Madhav Godbole, who was Union home secretary at the time, writes how Intelligence Bureau paid little attention to Hindu organisations’ activities till then.
Peter Manuel's ‘Cassette Culture’ showed the booming Bhakti music during the '80s and '90s when Anoop Jalota, Gulshan Kumar achieved success by singing the sanitised Bhajans.
Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
The problem started with Muslim intransigence. When the majority community believed that the mosque stood on the spot where their God was born, it would have been graceful for the Muslim community to gift away their right because in comparison their claim was much less significant. If that was done, Modi wouldn’t have happened.
It is somewhat strange to hear the expression ” Hindu Appeasement”. Every country does for its own. In this country it has be done for all Indians, there is a small percentage of people who would enjoy being appeased but keep on complaining. The commissions in this country is a system developed to kick the can down the road and it appeases the the BABUS post retirement. Very few commissions have completed their tasks, mostly what we hear is the extensions given but very rarely a fruitful outcome serving the purpose.
Absolutely agree with the comments Surendraji , In fact the author appears to be confused in stating there was no political will for both INC PM’s to implement true sense of Secularism.
While on Art 370, Godbole is spot on in his thinking but surprisingly, on Ayodhya issue, he is seeking answer to a wrong question- Are we not secular because we have demolished a mosque? The proper question should have been- Why we failed to solve Ayodhya issue by talks or by legal means? If one starts accusing that political parties are ‘appeasing’ the majority population in a democratic polity where votes count, one can understand how it can tie us around in confused thinking. Everyone in this country is secular as by definition, as every Hindu (read non-Muslim,non-Christian) is secular by thoughts and practice, otherwise this country would not have been India! Other faiths have to accept it as a matter of tolerance. As a consequence of political movement ( in response to Mandal or minority appeasement politics), where religion gets intermingled, if Ayodhya is believed to be the birthplace of Ram by the majority becomes a political issue, what should government have done to sort out the issue? This is the question to ask. But to start berating that all parties are Hindu appeasing is non sense; in fact, the opposite was true and hence, the fait accompli! So let us blame political failure of so called secular ruling parties for rise and consolidation of so called Hindutva. A simple way to look at such issue is- We have to obliterate memories of foreign rulers which are contentious in popular discourse just like we change name of railway stations and streets. Any collateral issue should be addressed in a civilized manner. Any public symbol which is linked to a foreign ruler in this country can and should be questioned and where there has been assault on the indigenous values, should be eligible to be removed. Is this secular? If anyone asks this again, this is a wrong question!!!
Another resignation type intellectual Ex,IAS. Time has come to de-intellectualise the IAS.
The problem started with Muslim intransigence. When the majority community believed that the mosque stood on the spot where their God was born, it would have been graceful for the Muslim community to gift away their right because in comparison their claim was much less significant. If that was done, Modi wouldn’t have happened.
It is somewhat strange to hear the expression ” Hindu Appeasement”. Every country does for its own. In this country it has be done for all Indians, there is a small percentage of people who would enjoy being appeased but keep on complaining. The commissions in this country is a system developed to kick the can down the road and it appeases the the BABUS post retirement. Very few commissions have completed their tasks, mostly what we hear is the extensions given but very rarely a fruitful outcome serving the purpose.
Bureaucrats, esp. retired ones, are completely deranged.
Absolutely agree with the comments Surendraji , In fact the author appears to be confused in stating there was no political will for both INC PM’s to implement true sense of Secularism.
While on Art 370, Godbole is spot on in his thinking but surprisingly, on Ayodhya issue, he is seeking answer to a wrong question- Are we not secular because we have demolished a mosque? The proper question should have been- Why we failed to solve Ayodhya issue by talks or by legal means? If one starts accusing that political parties are ‘appeasing’ the majority population in a democratic polity where votes count, one can understand how it can tie us around in confused thinking. Everyone in this country is secular as by definition, as every Hindu (read non-Muslim,non-Christian) is secular by thoughts and practice, otherwise this country would not have been India! Other faiths have to accept it as a matter of tolerance. As a consequence of political movement ( in response to Mandal or minority appeasement politics), where religion gets intermingled, if Ayodhya is believed to be the birthplace of Ram by the majority becomes a political issue, what should government have done to sort out the issue? This is the question to ask. But to start berating that all parties are Hindu appeasing is non sense; in fact, the opposite was true and hence, the fait accompli! So let us blame political failure of so called secular ruling parties for rise and consolidation of so called Hindutva. A simple way to look at such issue is- We have to obliterate memories of foreign rulers which are contentious in popular discourse just like we change name of railway stations and streets. Any collateral issue should be addressed in a civilized manner. Any public symbol which is linked to a foreign ruler in this country can and should be questioned and where there has been assault on the indigenous values, should be eligible to be removed. Is this secular? If anyone asks this again, this is a wrong question!!!