Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Hate - Modi campaign – the malady of Bharat vs India started from Gandhi himself!


Arindam Chaudhuri in a recent article articulates well on how the country is divided as Bharat versus India which finds its reflection in the continuing diatribes on Modi by those who identify themselves as secular. He makes a powerful statement that "Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few claim to know what is best for both India and Indians…


"What is India? If you go by the definition of English media, it is an artificial country that should not have happened, an ungovernable country where religion, caste and ethnic identity matter more than humanity.....


"Besides, most people who subscribe to the English media world-view have a 67-year-old Nehruvian Network to fall back upon, if required. What do I mean by the Nehruvian Network? This is something that has been working in India since before 1947. It is a set of ideas and people who, deep down, think that the system set up by the British was the best. They are the ultimate Brown Sahebs, convinced that Indians need a bit of civilisation."


Reading these line from Arindam Chaudhuri, I thought it is imperative recall certain incidents that happened in choosing Nehru as the Prime Minister of India. Looking back, it seems Gandhi too erred in deciding which way the country must go – Bharat or India! Though Gandhi was basically a Bharathiya, he did not give sufficient thought to what would happen to this country – which was for ages, a large conglomeration of smaller countries with decentralised and mutually helping economies with less space for we versus them differences that made them far far better than what you call being secular – if a new attire was forced on Bharat. In his lack of foresight on what is modernity, he chose Nehru over Patel in an uncharacteristic and undemocratic way – a way that continues even today. The kind of modernity that has come to stay today (particularly with the party of Gandhi and Nehru) is just to perpetuate the divisions of caste and religion, promote hatred as we versus them and to stay in power at any cost. I thought it would be a food for thought if we read Arindam's article along with an article by Raj Singh on "Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and nor Sardar Patel for PM" on the circumstances in which Nehru was chosen over Sardar Patel – a decision that forced India on Bharat. Read on....


From


http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article1399885.ece?


Why the secular English media hates Modi

By

Arindam Chaudhuri

 

When the Gujarat election results were being declared, while I was surfing news channels, I could not but help a Bangla expletive escape my mouth when I heard what some experts were saying. One said Narendra Modi and his victory was against the Constitution. Another said how the verdict goes against the spirit of India and how the Idea of India is in danger. I always thought free and fair elections were a celebration of the Constitution, democracy and the Idea of India. The more I watched, the more I realised that these people hate him in a very irrational manner.


Narendra Modi


So I asked my colleagues to note down the reasons why the English journalists hate Modi. The results were interesting. The first reason: Modi is anti-Muslim and communal. The second: he is interested only in projecting himself. The third: he is supposedly a dictator and a fascist. And the fourth: his claims of a developed Gujarat are, the journalists claim, hollow.

Look at the irony of it. If Modi campaigns on the basis of identity, he is branded a fascist-cum-communal monster. If he campaigns on the basis of his track record of development, a mountain of data is immediately forwarded that says other states are better performers than Gujarat.


The fact is: it is a fight between India and Bharat. Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few claim to know what is best for both India and Indians. On the other hand, Modi represents the other India—Bharat, if you will—which is deeply frustrated by the monopoly that the English media and its secular warriors exercise over information.


What is India? If you go by the definition of English media, it is an artificial country that should not have happened, an ungovernable country where religion, caste and ethnic identity matter more than humanity. Besides, most people who subscribe to the English media world-view have a 67-year-old Nehruvian Network to fall back upon, if required. What do I mean by the Nehruvian Network? This is something that has been working in India since before 1947. It is a set of ideas and people who, deep down, think that the system set up by the British was the best. They are the ultimate Brown Sahebs, convinced that Indians need a bit of civilisation. They snort, snigger when a politician like Uma Bharti, Mayawati or Modi rises up from nowhere, proudly displays his or her lack of English communication skills and yet manages to persuade voters to do the right thing. You see, things were much better when only children of politicians and bureaucrats who spoke impeccable English were there to dictate the agenda for the nation.


That is because the gulf between India and Bharat will never cease. But the problem is, people like Modi are actually threatening this feudal cartel of the privileged. You see, not even Atal Bihari Vajpayee threatened this cozy equation. No wonder, the English media hates Modi.


This battle between India and Bharat started in the 1980s. It has thrown up many heroes and heroines who fight for India. Modi is the first person who is fighting aggressively on behalf of Bharat and he seems to be winning. Imagine an India where Congress chamchas, JNU intellectuals and their fellow travellers won't have access to power in Delhi. No wonder, the secular English media hates Namo.


I think this will be the most interesting political battle in India since the days of Mahatma Gandhi. He settled that one in favour of Nehru; and Vallabhbhai Patel, a Gujarati, died a second fiddle. There is no Mahatma now; only voters. So Rahul Gandhi or Modi? We were the first to do a survey between the Rahul versus Modi possibility and Modi came out to be the sure-shot winner. If you have doubts, keep watching the big fight. Bharat is destined to win this time.


Arindamchaudhuri.blogspot.com

Chaudhuri is a management guru and honorary director of IIPM think tank


***********

From


http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national/why-gandhi-opted-for-nehru-and-not-sardar-patel-for-pm--6689.html



Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and not Sardar Patel for PM

Raj Singh [ Updated 31 Oct 2012, 13:45:08 ]


History is written by the victors". The official history of independent India was written and overseen by that faction of the Congress party which emerged victorious in the leadership tussle on the eve of independence with the tacit but partisan support of none other than the all powerful and universally venerable Mahatma Gandhi.

According to this official history, Jawahar Lal Nehru was elected as the first Prime minister of India and Sardar Patel became his deputy and it was all done purely on merit.

The official history has always downplayed the grave injustice that was done to the 'Iron Man of India' – Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. It's not that the official history does not mention the emergence of Sardar Patel and not Jawahar Lal Nehru as the overwhelming choice of the Congress party to lead India after independence but it has been reduced to mere footnotes and nothing more.



Today, on the 137th birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, let's revisit the entire intra-party power struggle within Congress on the eve of independence and let's figure out what really went in favour of Jawahar Lal Nehru and what was it that deprived Sardar Patel his moment of glory despite the overwhelming support he enjoyed amongst the Congressmen.

The entire rank and file of the Congress looked at Sardar Patel as the most deserving candidate to be sworn in as independent India's first Prime Minister, given his proven track record of being an able administrator and a no-nonsense politician. Then what really went wrong? To find out the answer, we need to rewind back to 1946.



By 1946, it had become quite clear that India's independence was only a matter of time now. The Second World War had come to an end and the British rulers had started thinking in terms of transferring power to Indians.

An interim government was to be formed which was to be headed by the Congress president as Congress had won the maximum number of seats in the 1946 elections. All of a sudden, the post of Congress president became very crucial as it was this very person who was going to become the first Prime Minister of independent India.