and a distinguished senior on the Panjab University campus but an exact contemporary professionally: she won her first election to the Haryana assembly and became a junior minister almost the same month that I joined this paper as a cub reporter in the same city, Chandigarh. The second, much more than just a friend, philosopher and guide, a teacher through life and to whom I owe, among many good turns, the most wonderful of them all, my tour of duty in the Northeast between 1981-83 for this paper. The conversation at that dinner was about something I was supposed to have said in a speech in Pakistan. And it wasn't nice. L.K. Advani had complained, in particular, that I had boasted that I, and this newspaper, would "sort out" Narendra Modi, so nobody need worry about him. Also, that George Fernandes (then defence minister) had brought it up in the cabinet earlier that week, even passing around some printouts that showed I had described him in Pakistan as a "buddhu rakshas (stupid monster)". The speech was delivered in the course of a series of public events in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to mark the launching of the Daily Times, edited by Najam and Jugnu Sethi, among the bravest and most liberal journalists you'd find anywhere, and owned by Salman Taseer (later assassinated by religious thugs). I was only the third and the least significant or eminent of the three speakers invited from India, N. Ram of The Hindu and Arundhati Roy being the other two.
Since Advani is one of our most accessible leaders ever, I called him to check what had caused this. He said, besides whatever else I may have said, two things stood out as objectionable in particular. One, "George was really upset" with my description of him, and that I had boasted I, this newspaper and the Indian media would fix Modi. And then Advani said he wouldn't have been so disappointed if Arundhati or Ram had said such things. "Kintu Shekharji, aap se aisi apeksha nahin thhi... (But we didn't expect this from you)". It was all very polite and dignified and he added that I should also call George.
Which I did at once, and asked George that "buddhu" was alright, but would anybody in Pakistan ever understand the meaning of "rakshas", so why would I describe him as such? He said I had a point, but this is what he had read in an article posted on Rediff.com by Varsha Bhosle (Asha Bhosle's right-wing daughter who died, sadly, in October 2012, allegedly having committed suicide).
Here are the facts of that story. The first offence, the insult to George Fernandes, was all fiction. Somebody in the audience had asked Ram what he thought of his defence minister's idea of a "limited war" with Pakistan. Remember, this was mid-August 2002 and, following the Parliament attack, our forces were massed on the border with live ammunition under Op Parakram. Ram said it was a "stupid" and "monstrous" idea. There is no way he would have used buddhu or rakshas, given that his Hindi is no better than my Tamil. He never used that description for George, and certainly I hadn't even spoken on this. But the second charge, I stood "guilty" of. At least prima facie. And this was also in response to an audience question.
"You keep praising India's democracy all the time," asked this concerned woman, "but what will happen to your democracy if Modi comes to power? Shouldn't we Pakistanis and your Muslims worry?"
"Don't worry about our democracy and Modi, ma'am," I said. "We have institutions to deal with Modi if he threatens our democracy and its values of liberal secularism... we have the judiciary, Parliament, Election Commission, and also us, the free media. You can trust India's institutions to deal with any such challenges now," I said. And then added, in some exasperation, as that question was being asked often on that visit (just months after the Gujarat riots), "You don't worry about Modi. Please leave him to us Indians and our institutions."
That is all there was to that "offensive" statement, and I am quite happy to repeat it even today. Except, I now have to address campaigners of the Congress party who are building their entire 2014 election campaign on a Modi paranoia. That he will come to power and ruin our democracy, break up our country and sully every liberal value the founding fathers built this republic on. It is not for me to take a call on who the people of India should choose to lead them next year. But the fact is, whoever it is will have to work within the parameters of the Constitution and uphold its core values, whether he likes them or not. Because a democracy is neither made nor destroyed by individuals. It is built around institutions that sustain and nurture it, and protect it in case of an assault by any monsters, whether buddhu or wise. Tested by dictatorial individuals and forces, as India was during Indira Gandhi's Emergency, these institutions emerged even stronger, thereby making our democracy even more unassailable. Howsoever formidable Modi may be, he cannot be like the Indira Gandhi of 1975 with a brute majority. And she also failed.
It is because the voters know this well that the Congress party's current, single-point campaign, built on the Gabbar-isation of Modi, is not working. After ruling India for 10 years uninterrupted, you cannot merely scare India into voting for you. Those that fear Modi, notably the Muslims, will vote to defeat him anyway. They do not need a reminder, and Modi is unlikely to be able to calm them unless he finds a way of seeking some sort of closure to 2002, which until now he has shown no inclination to do. But the Congress cannot win a third term just by scaring us all of Modi. Because 2014 is a far cry from 1984. And because we are not scared of Modi, even those who won't vote for him. And surely, we will deal with him, or anybody else, from any party, Congress, BJP, Third Front, who threatens to become a monster. To win power in 2014, you need a much wider, affirmative agenda.
I had taken a few months off on a sabbatical between 1993 and '94 to write a monograph for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (Adelphi Paper 293, 'India Redefines its Role', OUP, January 1995). This is when the BJP was a rising power post-Ayodhya. I had analysed this in detail and recklessly stuck my neck out to say that while the BJP would come to power, you need have no larger worries as India would make the party change a lot more when it's in power than it would be able to change India. Second, that the BJP was riding a peculiar surge, whereby it looked as if India's large majority of Hindus had acquired a minority complex. Vajpayee flattered me by referring to this argument from the monograph (with due credit and citation) in his brilliant defence of the NDA (although that first government fell in 13 days) and held forth in some detail on why the majority had acquired this minority complex. He talked about how it was important now to challenge this division of the Indian mind between majority and minorities. In his prime ministership, he genuinely wanted to deliver on this promise. But Gujarat 2002 blotted his report card. And he never forgave Modi. Or even himself, for his inability to ensure adherence to rajdharma after talking about it in Ahmedabad.
I would repeat both these points once again now. The more the anti-Modi forces work towards polarisation, the more they bring back the majority's minority complex. It helps their adversary rather than harming him. At the same time, if at all he were to be voted to power next year, India and its institutions would change Modi (and even his BJP) rather than him being able to change India. That's why fear can't be the key to the voters' mind in 2014. It will be a positive, considered choice from the options on offer.
sg@expressindia.com

