Patel vs. Gandhi?
By Rajmohan Gandhi
THIS PIECE was prompted by the following lines in a recent article by Kalpana Sharma: "A few days after the killing spree began in Gujarat, the respected peace activist and Gandhian, Nirmala Deshpande, went to Ahmedabad. She was waiting at the Circuit House to meet two former Prime Ministers, I. K. Gujral and V. P. Singh, who had also come on a peace mission. A complete stranger walked up to her and asked her officiously who she was and what her business was in the city. Ms. Deshpande quietly introduced herself and said she was a Gandhian. To this the man reportedly said, with considerable aggression in his voice, `remember, this is the land of Sardar Patel. We don't want to hear all this talk about Gandhi.' And so saying, he walked off yelling `Jai Shri Ram'."
Gujarat's Hindu militants, like Hindu and Muslim militants elsewhere on the subcontinent, have for years been fighting an emotional war with Gandhi, whose very name stands for the rights of the weak and the vulnerable. This war in the militants' hearts is also a fight with their consciences, which cannot approve of the slashing and burning of innocents. Since taking on Gandhi as well as their own consciences is not easy, Gujarat's Hindu militants have needed a weighty ally, and they claim to have found one in Gujarat's own Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
But the Patel they are fielding against Gandhi is a Patel of their imaginings, not the Patel of history. As India's Home Minister, this latter Patel, undoubtedly a staunch Hindu, protected innumerable Muslim lives, as was acknowledged by, among others, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the Muslim League leader from Uttar Pradesh who left for Pakistan some months after Independence. This Patel of history, who banned the RSS after the Mahatma's assassination, was also for some time (in 1947-48) on the hit list of Hindu Mahasabha extremists.
This Patel of history defended Urdu's place in All India Radio programmes, supported the 1950 Nehru-Liaqat Pact (over which Syama Prasad Mukerji resigned from the Indian Cabinet), and backed the constitutional provision that explicitly listed the freedom to propagate one's faith as part of religious freedom. In February 1949, this Patel of history declared that "Hindu Raj was a mad idea", adding, "it will kill the soul of India".
In the six months between freedom and Gandhi's death, the Mahatma, Nehru and Patel constituted a crucial triumvirate that agreed that independent India would be not a Hindu Rashtra but one that offered equal rights to all. After Gandhi's departure and until Patel's death in December 1950, Patel and Nehru differed on several matters but not on some fundamentals. With the help of others including Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji, they entrenched secularism and equality in the Constitution.
Rather than expose ugly hate and murderous ill will, Gujarat's Hindu militants prefer to don the respectable mask of Sardar Patel. His soul must squirm at this deceit and at what Hindu militants are doing in Gujarat in his name, even as it squirmed at the 1947-48 barbarities.
When on January 13, 1948, Gandhi began what was to be the last fast of his life, the Sardar was not pleased, for in some ways the fast was a comment on the failure of the Indian Government to ensure everyone's safety. But Patel acknowledged that communal hate and violence had driven Gandhi to the extreme step, and when during the fast he heard some people demanding the expulsion of Muslims from India, the Sardar responded with these words: "You have just now heard people shouting that Muslims should be removed from India. Those who do so have gone mad with anger. Even a lunatic is better than a person who is mad with rage."
Shocked and pained though they were by Godhra, Gujarat's citizens were not "mad with rage". The State's Hindu militants were; they harboured and executed unspeakably cruel designs. If some of them find the courage to admit what they did and seek forgiveness from God and from those linked to the brutally killed or ruined, that could be the start of a new day; and the same is true for those who torched the train at Godhra. But, Gujarat's Hindu militants should not be allowed to get away with the claim that they are Sardar Patel's followers; they cannot be allowed to add to their misdeeds the disfiguring of his honoured name.
That last fast of Gandhi's, undertaken in Delhi, is not without relevance to today's scene in Gujarat. Asked who the fast was directed against, Gandhi answered that it was addressed to all in India and in Pakistan: he wanted everyone "to turn the searchlight inwards". He also had specific requests involving Delhi, a city from which some groups wished to remove every Muslim. Gandhi said Muslims should be allowed to hold their annual fair at the tomb of Khwaja Qutbuddin, a fair that some groups had vowed to prevent. Mosques converted into temples and gurdwaras should be returned. Muslims should be ensured safety in their homes. And the economic boycott imposed against Muslims in some Delhi localities should be lifted.
Declaring that his fast was addressed "to the conscience of all", including "the majority community" of Pakistan, Gandhi added that he wanted the Indian Government to release Pakistan's agreed share of the assets of undivided India, which amounted to Rs. 55 crores. Because of the Kashmir conflict, New Delhi had withheld the payment but Gandhi felt that a commitment could not be dishonoured.
