Elections may happen anytime between now and 2014. The Congress is prepared to lose, but it is striving hard to ensure its priorities. In our opinion the priorities of the Congress are:
1. A non-BJP government, preferably third front (third-rate front) at the center with a Mohandasian Jawaharian PM.
2. Even if NDA forms a government, Modi must not be the PM.
The tactical maneuver of the Socialist Secular politicians have all been aligned with the same goal. On opposition to Modi; Lalu and Nitish are united, Akhilesh and Mayawati are united, the Congress, the CPM and even the Maosists are united; Why?
Is it because Modi orchestrated the subdued response to the dastardly carnage in Sabarmati Express by Muslim Extremists? Is it because Modi is accused of being dictatorial? Is it because Modi blah blah blah? Should we believe that Modi will be accepted as not-guilty if the courts exonerated him?
The answer to each of these is an unequivocal NO.
The Congress orchestrated anti-Sikh riots in 1984, falsely called them Hindu-Sikh riots, and yet is a Secular Party. While Modi, even if he gets exonerated by the courts will be held morally-guilty. Congress breathed in and out under the thumb of Jawahar (post China-war defeat the backside licking of Jawahar continued), Indira (Devkant Barua an erstwhile Congress President stated that India is Indira and Indira is India), and does so now under Sonia, but Jawahar, Indira or Sonia are never called dictators, rather they are termed beloved leaders. Lalu owns his RJD, Mulayam owns his SP, Mayawati owns her BSP, Mamata owns her TMC, and they too are not dictators. But Modi is a dictator! Whose standards and what morals are these?
Why is it that anti-Hindu terror is seen in Secular terms while even a mere questioning of this is considered Hindu-Communalism? Why is it that whether it is Mamata or Mayawati, Navin or Nitish, Akhilesh Yadav or Lalu Yadav, they boldly and shamelessly unite for Secularism (against the putative Hindu-Communalism), boldly and shamelessly unite for Social-Justice (against putative Hindu-Casteism); but they never ever display even an iota of interest for Hindu interests and safety? Do we need complex theories to understand this? No. At worst it is anti-Hindu unjust mind-set and at best it is anti-Hindu appeasement for political opportunism. Every political outfit exhibits this crass behavior. At the first opportunity to form a government the wind-bag Vajpeyee led BJP compromised on Hindutva. This is why we term that political outfits in India are not Secular or pseudo-Secular; they are either anti-Hindu or pseudo-Hindu. This has to change.
There are a few individuals who display from time to time a somewhat Hindu-sympathetic behavior. Bal Thackeray, Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Modi being some of them. And recall that they do it only occasionally while their opponents display anti-Hindu ethos contiuously. For example Bal Thackeray played a vital role in the release of Sanjay Dutt who had committed grossly anti-Hindu crime. Swamy has once called RSS evil. And Modi underplays Hindu causes. But for the presence of Modi administration, the understandable reaction to the evil and unprovoked Godhra carnage would have been much bigger. Thus the supposed pro-Hindu stance of these leaders is intermittant at best. And yet, merely for an occasional inclination towards Hindu-sympathy, the ubiquitous partners in anti-Hindu alliance hate them and demonize them. This shows the depth of the vile hatred the Jawaharian Socialists and Seculars have against the Hindus.
Bal Thackeray, Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Modi must be supported and encouraged not because they are pro-Hindu, which they are not; but because they are the least anti-Hindu among the current politicians. And we need to use Narendra Modi as the litmus test because the anti-Hindu alliance of the Jawaharian Socialists and Secularists hates him the most. Thus, for the forthcoming election (in 2014 or earlier) anyone who is opposed to Modi's candidature as PM must be rejected as Jawaharian anti-Hindu. The formation of any alliance that is not anti-Hindu, the litmus test must be the in-principle acceptance of Modi's candidature for PM. The main question is not about who is to be projected as PM. The main point is that those who oppose the candidature of a person merely because he is perceived as pro-Hindu must surely be squarely rejected.
Let the UPA, the Third Front (third rate front) and even the NDA go to dogs. What we Hindus must desire and work for, to begin with, in the forthcoming general elections, is a Least Anti-Hindu Alliance. And none who refuses even the legitimacy of Bal Thackeray's Ram-Temple stance, Subramanian Swamy's anti-Islamic-Terror-solution, and Modi's merely perceptible pro-Hindutva, to be included in the political discourse, must be comprehensivley rejected. We have had enough of anti-Hindu Jawaharism. We may be far from pro-Hindu mind-set. But we must begin by building the Least anti-Hindu mind-set. And for that, in-principle Acceptance of Legitimacy of Modi's Candidature as PM Must Be the Litmus Test.
Just as we posted this, the news appeared that even shaking hands with Modi is to be viewed as communal (see here and here).
ReplyDeleteDo we need any more evidence of the prevalence of anti-Hindu ethos? Do we need any more evidence to establish the need for what we suggested?