Barkha Dutt v/s Arvind Kejriwal – who is communal between the two? - Ghulam Muhammed

Friday, November 15, 2013

Barkha Dutt v/s Arvind Kejriwal – who is communal between the two?

In a NDTV interview with Arvind Kejriwal, on her program, the Buck Stops Here, the usually cheerful and poised Barkha Dutt pounced on Kejriwal, accusing him of playing communal politics by meeting with the Muslim cleric Maulana Tawqir who is member of a 100-ulama committee that deliberates and issues guidelines/advisories to Muslims in fatwas and a fatwa has been issued against Taslima Nasrin, a Bangladeshi citizen and a pet of the Left Liberals. Taslima raised a storm, thus clearly meddling in the internal affairs of India, especially in a very sensitive area of India's democratic elections.  

Kejriwal responded, first by explaining that he was not aware of any such antecedent of the Maulana when he met him; though in one of his speeches, Maulana Tauqir has come out to be very secular, very inclusive, very peaceful. Arvind promised to give Barkha a CD of Maulana’s speech and asked her to telecast that positive side of people, rather going always for negatives.

Kejriwal further countered against the media that he has been going around to all religious places. He visited temples. Media never objected. He visited gurdwaras. Media never balked. He visited churches. Media hardly took notice. However, as soon as he visited a Dargah and met a Muslim cleric, all hell broke loose with the media.

Now, let the people decide, who is communal – media or Kejriwal? Needless to add, Barkha Dutt’s face turned white.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

< ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

Engineer who was branded terrorist and took on Infosys finds his calling - By Sweta Dutta - Indian Express, Mumbai, INDIA

THANKS TO IB AND ATS'S GROSS CAMPAIGN TO INCARCERATE YOUNG EDUCATED MUSLIMS ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF 'TERRORISM', THOSE INNOCENTS LET OFF BY COURTS ARE PICKING UP POLITICS AS THEIR NEXT CAREER CHOICE. INDIA WILL SEE A NEW BATCH OF POLITICIANS GROOMED IN INDIA'S JAILS, JUST LIKE THEIR INDIAN FREEDOM MOVEMENT LEADERS WHO TOO DID A STINT IN BRITISH INDIA JAILS.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajasthan-polls-engineer-who-was-branded-terrorist-and-took-on-infosys-finds-his-calling/1195078/0

Rajasthan polls: Engineer who was branded terrorist and took on Infosys finds his calling

Sweta Dutta : Jaipur, Fri Nov 15 2013, 10:12 hrs

Rashid Hussain took over two months ago as the Rajasthan president of the Welfare Party of India, launched in 2011 as the political wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