His demands accepted by a large body of Delhi's citizens, including representatives of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, and by the Government of India, Gandhi broke his fast on the evening of January 18. Seven men who were in a conspiracy to kill Gandhi went to his prayer meeting on January 20, where Madanlal, one of the seven, threw a grenade behind Gandhi, but others intending to attack lost their nerve and slipped away. Ten days later, another of the seven, Nathuram Godse, returned to the scene and killed Gandhi.
The Hindu militants' rewritten history explains the assassination as having been triggered by Gandhi's stand over the Rs. 55 crores, but the conspiracy predated that stand. Linking the deed to the Rs. 55 crores was part of an attempt to sell the assassination to the Indian public, just as wearing the mask of Sardar Patel is part of the bid the "sell" the Gujarat misdeeds.
Two months before his death, Gandhi said, "when someone commits a crime anywhere, I feel I am the culprit." If only a few of Gujarat's politicians and police officers had felt like that! When in January 1948 an influential Sikh leader, Giani Kartar Singh, spoke of cruelties against Sikhs in Pakistan and added, "afflicted men cannot be balanced men and everybody cannot be Mahatma Gandhi", the latter commented: "Mahatma Gandhi is neither an angel nor a devil. He is a man like you."
During his last fast Gandhi addressed Gujaratis in an article in his journal Harijan. Asking them to realise the importance of Delhi, India's "eternal city" from which no Indian could be excluded, he placed before them a vision of a democratic India where women, untouchables, toilers, the humblest and the lowliest would feel themselves the rulers of India along with the tallest in the land. Gandhi's heart would have been crushed afresh to learn that some tribals and Dalits allowed themselves to be used in the Gujarat carnage, and that women from "good" families joined in the looting. The developments call for deep reflection.
|
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Patel vs. Gandhi?
Records of ad spending puncture hole in Modi’s claims on UPA ignoring Sardar Patel
Records of ad spending puncture hole in Modi’s claims on UPA ignoring Sardar Patel
In its tenure between 1999 and 2004 the BJP-led NDA government did not issue advertisements for Patel for two years in a row (2001 and 2002).
RELATED
NEW DELHI: BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi's claim that UPA had forgotten Sardar Patel till this year is far off the mark. The government's publicity arm, directorate of advertising and visual publicity (DAVP), has spent Rs 8.5 crore in advertisements to commemorate Sardar Patel's birth anniversary over the last four years.
Ironically, the shoe may be on the other foot. In its tenure — between 1999 and 2004 — the NDA government did not issue advertisements for Patel for two years in a row (2001 and 2002).
"On earlier birth anniversaries of Sardar Patel, no advertisements were seen. Today, newspapers across the country have advertisements on Sardar Saheb ... this is the Gujarat effect," Modi said on Thursday speaking at the foundation laying ceremony of 182-metre tall "Statue of Unity" of Patel at Kevadia in Gujarat.
However, DAVP records show that UPA spent Rs 30 lakh in 2009-10, Rs 4.10 crore (2010-11), Rs 2.7 crore (2011-12) and Rs 1.4 crore (2012-13). When asked about Modi's allegations, information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari said, "It is evident that the newly-anointed prime ministerial candidate of the BJP doesn't allow fact to come in the way of myth-making." UPA missed issuing an advertisement in 2008, which Tewari said could be due to the severeeconomic recession that year.
However, the amount spent on Patel by the UPA is much lower than the amount spent every year on the Nehru-Gandhi family's birth and death anniversaries. DAVP spent about Rs 33 crore on birth and death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, Rs 21 crore for former PM Rajiv Gandhi, Rs 14.5 crore for Indira Gandhi and Rs 9.38 crore forJawaharlal Nehru in print advertisements.
When asked about the difference in ad spends Tewari said, "This should not be looked at from the prism of advertising spends because the cost can depend on various factors like the size of the advertisements or costs that year. The real point of inflection is consistency of effort which shows our commitment as opposed to those who pay lip-service and are trying to appropriate the legacy of a leader without even reading it."
Ironically, the shoe may be on the other foot. In its tenure — between 1999 and 2004 — the NDA government did not issue advertisements for Patel for two years in a row (2001 and 2002).
"On earlier birth anniversaries of Sardar Patel, no advertisements were seen. Today, newspapers across the country have advertisements on Sardar Saheb ... this is the Gujarat effect," Modi said on Thursday speaking at the foundation laying ceremony of 182-metre tall "Statue of Unity" of Patel at Kevadia in Gujarat.
