The Sangh Parivar’s concerns about Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP appear to be slowly coming out in the open. RSS ideologue M.G. Vaidya in an article warned BJP leaders to properly assess the AAP’s challenge to avoid a repeat of the Delhi assembly elections in the Lok Sabha polls. Another report in the Organiser (then with the Janata Party) in 1977 and criticising Kejriwal’s defence of Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti.
“As a leader of the ruling party and chief minister, Kejriwal is no different from others in any way. Whenever a serious allegation is made against a ruling party leader, everyone has one stock reaction: The allegations are false and unfounded, politically motivated and aimed at character assassination. When a court finds a minister guilty, those in power have many alibis to offer… Spot the difference between the AAP and others, if you can!” the article concludes.
PERSONALITY VS DYNASTY
The Sangh Parivar seems agitated by Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi’s barb of “personality-oriented politics” against the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. An editorial in the Organiser has questioned Rahul’s credentials to hurl this charge at the BJP.
“Look who is talking can be the only reaction to the statement of undeclared PM candidate of the Congress party that the opposition wants ‘personality-oriented’ politics and it is not in the national interest,” an editorial says, accusing the Congress of nurturing “personality-based dynastic politics” in the country.
The editorial rejects the suggestion that the PM candidate projection is reflective of personality orientation and justifies the projection of a PM candidate ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. “It is not the personality orientation but the issue of leadership that is at the core of naming PM candidate. What is in the national interest is a strong and decisive leadership who can address the key issues of governance,” it says, underlining that the BJP’s projection of Vajpayee, Advani or now Modi as PM candidates was done on the basis of “experience and hard work” towards “organisation-building and governance”, and not on the basis of “dynastic inheritance”.
Another editorial highlights Modi’s “manpower forecasting” to leverage the demographic dividend model through the education system but opposes education reforms that may seek to leverage foreign faculty or resources: “Relaxing recruitment norms for foreign faculties in Indian educational institutions and introduction of Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) in Delhi University are the last attempts to implement foreign agenda of ‘education reforms’…”
HINDUS IN BANGLADESH
The violence against minority Hindus in Bangladesh was noted by Panchjanya in a cover story. An editorial and accompanying report suggest there is a dwindling feeling for “Hindu sentiments” in politics. The editorial alleges a lack sensitivity in government on either side about the violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. “The massacre (of Hindus) in Bangladesh has jolted the public and raised questions against the lack of sensitivity of the India and Bangladesh governments,” the editorial claims, asserting that the issue has wider manifestations.
“The attacks on Hindus in India and outside have increased while their population declines. Despite that, it is Indian politicians and the secular media that are most insensitive and feign ignorance about it,” the accompanying article claims.
Compiled by Ravish Tiwari