Defeat is the distance between a bedtime story and a wake-up call. The former starts with ‘Once upon a time…’ and lulls the voter to sleep. The second is an energiser that addresses a fresh dawn.
PAKATAN has become victims of their own success: their narrative has run its course, and they have not been able to find a further chapter to their saga. Anwar Ibrahim story is the simplest: the fairies have abandoned its fairy tale. It began as the party of refugees from UMNO.
Power is the glue of politics. That is why a government is expected to be in array and opposition generally in disarray. Ideology is a fickle custodian of unity in an age of convenience. Its absence has eliminated the difference between single-party rule and coalition government. Both are held together by individual or sectarian self-interest, which is why they last. Ideology is a differentiator; it makes a partnership untenable even if the partners consider it sustainable. Sentiment is irrelevant to any political marriage. This is true of all democracies where coalitions become necessary. Politicians live for power; why would they invite a premature death? Because there is none, the current coalition will survive without either condemnation or confession. An occasional spot of-driven tinkering is PAKATAN all that is needed.Sometimes alliance parties find it convenient to simulate conflict, but this is public posturing to satisfy populist opinion before an election. Bengal and Bihar are the new templates of posture-politics.
Political analyst Khoo Kay Peng, in dubbing it a “honeymoon period” for PR, explained there was no need for the opposition coalition to make a clear stand on religious issues.
“The main strategy for Pakatan now is not to make a stand on issues that touch on grey areas, especially religion, to avoid getting attacked by Umno.
“They have avoided this all along and it is clearly working,” he said.
Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Professor Dr Jayum Jawan agreed, adding that PR was playing “good politics”.
He said that rather than come up with a stand for which they are bound to be attacked by their political opponents, this was a safer approach.
“Commenting on issues is better than coming up with a stand. They are also trying to avoid being attacked by their opponents, so they are playing good politics and this is expected of a political party,” he explained.
Jayum, however, added that it would be beneficial for PR to come up with a broad policy on religion, so that they don’t contradict each other later and save them the ordeal of having to repeatedly make statements on the same issues that keep cropping up over and over again.
“This way, the public would also be able to see that they are a united front.”
But Khoo felt that PR could continue operating with their present strategy, given that there are no demands from the rakyat for them to make a stand.
“Pakatan is issue-centric, where they react to controversies created by BN, especially Umno. This is why they are popular.
“They are riding on this wave of harping on Umno’s mistakes and flip-flops and it is clearly working,” he said, adding that PR was benefitting from the perception and anger of the people towards BN by capitalising on Putrajaya’s mistakes.The Babri Mosque was a mosque in Ayodhya, India. It was destroyed in 1992 when a political rally developed into a riot involving 150,000 people, despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 Muslims were killed in ensuing riots in many major Indian cities including Mumbai and Delhi. The mosque was constructed in 1527 by order of Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan (“mosque of the birthplace”). The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, an area with a substantial Muslim population, including the Hazrat Bal Mosque constructed by the Shariqi kings, the Babri Mosque became the largest, due to the importance of the disputed site. The political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque and whether a previous temple was demolished or modified to create it, is known as the Ayodhya Debate.
The rally that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid was orchestrated by the BJP and other allied parties; these are extremist right wing Hindu Parties well known for their anti-Muslim diatribe.
With the many religious controversies taking place in the country now, political analysts described the stand taken by Pakatan Rakyat in reacting, rather than taking pro-active measures, as “smart”.reduced to minimalist, notional ideology, devoid of individual or party accountability, is peculiarly suited to coalitions.Every political party has colluded in this change; even though self-proclaimed secular parties encourage Muslims to indulge in the self-delusion that a dispute exists. In truth, all that the BJP can offer is to build a bigger temple, which does not quite have the same emotive force as ‘Mandir yahin banayenge!’ The BJP’s cousins, the Senas of Maharashtra, have regional chauvinism to fall back upon. If the BJP wants to reclaim national space, it will have to establish another horizon.
If there were accountability, The temple movement brought great rewards, culminating, albeit through a parabola enhanced by the charisma of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in six years of power at the Centre. But within this time, the Indian mood turned. Economic aspirations took primacy over psychological needs, particularly since the temple movement was made irrelevant by the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya. A functioning temple has come up on the site, a fact that seems to escape the attention of those writing the BJP manifesto, which keeps promising to build a temple.
PKR N. Surendran said PKR equipped with multi-megabyte calculators, which work on long-lasting batteries powered by mutually-beneficial ground reality. The photograph of a armshake was not exactly news to the Bihar voter. It made the front page much before the last general election. A substantial number of Muslims voted for Nitish Kumar in 2009 despite that photo because they wanted to thank him for keeping the peace as well as giving them jobs. They knew they were voting for the NDA. Since then, however, there has been some slippage in minority support for Nitish. Nitish’s political gasp at the reappearance of the photo was an attempt to buy a few brownie points at easy rates, a familiar tactic of electoral politics. Similarly, the BJP’s gruff huff and puff was intended to energize its own core vote. Neither party will win in Bihar if they split their support, and their leaders have tasted the comforts of office.
They felt that by reacting to the issues, rather than coming out with a clear policy on religious issues, PR lawmakers have avoided walking into a Barisan Nasional trap.Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president N. Surendran , pointing out that as long as PR did not hold federal power, its role was to pressure the government to change their conduct
Recently, the opposition lawmakers have been very vocal on the controversia the demolition of the 101-year-old Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman Hindu temple in the city centre.Justice M S Liberhan did not need 17 years and a thousand pages to tell us what has been public knowledge since December 6, 1992. The Babri mosque was not torn down in the dark of night. It was brought down slowly, stone by stone, in Sunday sunlight, before hundreds of journalists, to the cheers of countless thousands of kar sewaks in and around Ayodhya. The mosque was not dynamited in a minute; it was demolished by crowbar and shovel.