He first shot into prominence as "the engineer who was branded a terrorist and took on Infosys". Today he is active in politics, which he had always been interested in. Rashid Hussain took over two months ago as the Rajasthan president of the Welfare Party of India, launched in 2011 as the political wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. He operates out of an office in the basement of an apartment in Jaipur. As office-bearers draft a press release in English on the final list of four candidates that the party will field, Hussain's help is sought to correct grammatical errors.
He accedes to a request to begin his story from the beginning. He was born in Gaya and grew up in Patna, where his father was a psychology professor. His early political leanings were erratic, with the NSUI in his student days and infrequent campaigning for Lalu Prasad Yadav's RJD. He went to study engineering in Bangalore, where he continued to gravitate towards politics.
"I could never enter active politics because my father would not hear of it. They wanted me to be an engineer or doctor," he says. "But I always had a keen interest in politics. When H D Deve Gowda became prime minister, he came to Bangalore and threw a party that I attended."
Hussain joined Infosys in 2005. Late in 2006, he was sent to Jaipur as part of a core team to set up operations. "Along with some friends, I set up an NGO called Human Development Society that ran a school and a free dispensary. When the May 2008 serial blasts took place in Jaipur, we set up a camp outside SMS Hospital to provide relief to victims and their families. A few days later, we held a big seminar on ways to combat terrorism."
Life changed forever for him that June 1. A Special Operations Group team barged into his flat in the early hours, ransacked the house — "they found not even seditious literature" — and took him into custody. Over that week when Hussain was being interrogated "over cups of tea, samosa and kachori" and was "cracking jokes and sharing IPL match updates" with the investigators, reports about his "rumoured well-knit terrorist network across the globe" were splashed in the media. He walked free nine days later, but the scandal stuck.
His employer terminated his contract, apparently over issues with his experience certificate. Hussain, with a family to fend for, decided to stand up to Infosys. He filed a legal case that went on for three years until April this year, when a court ruled in his favour, granting him Rs 20 lakh in damages and directing the firm to reinstate him. Hussain, however, had made his choice by then — politics.
He had been a member of the Jamaat since 2008, moved on to the political wing and was named state president. He finds Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal's anti-corruption movement inspiring and says he wants to work on similar lines. "Our party is on the lines of the Aam Aadmi Party; we stand for value-based politics," he says, handing out a pamphlet that draws from its manifesto promising "value based politics, to root out injustice, discrimination, end communalism, casteism and terrorism, a definite plan to eradicate corruption, ban on alcohol, female infanticide and violence against women".
He sees no contradiction of the party's secular ideologies with the Jamaat's religious sentiments. "We are raising the issue of reservation for Muslims and Christians too in the SC/ST categories," he says. "Look at the central leadership of the party, we have Father Joseph Abraham and former minister and Dalit leader Lalita Naik as the party's national vice presidents."
The party's balance sheet shows it in the red. "We must be in debt of over Rs 2.5 lakh but that is how communist parties work. Our 1,000-odd members in the state contribute anything from Rs 10 to Rs. 50,000."
The party was earlier contemplating fielding 20 candidates but decided not to amid the general impression that it would help the BJP by eating into the Congress' minority voteshare. "So we thought of making a modest beginning with just four candidates."
He is optimistic of making a mark in bipolar Rajasthan. "In two-and-a-half years, we have won bypolls and municipal polls in several states including West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. In AP of the 34 seats contested in municipal polls, we bagged 26. Victory will be ours in Rajasthan too."

UP govt’s conspiracy to deprive Muzaffarnagar riot victims of their properties - By Zafarul-Islam Khan, Editor, The Milli Gazette

http://www.milligazette.com/news/9449-up-govts-conspiracy-to-deprive-Muzaffarnagar-riot-victims-of-their-properties-india-muslims

UP govt’s conspiracy to deprive Muzaffarnagar riot victims of their properties

Any uprooted family accepting the aid of five lakh rupees has to sign an affidavit which says that it will not return to the village it came from and will not claim 'movable and immovable properties' in its village (see copy of the affidavit on the below). A majority of the affected families have refused to sign this dubious affidavit which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional as it deprives people of their properties which are at times much more than the compensation offered.

