Sunday Sentiment
'SECULAR-LIBERALS'
ARE FASCIST HYPOCRITES
Whatever may be the general impression, yet the
fact remains that the tribe of self-acclaimed 'secular-liberal' intelligentsia
are blatantly partial, one-sided self-righteous fascists who have no respect for
the other view and other people's feelings and sentiments.
To quote just a few recent instances. Nobel
laureate and Bharat Ratna Amaratya Sen is one. In July this year in an interview with NDTV he
declared: “As an Indian citizen I
don’t want Modi as my PM... He has not done enough to make minorities feel
safe,” he said. As a citizen he has his right to his opinion and to express
it. But he must understand that it is not an individual, however high, who
chooses a prime minister. It is the people who select and elect one. No
individual has a right to veto people's choice. If he were a democrat in India,
he may have his opinion or preference, but he has to respect the people's will
and has no right to reject the people's choice. He has to accept it.
Another characteristic
of theirs is their refusal to correct their facts and opinion. Amaratya Sen
should check his facts and will be startled to know that the Sacchar Committee
appointed by the 'secular' UPA government of Dr. Manmohan Singh had reported
that the lot of Muslims in Gujarat is much better than that in many of the
States ruled by 'secular' parties, even in Sen's home State of West Bengal
which had been under 'secular' left rule for about 35 years. This gives a lie
to his averment that Modi has "not done enough for the minorities".
Further, Sen
declares that Modi lacks the "secular credentials". Do the likes of Samajwadi Party supremo
Mulayam Singh Yadav and Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav have "secular
credentials" where during the last over one year numerous communal riots
have taken place and minorities had been the target? Are minorities safe there?
Same was true about numerous communal riots under the 'secular' regime of just
ousted Rajasthan Congress Chief Minister Gehlot or in 'secular' regime in
Maharashtra?
Similarly, in 2008
writing in THE HINDUSTAN TIMES another 'secular-liberal' CPM leader Sitaram
Yechury, stated: “Advani’s willingness
to be PM poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Communist
ideology has a tinge of fascism because there is no place for the other view in
communist regimes. Otherwise, the veteran parliamentarian should have known
that in a democracy, like India, every individual has an unquestioned right to
express his "willingness to be PM" and that in no way "poses a
serious challenge to the future of our democracy" because a prime minister
is elected by the people in the sense that his party or alliance gets a
majority in parliament. Can a democrat, in the real sense, raise an objection
if the people of the country give a majority to the party of a person who is
willing to be prime minister? Can that pose "a serious challenge to the
future of our democracy"?
Again, the same 'secular-liberal'
Amartya Sen came out with a strange logic in his verdict on December 18 when he
said "1984 riots are not like post-Godhra violence". From his opinion
it looks as if the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were 'secular' and post-Godhra Gujarat
riots 'communal' and, therefore, condemnable. His prejudiced mind and opinion
gets exposed when he condemns post-Godhra riots and not the Godhra carnage in
which 59 Hindus were burnt alive.
He dismissed "the fact that those responsible for the 1984 riots had not
been brought to judgement" by describing it as "absolute shame"
but just shied away from condemning the fact. He sought to differentiate
between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and those in Gujarat "that occurred…under
the watch of Mr. Modi". Sen should know that the 1984 riots took place under
the "watch" of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and that too just
in Delhi and other Congress-ruled States and nowhere else. Sen declares
innocent and, therefore, 'secular' the same Rajiv Gandhi's family members, his
wife Sonia Gadhi and son Rahul, saying they
"were not responsible for the anti-Sikh riots". His partial bent of mind gets exposed when he
overlooks the fact that Rajiv Gandhi had justified the anti-Sikh pogrom saying
when a big tree falls, the earth below was bound to shake. Sen allows the
Gandhi family the freedom to seek votes on the Nehru-Gandhi legacy and their
role in freedom struggle but not the blame for what wrong they did.
Sen also gloats over the fact that numerous cases relating to Gujarat riots
have been "brought to judgement" and many high and low punished.
When Bharat Ratna melody queen Lata Mangeshkar
exercised, like Amaratya Sen, her constitutional right to her opinion and
express it by praising Mr. Narendra Modi, it was the Congress leaders who
demanded that the award should be withdrawn from her. But this very illustrious
tribe of 'intellectuals boasting of being secular and liberal' lost their
tongue to criticize those leaders who wanted Ms Mangeshkar be denied her
constitutional right.
It is in this series of hypocritical words
and actions that the renowned writer-director-actor Girish Karnad on November
15 described as "nonsensical" the controversy and protests
surrounding Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film 'Ram-Leela' "That is really most upsetting", he
pontificated. "It is impossible to be creative if some idiot gets up and
says 'I am sad'. Judiciary should also have some sense. The decision is
nonsensical," he added. Bhansali's film is facing the ire of several groups for
allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
Everybody knows, even non-Hindus know (but
perhaps Karnard doesn't) what the word "Ram Leela" stands for. Some
of the film producers wish to trade in the sentiments of the people to fill
their coffers. They earn dividends by deliberately raising controversies. It is
just like serving wine in a bottle with the label "tomato ketchup".
Will the liberals, like Karnad, support such a venture? The producer is guilty of cheating the viewers
by naming his film "Ram Leela" which it is not.
This also raises the question. Instead of
naming his film "Ram Leela", why did he not chose to christen it as
"Sanjay Bhansali Leela"? It is
said that the producer once claimed that Leela was his mother's name. In that
case, below the words "Ram Leela" the producer should have added the
words that it is the "Leela of his mother" candidly. Would Karnad
have no objection had he titled the film as "Girish Karnad Leela"?
Recently, a TV serial on the works of exiled
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen was banned following protests by Muslim
fundamentalists. The 'secular-liberals' like Sen, Karnad, and others went deaf
and dumb on Taslima's right to freedom of expression.
The stories of hypocrisy, partiality and lack
of fairness of these self-styled 'secular-liberal' fascists are unending. ***