The Ayodhya debate is a political, historical and socio-religious debate that was most prevalent in the 1990s in India. The main issues revolve around access to the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Farghana in 1527, he defeated the Hindu King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Fatehpur Sikri, using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the region, leaving his general, Mir Banki, in charge as Viceroy.
Mir Banki enforced Mughal rule over the population and used terror to maintain control over the civilian population. Mir Banki came to Ayodhya in 1528 and built the Mosque destroying the temple.
Ayodhya is revered by devout Hindus as the birthplace of ancient King of India and Hindu God Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu. Mir Baqi after building the mosque on the site of the destroyed temple called it Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after his master Babar.
Also, the 1989 Allahabad High Court order opened the locks of the main gate and restored the site for eternity to the Hindus. However, when Hindus wanted modifications of the dilapidated Islamic style structure built by General Mir Banki on orders of Mughal invader Babur from Uzbekistan (Farghana town) and did Shilanyas (inauguration) of a proposed new grand Temple with Government permissions, there were Muslim unrests in many parts of India and Government moved court. Since, then the matter is sub-judice and this political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque, is known as the Ayodhya Debate. Recently on court orders Archeological Survey of India dug the spot and found a previous ancient temple that was demolished or modified to create the later Mosque under Babur.
References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica reported that “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”.[6] According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view has been supported by findings of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out an excavation in Ayodhya.
The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janm…
In 12th century, a temple complex is built in honour of Lord Ram.
In 1528, the Babri Mosque is constructed by Babar’s general , Mir Baqi on the orders of the Mughal leader Babur post destruction of existing Ram Mandir.
In 1949, icons of Lord Ram appeared in the Babri Mosque. The semi-governmental Waqf Board, an Indian Muslim trust owned the land on which the mosque stood. Both Hindu and Muslim parties launch civil suits. The Indian government, declaring the site “disputed”, locks the gates to the mosque.
In 1984, a movement is started for the creation of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bharatiya Janata Party, under the leadership of L K Advani.
In 1986, a district judge of Uttar Pradesh, orders the opening of the disputed structure to Hindus. This, allegedly, came from the Congress government, headed by Rajiv Gandhi, which tried to balance the favour shown to the Muslims in Shah Bano controversy.
In 1989- 1990, the VHP intensifies its activities by laying foundations of the Ram temple on the adjacent property. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar proposes negotiations which only intensify the crisis.
In 1992, on 6 December, the Babri Mosque is forcibly demolished by Kar Sevaks. The then Narasimha Rao led Congress government let a makeshift temple appear in its place before moving the courts for status quo.[9] The demolition of the mosque triggered large-scale rioting.
In 2005 Islamist terrorists attacked the structure and were gunned down by security forces (for more information see Ram Mandir Attack).
On 3 April 2009 the Bhartiya Janta Party – BJP released their Manifesto again promising to construct Ram Mandir
In November 2009 details of the Archeological survey are announced, which result in heated exchanges in the Indian
Of course, senior leaders of the BJP and RSS were present, for they were kar sewaks as well. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not there, but he was in nearby Lucknow, albeit a reluctant guest, but unable to refuse the invitation to the party. Newspapers the next day, and magazines the next weekend, published their pictures, some of which became iconic. We did not need a wait of 17 years to learn that Vinay Katiyar was responsible: he has been claiming responsibility for over 6,000 days.
Sharad Pawar, then defence minister, showed a filmed record of December 6 to an invited group at the home of a party MP a few days later. The Liberhan Commission could have completed half its report by taking a look at that film. The media was equally comprehensive in its coverage of the brutal riots that followed: The Sri Krishna report has done far greater justice to the truth in its findings on the Maharashtra riots, so much so that there is all-party collusion on its non-implementation. There was only one question trapped in doubt: What was prime minister P V Narasimha Rao doing while Babri was destroyed on the longest day of the last two decades? Why was home minister S B Chavan, father of the present Maharashtra chief minister, immobile, inscrutable and stolid?
Shock raced through Delhi when word filtered through that an assault had begun in Ayodhya. Phone calls began to pour into the prime minister’s residence in the hope that he would use the authority of the state to uphold the rule of law and fulfil a political and moral obligation. There was a monstrous response from the prime minister’s personal secretary. The PM was either unavailable or, worse, asleep. It was a lie. Rao’s inaction and Chavan’s collaboration were deliberate.
Liberhan protects Rao with an equally conscious fudge, shuffling the blame on to unspecified intelligence agencies. Everyone knew what was going on, IB officers better than most. Rao called a Cabinet meeting only in the evening, when there was nothing left to be saved — not even reputation. By this time, fires of hatred were lighting up the dusk of Mumbai and dozens of cities across the nation. An elaborate programme of blame, reward and punishment was put into place. Those (including bureaucrats and journalists) who acquiesced in Rao’s charade were rewarded; Congress Muslims got a bonus for silence. Rao remained in power till 1996, but he neither ruled nor lived in peace.
The words of this column will make no difference. A government can reduce the past to rubble as easily as an Opposition party can erase a centuries-old mosque. My apologies for a rare detour into the personal, but this is a rare moment. I was a minor part of the Rao government and resigned on the night of December 6 since the stone wall constructed around the prime minister’s house had become impervious to anything except sycophancy. Words demand a different kind of loyalty, and one was relieved to return to the world of words.
