 |
| Yup! That's CM Modi reading Tolstoy(surprise, surprise) from the Reuters interview(interview links provided below) |
Modi & the reuters interview -
So CM Modi decided to speak to Reuters(Watch - Here & Read - Here) & our wonderful English language Media unsurprisingly starts hyping it up negatively by calling it 'explosive'(Times Now) & 'Controversial'(IBNLive) -
 |
| Obviously from ibnlive.com's facebook page |
 |
| Indian Express didn't want to be left behind in the race for 'hits' on their website |
Let's cross check what was actually said, then!
This is what he actually said(Capital letters, Captions, bold letters, italics, inverted commas etc are all mine. Bold letters do not imply a loud tone, capitals on the other hand, do) :
*On which of the 2 he was, a Hindu Nationalist or a development man:
I'm born a Hindu. And I am a patriotic person. So you can say I am a 'Hindu
Nationalist'. As far as progressive, work-o-holic, development-oriented, whatever
they say, that is there. So there is no contradiction between the 2.
*Speaking about those who claim he was linked with the 2002 Gujarat riots, he said:
People have a right to be critical, (since)We are a democratic country.
Everyone has their own view. I would feel guilty if, I did something wrong.
Frustration comes when you think - 'I got caught, I was stealing and I got caught' -
But that's not what happened in my case.
Up till now, we feel that we used our full strength to set out to do the right thing.
*When Asked if he regretted the violence:
If SOMEONE ELSE is driving a car and we're sitting behind, EVEN then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is!
If I'm a chief minister or not, I'm a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.
*On secularism & religion in politics:
We do believe in that(in secularism) … But what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is, India first. I'm not in favour of dividing Hindus and Sikhs. I'm not in favour of dividing Hindus and Christians. All the citizens, all the voters, are my countrymen. Religion, should not be an instrument in your democratic process.
"CONCLUSIONS -
1)He did claim to be a Hindu Nationalist, part by default & part by choice. He claims he is a Hindu by birth & a Patriot - [which he confuses with being a nationalist as seen in the video when he uses the 2 words interchangeably.Perhaps this confusion b/w the 2 in Modi's mind is due to his poor English language skills, since patriotism & nationalism are NOT the same. Orwell famously distinguished between patriotism & nationalism. ] - by choice. Hence, Hindu patriot/Nationalist. He isn't apologetic about being Hindu. Why is this 'controversial'?
What was he expected to say? That he was a hartaal-loving, 'The internationale-singing' communist? He does represent the BJP which claims to support a certain form of Nationalism. Cultural-Hindu-Nationalism. This nationalism comes with a certain kind of secularism, which Modi later in another part of the interview refers to(refer to conclusion #4 here for a little look at the same). The Congress's brand is Nehruvian secularism. Both are constitutionally valid, by their definition.
The SC of India in 1995 re-emphasized that by definition, it(Hindutva) was not directed against 'others'. The idea of Hindutva itself has evolved over a century & what was said a century ago is not what is said now.
We as Indian citizens are faced with a choice b/w 2 ideologies of the national opposing political parties that are both constitutional & both claim to be secular. But are they, really(Secular)?
Actions are a better indicator of beliefs, than claims will ever be.
Ex PM Vajpayee & Varun Gandhi both claim to be Hindu Nationalists ie. Hindutvavadi. They have almost nothing else in common.
Stalin claimed to be a socialist, so does Nitish Kumar. Again, they are hardly similiar.
So, let's look at action, rather than claims or definitions -
One ideology comes with Beef bans, 'Fraudulent conversion' bans & Kailash Mansarovar subsidies. The other, with Nationalisation of the shrines of only one 'religion' (while leaving the other religion's holy places alone), Sharia derived civil law for one religious group[while other religious groups are subjected to(& rightly so) humanistic, 21st century laws], Haj subsidies & religion based affirmative action/positive discrimination schemes.
It is left to us to decide which is the lesser of the 2 evils, since all politics is about relative strengths & weaknesses and doesn't take place in some vacuum.
2)He understands the difference between criticism and abuse & welcomes the former as an integral part of democracy.
