Compiled by Ashutosh Bhardwaj
The editorial in Organiser, ‘Re-contextualising the Khalsa tradition’, criticises the “British historians and their loyal disciples”, who have “created many distortions about the history of Bharat”. Under their influence, it notes, “many of us tend to believe” that the Khalsa tradition “was just an act of institutionalising a sect or instilling martial qualities in the society”. They forget that Guru Gobind Singh “called it a Dharma Yuddha, meant for the rejuvenation of the nation”. As we celebrate the 350th prakash parv of the Khalsa Panth’s founder, “we need to understand” the idea behind the tradition. “In the Guru’s message mukti (salvation) from political and social oppression got precedence over mukti from the cycle of birth and death,” it says, adding that “his message was that of combining bhakti (devotion) with shakti (might)”. “Today, with the mindless upsurge of materialism, the Guru’s action-oriented spiritualism, rooted in the teachings of all the great voices of Bharat, is all the more relevant,” it says. “He realised that if everyone is ready to merge his individual self with the greater self of the community, it can create a larger family strong enough to any external challenges,” it notes. For him, “Nihangis (fighters), Nirmales (Vedanti Sikhs), Sewa Panthis” were the “carriers of the message of supremacy of dharma,” the editorial adds.
A Low For Tatas
Commenting on the recent developments in the TATA Group, an article in Organiser says that the removal of Cyrus Mistry is an attempt “to re-establish the brand value by putting ethics and values over quarterly results.” “Removal of (the) chairman in itself is neither new, nor shocking,” it says. Noting that Cyrus Mistry’s family had 18.5 per cent share in Tata Sons, it says “it is difficult to believe that someone who has such high stakes will not be sincere in his work. But sincerity alone can’t help one manage an organisation successfully.”
Underlining “how Brand Tata was losing its focus” under Mistry, the article notes, “An organisation which had come out with the iconic positioning line ‘Tata Namak, Desh Ka Namak’, had ended up associating itself with AIB (All India Bakchod), a programme bordering X-rated movies”. Was this “the consequence of shifting of brand Tata from the hands of a ‘Tata’ to ‘Mistry?” the article asks. It cites an appeal from the Tata group to all the stakeholders that says: “In our opinion, his (Mistry’s) actions are driven by a perverse motivation to cause harm to the ‘Tata’ brand and to intentionally erode shareholder value.” The group “stood against the British”, has “faced terror attacks but has never given up its values and ethics,” the article contends.
The editorial in Panchjanya comments on the Chinese spread in its neighbouring region. Quoting the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, it says that “China has deployed aircrafts and anti-missile weaponry system at the seven artificial islands it has constructed in the controversial South China Sea”. This development “refutes the Chinese claims that it has no intention to deploy weaponry on these islands”. It was made possible following a tacit agreement with the US that “does not pose any hurdle in the Chinese dreams toward expansion”. However, the president-elect of the US has “clearly indicated that the situation is no longer going to be same for China”.
Donald Trump has already
delivered a jolt to Beijing by holding a phone conversation with the Taiwanese head of the state. China’s expansionist aspirations and disregard for human rights have always been a concern for the world. Complaints against China emerge from a variety of areas including Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. It is to be seen how long China can adopt such an approach towards several countries. Despite pending border disputes, China now wants India to “understand its concerns” in the South China Sea region. But is it possible for India to do so? the editorial asks.