By Zafarul-Islam Khan, The Milli Gazette

Published Online: Nov 12, 2013

Print Issue: 16-30 November 2013

Muzaffarnagar’s vice president of Jamiat Ulama-e Hind Haji Azizur Rahman said while talking to mediapersons that Akhilesh Singh government has announced to give a financial assistance of Rs 5 lakh to 1800 riot-hit families of Muzaffarnagar and Shamli who under no circumstances are willing to return to their homes in their villages where they lived before the riots because they fear for their safety. District administration officials tried many times to impress upon these people the need to go back and live where they used to live before the riots erupted in September, but because of the hostile attitude of the villagers, they are not willing to return and settle down elsewhere.

The illegal affidavit refugees are forced to sign to lose their movable and immovable properties in their villages (http://www.scribd.com/doc/183552140/UP-govt-conspiracy-against-Muzaffarnagar-riot-victims-2013)

In a state government statement of 27 October, an official said that Rs 5 lakh financial assistance is being given to enable these people to settle down anywhere they want. This decision has been taken on the basis of the report submitted by the 10-member committee headed by Shiv Pal Yadav, minister for public works, which included some ministers. This compensation package will cost the government Rs 90 crores.

This committee was constituted on Mulayam Singh Yadav’s instructions to visit the riot-hit areas and to inspect relief and rehabilitation work for people rendered homeless and forced to live in refugee camps, and who do not want to return to their homes and villages because of the hostile attitude of the village people there.

Haji Azizur Rahman demanded that the government make sincere efforts to trace persons who are still missing for about two months or declare them dead and give compensation to their families. He also demanded that those responsible for instigating the riots must be subjected to legal process and jailed.  Police officers who shirked their responsibility and in any way encouraged the rioters or helped them in any way must also be strongly dealt with, he demanded.

Government officials clarified that the amount of Rs 5 lakh will be given to those whose houses were burnt or those whose near and dear ones were killed. They further said that people in villages where no riots had taken place but who had shifted to other places because of fear will not be considered deserving of this financial assistance. They also said that for other financial losses in addition to burnt houses, further financial assistance besides Rs 5 lakh will  be given and with this help, 965 families of Muzaffarnagar will benefit.

The Mushawarat delegation visiting Muzaffarnagar and Shamli camps for the third time on 5 November came to know that the said grant of five lakh rupees is only for refugees from 12 villages where murder and arson took place on a large scale while refugees from dozens of other villages who fled out of fear and many of them refuse to return will not get any such help. Moreover, any family accepting this help of five lakh rupees has to sign an affidavit which says that it will not return to the village it came from and will not claim “movable and immovable properties” in the villages (see copy of the affidavit above). A majority of the affected families have refused to sign this affidavit which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional as it deprives people of their properties whose value at times is much more than the compensation offered.

The affidavit shows that the Samajwadi Party government is hand-in-glove with the grand conspiracy to deprive Muslims of their properties and lands. This proves what Times of India reported on 1 Nov., that land grab is the motive behind the fresh violence.

This article appeared in The Milli Gazette print issue of 16-30 November 2013 on page no. 1

An appeal to the Muslims of Delhi - By Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani

An appeal to the Muslims of Delhi

 

**************************

Dear Muslim brothers and sisters of Delhi!

                 I am making this appeal, especially to you because, we, the Muslims of India, are the only community which has been reduced  to the status of political slavery, which has badly fallen in the dirty trap of  power hungry politicians, which has been ruthlessly sandwiched between fictitious secularism and naked fascism and which has  its fortune confined only to ‘ make one party win in the name of secularism and make the other lose in the name of communalism.’ No doubt, our Constitution is a sacred document which guarantees to all the citizens equality in every sphere, but the circumstances created by  reprehensible policies of political outfits have  brought  us  not only to the lowest social strata of the country, but also inculcated in our collective minds a fear psychosis. Everything is before you, so to discuss the details is simply the wastage of time and energy. We understand our despicable position : we discuss it, but in the end lament over the reality that we have no alternative.

         Now that Delhi Assembly elections are going to be held in the first week of  December, we have got an opportunity to wriggle out of the present predicament which may pave the way for our better future. You know it well that  Congress and B.J.P. are the two main traditional contenders there. Of them which is worse or which is better on each front is difficult to say. Both are sunk in corruption and complementary to each other  in polarizing the vote  in the name of the so-called  communalism and secularism.