3)He says he does, like any rational human being would & should, feel sad about what happened & uses the example of a puppy coming under a car to explain the same. 'Puppy' here, refers to the entire Gujarat 2002 carnage. So, ALL victims & the entire events of the Gujarat 2002 carnage(Muslims & Non Muslims) are being referred to. This has been CM Modi's (& the BJP's)stand forever. What happened in Godhra(Hindu Kar Sevaks being killed) & post Godhra(Largely Muslims, but also Hindus being killed in rioting and police firing) together constitute the Gujarat 2002 violence. If CM Modi were to be asked what he meant by this, would he say anything different? Would he say that he felt bad ONLY for the Muslims killed in the Gujarat 2002 violence? Even his worst critic would disagree with that. Hence, it is fair to conclude that he most certainly didn't equate a puppy with 'muslims' through an example, as his frustrated political opponents are alleging. It is obvious as a CM, he meant all the Gujarat 2002 deaths.
He also often points out that in the eastern traditions, all life is valued & made the same point tweeting about this controversy. He claims, that in Indian culture, even the death of animals makes one sad, so why wouldn't the death of humans create the same feelings in him? While one may disagree with this idea of 'all life being valued' in our culture(as I do), it is easy to see he didn't equate a puppy with muslims. Basically, the point is this - Even loss of animal lives is sad, so of course he feels sad about what happened in Gujarat 2002.
This, is not 'controversial'. Attempts are being made to manufacture this into something controversial by the political opponents of CM Modi & publicity hungry media agencies!
He says others(someone else), & not him, were behind the riots & responsible for 'driving' this car(the riots).
This, dear IBNlive, is not a 'claim'. It is a fact. Facts, are not disputed. Facts and claims are not the same.
It is a fact, that CM Modi has been investigated & questioned multiple times & been given a clean chit. Yes, one can split hairs and say there was found 'no prosecutable evidence' against him. Also, 'someone else' here refers to those found guilty of murder/conspiracy/incitement & have been convicted & sentenced.
The claim, is that he felt bad about the deaths. Unless he is a psychopath, as some rubes would like us to believe, this isn't wrong either.
He is sad about people dying but doesn't feel any guilt. Would this be a Contradiction? I'm afraid, not!
Being sad and feeling guilty are not the same.
The fact of having committed a specified offence/crime, is guilt. He is not guilty of committing a 'crime', as defined by the law & hence, isn't guilty. What reason exists for him to feel guilty? The counter to this often is - ''A thousand+ people died under his tenure as CM which makes him responsible.'' If he didn't do everything in his power to control them(riots) he would indeed be guilty, at the bare minimum, of inefficiency during the riots. I tend to think he did indeed do everything in his power with the limited resources he possessed to control the riots! Moving on, feeling 'unhappy' would amount to being 'sad'.
So it is possible to feel sad & yet feel no guilt. Most of us have the same feelings wrt the Gujarat 2002 violence. We feel sad, but not guilty! Picture this. Someone collapses in your apartment block. You do everything you possibly could with the limited resources available, to save this individual. He/She still dies. Are you guilty? You feel sad, like you do about the Rwandan genocide. But do you feel guilty?
He isn't defensive about the riots because he is convinced that he & his team, did everything possible to control the riots.
Has CM Modi expressed sadness?
Yes. On several occasions. I found a few examples of the same in less than 2 minutes of searching on the internet. Mr. Modi publicly expressed
sadness and appealed for peace and calm pointing out that riots were not any kind of solution, a day after the Godhra train-burning incident here on Doordarshan.
Second, in the Vidhan Sabha in March 2002 which he reiterated here. Not one Modiphobe has denied or refuted this.
Third, to Prabhu Chawla for "Aaj Tak" in 2002, which is a part of the "India Today group", read here on India Today. Aaj Tak was and still is, the most watched news channel in India.
Fourth, to Shekhar Gupta for NDTV's "Walk the Talk" seen here. Note, Mr. Gupta is also in charge of "The Indian Express". There was no CNN IBN or Times NOW & NDTV was 'the' English language news channel back then.
Fifth, in his "Sadbhavna Mission" where he made the statement ""Constitution of India is supreme for us. As a chief minister of the state, pain of anybody in the state is my pain. (Delivering) Justice to everyone is the duty of the state".
