Secularism or Communalism??

One of those rare posts which rant abt the politics

Well, the story goes like this. Election happens. No party gets the absolute majority. The incumbent party(X) is sort of routed, being third largest party now. Just to keep the single largest party(Y) out of power, in the name of protecting “Secularism” (sic), the incumbent party placed third and the second largest(Z), power hungry party, enter into a power sharing agreement, where X will hold the power for the first half and Z for the second half.

Remember all these is done with the “noble” cause of saving the state and the country from the so called communal party. Now this marriage gets done and somehow goes on for abt an year or so when cracks start developing. The power hungry Z wants stuffs done their way, which was obviously not in the interest of X. This war continues and at the end of 20 months, the party Z “breaks”, in the sense, 45 out of its 48 MLAs decide not to support the government. They withdraw support and the govt falls.

Now, the so called “Secular” Party Z decides to get into an alliance with the so called “communal” party Y and being power hungry they decide to have their share of power of 20 months first. This continues for another 20 months and when the time comes to pass on the power to party Y, which actually was the one who was given the people’s mandate to be in power in the the first case (well it was the single largest party), Z decides to break the alliance. And so comes the election.

The election happens. Obviously the people are frustrated with the politics of party Z and votes against it. Party Y almost gets the majority. Party Z gets routed winning only about a 10% of the seats. They still have the audacity to go to Party X and suggest an alliance, which Party X rightly disagrees to.

Finally Party Z does an introspection on why they lost. And what do they find? Do they find that the actual reason was the way they behaved when in power or their apparent hunger for power??

Well knowing party Z’s characteristics as I have described the answer is an obvious NO. The reasons they come up with …. Have a look

  • Migration of former minister J belonging to caste A and former minister L belonging to caste B.
  • senior leader M upset with the party leadership (doesn’t tell why)
  • migration of workers in some place D sent wrong signals.
  • Delay in candidates selection and giving opportunity to new faces (Think giving opportunity to new faces got them those seats)
  • Communication gap between ministers and workers while in power.
  • Failure to reward workers Internal reservation has not helped the party.
  • OBCs like P,Q,R,S and other community people did not support the party
  • Failure in handling media.
  • Y and X spent huge money.

Knowing that the state i am talking of is my home state, i think it is easy for every one to guess which parties i am talking about.

Now my only questions are

  1. What do mean by Secular? Does a party which support a minority religion just to get their votes and not work for them any secular than the group which supports another religion?
  2. How can a party be secular when on introspection the reasons given out by the party for its routing in the election has reasons like a caste didn’t support me, or a religion didn’t support me?
  3. Isn’t caste based politics equivalent to communalism?
  4. If so, how correct is to go on branding a particular party as a communal force?

Anybody has any answers?

Advertisements

Pseudo Secularism

Hi. I am back and am back ranting about my favorite subject. I am talking about the double standards of the government and their pseudo-secularist attitude.

Yes, I am talking about the statement which our honorable prime minister made in the meeting of the National Development Council yesterday. To quote him “We should devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the muslim minority are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development”. Anything wrong here?? Nope, till here it was fine. The controversial statement comes next. “Muslims must have the first claim on resources”. Now I am no anti-muslim or anti any other religion. One of my best friend is a Muslim.

Now Mr. Prime Minister, do u believe that all poor people are muslims??Poverty doesn’t come by religion. Hunger doesn’t attack people based on religion. Diseases doesn’t come based on religion. What about the poor people who are non-muslim, non-OBC ??? and let me tell you, there are scores of thousands of people in the country in this category.

And the irony of the fact is that, this statement has come from a so called “Secular” party in the country. Can somebody please help me in understanding the meaning of the word secular?? According to the dictionary it means “not pertaining to or connected with religion”. But in this country, Secular means anti-hindu/ pro-muslim. If a particular party, talks about the upliftment of hindus, they are communal forces. Now, if someone talks about the upliftment of Muslims, they are secular. This is what i call as pseudo-secularism.

The thing which hurts the most is that this statement comes from a prime minister who is respected everywhere for his economic knowledge and who is regarded as the one responsible for the economic development of India. Now it is can be easily guessed that this statement is given keeping in mind the impending elections in Uttar Pradesh. It is a known fact, that Congress is trying hard to come to power in UP and to come to power it needs to defeat a party which gets the majority of the muslim communities vote. Obviously, the congress is trying to swing this communities vote to itself.

Do these parties really care about these people after the elections. No, if they had cared, this statement wouldn’t have come. We keep hearing that the dalits and the OBCs are to be uplifted. Now the muslims have to be uplifted. I really wonder what these people were doing for the last 60 years, in which they were in rule for 50 years. And to top the fact, these as****e politicians need the creamy layer to be included in any of the reservations given. How will u uplift the people in need if the creamy layer keeps getting all the benefits??? Do these people care?? No.In fact, they would actually work against these people, just to make sure the same issues are there for the next elections and a number of elections to come in the future.

PS: To reiterate, I am not against any religion or community, but am against the double standards of the government and the Politicians