             I have not the  slightest inhibition in asserting with full force that Aam Aadmi Party ( AAP) , led by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, has emerged as a strong force which is making a genuine beginning to be the option for those who are opposed to corruption in general, and for Muslims who are feeling desperately helpless. I am not testifying to the everlasting credentials of Mr. Kejriwal’s Party, but have no reason to doubt them either.

 Come on  dear brothers and sisters of Delhi ! Have faith in Allah and grab this opportunity by extending whole-hearted support to AAP. I am sure that Insha Allah it will lay the foundation for your bright prospects , and will ultimately give you a sense of self-confidence that can make you a politically vibrant community in the country.

Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, 

                         LL.M. ( Alig.),LL.D.(Lucknow)

Chairman, All India Muslim Forum

537CH/ 30, Sherwani Nagar

Opposite New Campus of  Lucknow University

Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P. India

Sherwanimk@yahoo.com

+91 - 9919777909

Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj in Mumbai - Letter to the Editor - By Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Letter to The Editor

Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj in Mumbai

The way Mumbai’s Municipal Corporation is following up Supreme Court orders to demolish scores of flats in  Mumbai’s Campa Cola Colony residential complex, it is now confirmed to the people at large that they are now living in an infamous ‘Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj’.

Residential apartments in Mumbai is the lifeblood of its people. The way, the case of illegal building of flats by criminal builders and their accomplices in the Municipal Corporation, who overlooked such illegal activities, has been judged by the Supreme Court, punishing the hapless owners who had invested their life-savings and are now to be unceremoniously dumped virtually on the streets --- while completely exonerating the criminal nexus of the builders and bureaucrats, shows that justice is truly blind. Supreme Court must review its verdict and take a holistic view of this unholy alliance of criminals and their modes operand i; thus saving the victims of the criminal nexus and restoring them their right to properties they have paid for and are staying for long years.

NGOs should organize a Mumbai Bandh in favour of the unfortunate families to protest against the ‘Andher Nagri’s Chaupat Raj’.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

Congress, BJP mum on 75% of funds - By Manoj Mitta - The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Congress-BJP-mum-on-75-of-funds/articleshow/25606771.cms

|

Congress, BJP mum on 75% of funds

Manoj Mitta, TNN | Nov 12, 2013, 01.18 AM IST

Print Edition Headline: Mainstream parties opaque on funding - Newbie AAP, However, Claims to be Transparent Even On  Amounts Lower Than Those Required by Law

NEW DELHI: Is it a case of the pot, namely, the Congress-led government, calling the kettle, namely, Aam Aadmi Party, black? Or, is this about Arvind Kejriwal being hoist by his own petard? Underlying the announcement of a probe into the alleged foreign funding of AAP is its innovative legal interpretation, which is sharply at variance with that of the government and two leading parties, Congress and BJP.

In a departure from a long-entrenched practice, AAP professes to be transparent about the funding it has been receiving from abroad. It claims to have disclosed all the details on its website in keeping with its interpretation that the law permits donations from NRIs who are Indian citizens. Accordingly, it has also published the Indian passport numbers of all its donors from abroad. Though the law exempts political parties from revealing sources of donations worth less than Rs 20,000, AAP says that it has been disclosing even the donations that are below the lower limit.

While the two related claims of transparency by AAP will now be verified by the official inquiry, it is ironic that mainstream parties which are notoriously opaque about their funding sources are not being subjected to similar scrutiny. This is despite the fact that their funding is admittedly on a much larger scale and the recent report of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has shown that about 75% of their funding comes from unknown sources.

According to the ADR analysis of income tax returns and statements with the Election Commission, the total income of the six national parties from 2004-05 to 2011-12 was Rs 4,896 crores. Yet, for as much as Rs 3,675 crores, those parties gave no details of their sources. Given their general proclivity to be secretive about the sources and probably even the quantum of their income, the question whether donations can be received from NRIs holding Indian passports never arose in the case of parties like Congress and BJP.

From the details that have been disclosed by Congress and BJP, ADR filed a PIL earlier this year before the Delhi high court alleging that the two parties had been violating the Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act (FCRA) by receiving donations to the tune of tens of crores from foreign companies through their Indian subsidiaries. The one example cited in the PIL argued by AAP leader Prashant Bhushan is of UK-registered Vedanta Resources, in which Indian citizen Anil Agarwal holds at least 50% of the paid-up capital. Vedanta made donations to Congress and BJP through three of its Indian subsidiaries, Sterlite, Sesa Goa and MALCO.