Clearly, he has expressed sadness several times.
But you see, "Why don't you express sadness over the 2002 Gujarat violence?" is a loaded question. Every time this question is answered by Mr. Modi - after he has already made clear what & how he feels about that whole issue - it gives his opponents another stick to beat him with. It serves as a wonderful diversion from any conversation about socio-economic growth and progress, and methods to accelerate the same. Those who dishonestly claim he has never expressed grief or sadness and keep asking him these questions based on that lie, want to pursue their fear-mongering agenda i.e. "Don't vote for him because he will kill you" by projecting him as a psychopath who lacks all empathy.
Now as stated above, sadness and an apology are two very different things. He offers no apologies and states "If I am guilty, hang me" in an interview with Shahid Siddique, seen here. On a tangent, Siddique got fired from the SP, for merely speaking to him.
If he is guilty, why would an apology suffice? What difference would it make? While I oppose the death penalty(for reasons other than caring about the human rights of murderers), the fact is, he(Modi) is OK with being punished if guilt is established. What is wrong with this stance?
If you ask Mr. Modi why hasn't he apologised, you're implying that he is guilty?
He doesn't feel he is, and the courts don't prove him wrong.
If you ask Mr. Modi why hasn't he expressed regret, you're implying that he is a psychopath.
Which makes you prejudiced. And ...you're wrong either due to ignorance or dishonesty. Because he HAS expressed regret and condemned the violence on multiple occasions.
Back to the Reuters interview, the primary reason for media agencies hyping this up as 'controversial' is because they know there will be a public reaction due to the large number of CM Modi's supporters among the economic classes that have access to the internet in India(This is not to say that CM Modi has no support among the poor. We shall find out how much support he has among those economic classes soon enough).
"The Unreal Times" illustrates this - Here & Here!
The media reaction can be summarised with this Q & A -
[Question: Do you beat your kids?
Answer: I don't even beat my dog,.
Media's Inference & conclusion: For you, your kids are like dogs.]
Now, one may agree or disagree with the genuineness of his claim of feeling sad. But there can be no doubt that the claim was made. Which was that he felt sad about what happened.
4)Contrary to what Indian Express would want us to believe, he has a secular definition of secularism(India first). Not the most brilliantly worded definition, but good enough to be termed secular. The other statement, on religion not being a part of the democratic process, is actually the classical definition of political secularism. Though, easier said than done. Both, the BJP & the Congress claim to be secular. As established earlier, neither Hindutva nor Nehruvian Secularism is 100% secular based on action(in practise), though both claim secularism in theory. Ex PM AB Vajpayee was not ordering non hindus to walk into the sea when he was the PM. He's easily my favourite Indian politician. He was a Hindutvavadi, a hindu nationalist. I largely disagree with the same. But I know, he didn't want a nation only of hindus. I know he was in favour of a reasonably secular - ie. separate from religion - state. I know he spoke about & supported common civil law.
BJP President Rajnath Singh made it clear that 'Hindutva' & 'Ram Mandir' are not political issues anymore(Read here & here). He believes/claims the BJP is secular. Now, one may disagree with his claims, but it is important to acknowledge that these claims have been made. Again, we arrive at the conclusion that both the BJP & the Congress 'claim' to be Secular & particularly at this point of time.
Again, both the Congress & the BJP claim secularism in theory. If we like a secular state, it is up to us to decide, which party is more secular. The doyens of Nehruvian Secularism are yet to logically demonstrate how it's ideological opponent 'Hindutva' is, at this point of time in history, worse, either in theory or in practise.
Note, I am not saying any of the following -
a)CM Modi is the best politician in India
b)He has no flaws
c)He is the best choice for PM in Indian politics
d)He is the best choice for PM in his party
e)The riots he presided over(& did not 'mastermind', 'orchestrate', conveniently ignore like 'Nero') must be forgotten
f)CM Modi is a secular(in the classical sense) or an 'identity-blind' ie. 100% identity-blind, politician, since he claims to be one.
I do however believe that among those Indian politicians that have any chance of getting a(any) national role in the near future, he is the closest to identity-blindness & he may, just may, be the best choice for a(any) National role!
More on this in the months to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment