The editorial in Organiser slams the Congress decision to “boycott” the “prime minister’s reply to the debate on motion of thanks to President’s address in the Rajya Sabha”. When Narendra Modi took a “dig” at former prime minister Manmohan Singh and said, the “art of taking bath wearing a raincoat can be learnt from him”, “he highlighted the central role of Dr Singh in key financial decision-making for more than 30 years that were marked by various scams”. That “he managed to remain clean in this mud of corruption was in a way compliment to the scholarly economist” it says, and wonders “why (the) Congress took it as an insult and decided to boycott the proceedings”. It notes that Singh had called demonetisation a “monumental management failure and a case of organised loot and legalised plunder”. Hence, “if he made the non-substantiated sweeping allegation”, he should expect to be repaid in the same manner. Noting that the Congress has no right to talk about the “dignity” of the prime minister’s office, it says that “when Dr Manmohan Singh was the PM, the ordinance cleared by his cabinet was torn in a press conference by none other than the Congress vice-president”.
An article in Organiser, “Communal flavouring is packaged astutely”, comments on the recent Hindi movie, Raees. Noting that the film is “a pacy entertainer”, it says “what can’t escape the viewer is the astute communal flavouring and unabashed wooing of the minority community, which the movie indulges in”. “Despite a belaboured camouflaging act to present the gangster as secular and philanthropic, it is hard for the film to remain unimpacted,” the article argues. A movie like Raees, it says, “can’t be viewed in isolation of the social context prevalent in Gujarat in those years”. Contending that “the 2002 Gujarat riots did not happen overnight”, the article argues that “these riots actually marked the culmination of two decades of communal animosity that had been building up, with the illegal liquor mafia being a prime contributor”. “To glorify the gangster with a film was an indirect and indeed innovative way of reiterating that the minority community in India is a sufferer,” it says. Contending that Raees “was not a victim of state persecution”, the article argues that “he was the victim of a flawed advice doled out by his ammi”. The movie, it notes, “adopts the convenient tactic of painting the minority community as the natural losers of a government’s unfriendly policies”.
Winds of change
The cover story in Panchjanya is about the “winds of change” in Uttar Pradesh. It terms the state as a kingdom of “loot,murder, rape, bribe and unemployment”, a “province of uncle-father-aunt and son”. This election, it says, has three parties: The BJP, SP-Congress alliance and Mayawati. “The last two are struggling for the Muslim vote,” it says, noting that “both believes that the Muslim vote is extremely important for their existence”. “These parties view non-Muslim voters as mere castes,” it adds. The SP leader Akhilesh Yadav knows that “Muslim voters believe in strategic voting, and would vote for whoever is able to defeat the BJP”. The SP’s alliance with the Congress indicates that this politics has “moved beyond the old tactic of appeasement”.
Mayawati also knows that Muslim vote is necessary for her existence. Therefore, “she has fielded 1/4th Muslim candidates” and “merged the party of notorious Mukhtar Ansari”. Obviously, these parties have sacrificed all ideals to grab power. Commenting on the worsening law and order in the state, it says the condition of essential services like roads and electricity has also deteriorated. However, the “voter is silent”, as it was during 2014 elections, and is “hoping for a major change”.