In August, the home ministry and two leading political parties filed affidavits claiming that a political donation from the Indian subsidiary of a foreign company was permissible if an Indian held a majority shareholding in the foreign company. Making a similar interpretation of Section 591 of the Companies Act, all the three affidavits claimed that a donation by any foreign company through its Indian subsidiary would not be regarded as a foreign contribution so long as an Indian held a majority stake in the parent company.

ADR's rejoinder, however, asserted that the purpose of Section 591 was merely to ensure that Indian subsidiaries of a foreign company were accountable to Indian authorities. It said that this clause in the Companies Act could by no means be cited to circumvent the express prohibition on foreign contribution to political parties in FCRA and the Representation of the People Act. Little wonder that AAP is citing ADR's PIL to hit back at the rest of the political class, in the wake of the probe into the donations it had received from abroad.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/assembly-elections-2013/delhi-assembly-elections/Probing-source-of-foreign-funding-to-AAP-Shinde/articleshow/25589607.cms

Probe Congress, BJP funds too, says Kejriwal - Print Edition Headline

Probing source of foreign funding to Aam Aadmi Party: Govt

Bharti Jain, TNN | Nov 11, 2013, 02.35 PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre has initiated a probe into the source of funding of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), with the Union home ministry trying to establish if it received any money from foreign donors in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

"We have ordered an enquiry into funding of AAP to verify if any foreign donations were routed to it," Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde told newspersons here a day after Delhi chief minister Shiela Dikshit questioned the source of nearly Rs 19 crore collected by the newly floated party led by activist-politician Arvind Kejriwal.

However, Shinde refused to put a timeline as to when the results of the enquiry would be available. "Such matters take time...one has to see from which foreign country the donations may be coming," he said, giving ample indications that the probe might continue well after the Delhi state polls, due on December 4.

The Representation of People Act (RPA) debars political parties from receiving contributions from a foreign source defined under clause (e) of the Section 2 of the FCRA, 1976. The FCRA, too, states that it has been formulated "to ensure that the foreign contribution and foreign hospitality is not utilized to affect or influence electoral politics, public servants, judges and other people working in the important areas of national life like journalists, printers and publishers of newspapers among others.

According to the AAP, it has collected Rs 19 crore as donations from around 63,000 individuals belonging to cross section of society. The party claims to have received donations ranging from Rs 10 to several lakhs, from rickshaw-pullers, traders, industrialists and NRIs .

"Our aim was to collect Rs 20 crore for Delhi assembly elections, and we would soon be achieving that target. Till the last week of September, we had collected around Rs 10 crore but within a span of a month, we have received Rs 9 crore as donations," said an AAP spokesperson.

The Delhi high court had on October 24 asked the government to enquire into whether any of the donations received by Aam Aadmi Party came from foreign source in violation of the FCRA. It asked the Centre to report by December 10 about the accounts of AAP.

The AAP, however, questioned the probe sought by the court on the basis of "mala fide" petition by advocate M L Sharma, "who has not made AAP a respondent but made Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Prashant Bhushan and Shanti Bhushan as respondents".

"Though the petition makes all types of ridiculous allegations against Team Anna and an NGO Kabir with which Manish Sisodia was associated, it does not disclose the result of an earlier petition filed by Sharma against foreign funding of Kabir. The government after full investigation had found everything to be in order," claimed AAP.

The AAP also drew attention to a similar petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms questioning the funding of Congress and BJP by foreign firms like Vedanta. "The government has been dragging its feet in that case and has taken no action despite documentary evidence of substantial funding of the Congress and the BJP by foreign companies," alleged an AAP spokesperson.

Muslim voters do not behave any differently from the rest of India - By Sohail Hashmi - DNA English Daily

Muslim Vote Bank, compared to other Vote Banks, is more impactful and decisive when it is negative. It thrashed very decisively the 30 year long Communist regime in West Bengal, when the insensitive Communist Brahmins cracked down on Muslims in Sangrur. The Muslim Vote Bank is now certainly relevant as it is bound to act against Modi's candidacy for Prime Ministership through coming Lok Sabha election. Modi's 2002 Gujarat record is enough to activite Muslim Vote Bank all across the nation and especially in the 4 states - UP, Bihar, West Bangal and Kerala where Muslim Vote Bank is most effective.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/smartphone/GT-I8552RWAINU?subsubtype=android-mobiles

Muslim voters do not behave any differently from the rest of India

The only exception, of course, is their opposition to any form of communalism.
 

Saturday, Nov 9, 2013, 7:07 IST | Agency: DNA

Sohail Hashmi

If, and this is a big If, a Muslim Vote Bank (MVB) existed, it would reveal itself in even a cursory study of the constituencies where Muslims are in a position to determine the outcome of the elections. If it did exist it would be very easy to show how 10-12 per cent of the total electorate was behaving in a manner that was different from the general electoral trends. In fact, the existence of a disconnect between the electoral performance of the so-called non-Muslim seats and the so-called Muslim seats would be the clearest proof of the existence of such a vote bank.

Let us take the first three general elections to the Lok Sabha. The Congress party got more than 73 per cent of the seats in all of them. Almost everybody was voting for the Congress and one assumes, so were the Muslims. Bengal and Kerala with about 25 per cent Muslim population and Bihar and UP, with 16 per cent and 18 per cent Muslim population respectively, elected a large number of Congress candidates to Parliament. If a MVB existed at this time it would be hidden behind the general trend that was operating during this period.

Therefore, the only time one could actually begin to see the impact of the MVB on the fortunes of the Congress would be when there is a general loss of faith in the Congress, as reflected in the results of the fourth general elections held in 1967. It is in times such as these that the MVB, if it ever existed, would buck the trend, as it were and come to the aid of the old party. 

Let us take a closer look at the goings on in Bengal Kerala, UP and Bihar in 1967 and see if we can discover the MVB in operation. In 1967 the Congress was, in fact, ejected from seven state assemblies and it is here that it also suffered its biggest Parliamentary losses as well. The four states of West Bengal, Kerala, UP and Bihar were among the states that rejected the Congress. Madras, Odisha and Punjab were the other three.

Throughout the life of this argument it has been said that the Muslims are the pocket borough of the Congress. If there was a MVB working for the Congress, it should have stood up to be counted in 1967 but it did not. In fact Kerala with 25 per cent Muslim votes elected the first non-Congress government in 1957.  Muslims in Kerala are, by and large, concentrated in the North and it has generally voted against the Congress since 1957.

In Bengal, the areas of Muslim concentration are Malda, Murshidabad, Burdwan, Nadia, 24 Parganas and Kolkata. With the exception of Malda, the rest have, post-1967, traditionally voted against the Congress and mostly for the Communists and now when the Communists have lost out in Bengal they have generally lost in these areas as well. The interesting thing is that these ‘Muslim’ seats have not come back to the Congress; they have gone to Trinamool Congress as they have in other parts of Bengal.

Bihar too, with Muslims concentrated in the districts of Katihar, Purnea, Araria and Kishanganj, demonstrates the same trend. The first break comes in 1967 and then it has been the same roller-coaster ride that the entire country has been through. 

Several districts of west UP, where Muslim electors would hold the key if they voted en bloc, demonstrate the same trend. Incidentally, Chaudhary  Charan Singh owed his rise to power on the basis of his political base in the same region of west UP.

Now let us see what is happening in the Parliamentary seats where Muslims either do not have a decisive electoral strength or they are in such small numbers that they would not be able to influence the results even if they voted en bloc. Those who swear by the MVB will be more than a little disturbed with the trends. Almost three-fourths of the so-called non-Muslim seats went to the Congress till the third general elections and then turned away from the Congress in 1967.

The point that is sought to be made is the following: Generally speaking, the rule that holds is that Muslims do not betray any tendency to vote differently from the national or major regional trends, and this can be seen and demonstrated again and again through the results of all the general elections.

In 1971 with the rise of Indira Gandhi and the Garibi Hatao campaign, everyone went back to the Congress and so did the Muslims. In 1977 everyone deserted the Congress and so did the Muslims. In the 1980 elections there was a trek back to the Congress and the routine was repeated in 1984 and it has been the same through all the remaining elections. In fact, if Muslims are a vote bank, all of India is a vote bank, because, by and large, the entire lot moves together, non-Muslims and Muslims together.

This rule, too, has an exception: the Muslims try not to vote for communalists. They did not vote for the minoritarian communalism of the Muslim League in the provincial assembly elections in 1936 and they are not about to help their majoritarian kinsmen now. The overwhelming majority of Muslims who chose to stay in India had chosen a secular State over a theocracy; they are not going to help another theocracy come to power. And that, perhaps, is the worry of the votaries of the theory of the MVB.

The author blogs at Kafila.org and conducts heritage walks in