However, DAVP records show that UPA spent Rs 30 lakh in 2009-10, Rs 4.10 crore (2010-11), Rs 2.7 crore (2011-12) and Rs 1.4 crore (2012-13). When asked about Modi's allegations, information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari said, "It is evident that the newly-anointed prime ministerial candidate of the BJP doesn't allow fact to come in the way of myth-making." UPA missed issuing an advertisement in 2008, which Tewari said could be due to the severeeconomic recession that year.
However, the amount spent on Patel by the UPA is much lower than the amount spent every year on the Nehru-Gandhi family's birth and death anniversaries. DAVP spent about Rs 33 crore on birth and death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, Rs 21 crore for former PM Rajiv Gandhi, Rs 14.5 crore for Indira Gandhi and Rs 9.38 crore forJawaharlal Nehru in print advertisements.
When asked about the difference in ad spends Tewari said, "This should not be looked at from the prism of advertising spends because the cost can depend on various factors like the size of the advertisements or costs that year. The real point of inflection is consistency of effort which shows our commitment as opposed to those who pay lip-service and are trying to appropriate the legacy of a leader without even reading it."
India needs Sardar Patel’s secularism
Updated: November 1, 2013 04:17 IST
India needs Sardar Patel’s secularism, not votebank secularism: Modi
Aviva i-Life Term Plan - Pay Only Rs.16*/day and Get 1 Crore Life Cover+ Tax Benefits.Buy Now!www.avivaindia.com/Term-Plan
PTIGujarat Chief Minister and BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi with veteran senior leader L.K. Advani during the foundation laying ceremony of 'Statue of Unity,' the memorial for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in Bharuch on Thursday. PTI
‘Iron Man is belittled by associating him with Congress, he belonged to the entire country’
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said India wanted “Sardar Patel’s true secularism” and not “votebank secularism.” He lamented that the Iron Man was being belittled by his being associated with the Congress, whereas he belonged to the entire country.
“Yes, the Prime Minister was correct, and I was proud to hear him say the Sardar was truly secular,” he said adding Patel’s secularism was genuine and not politically driven.
Mr. Modi was replying to Manmohan Singh’s statement on Tuesday that Patel was secular to the core and broad-minded. Speaking at a function here to inaugurate an upgraded Sardar Patel memorial in Ahmedabad , Dr. Singh also said the Iron Man belonged to the Congress, and so did he.
Mr. Modi said the 562 princely states that Patel integrated with the country belonged to different communities and cultures and represented a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. “This was his secularism.”
The Chief Minister earlier laid the foundation for the world’s tallest memorial of Patel, christened Statue of Unity, which is expected to come up in 40 months on Sadhu Island, 3.32 km downstream the Sardar Sarovar Narmada dam. The function for the 182-metre statue, double the size of the Statue of Liberty, was held near the dam site, in Kevadia Colony in Narmada district, in the presence of BJP veteran L.K. Advani.
To deflect criticism that the BJP was trying to appropriate the Iron Man’s legacy, Mr. Modi said: “It is a grave injustice to Sardar to associate him with any party [the Congress]. Sardar’s life and work is associated with India’s pride. His heart throbbed for India and so should our hearts, irrespective of any politics.” Rana Pratap, Shivaji, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were not BJP members, “but we are proud of them, for they lived and laid down their lives for the country.”
Without referring to the Congress, Mr. Modi said the time had come to bring an end to the “politics of untouchability and put the country on top of everything else.” Unlike in the past, all major newspapers in the nation were full of Central government advertisements on Thursday paying tributes to Sardar on his 138th birth anniversary. This he called a “Gujarat effect.” “Nobody commented when we set up the Mahatma Mandir [a sprawling convention centre in Gandhinagar], but why are they getting jittery with the Sardar memorial here,” he asked.
In his speech, Mr. Advani recalled the efforts made by Patel at unification of the princely states with the Indian Union and praised Mr. Modi for conceiving a “befitting statue” in memory of the first Deputy Prime Minister.
Max Blumenthal's 'Goliath'
Max Blumenthal's 'Goliath' Is Anti-Israel Book That Makes Even Anti-Zionists Blush
'I Hate Israel Handbook' Sparks Feud on Left
COURTESY OF MAX BLUMENTHAL
By J.J. Goldberg
Published October 31, 2013, issue of November 08, 2013.
There’s an unpleasant little debate sloshing around the Web lately that tells you all you need to know — and perhaps more than you want to hear — about the current state of relations between Israel and the left.
The debate revolves around an unpleasant book published October 1 by Nation Books, titled “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.” The author is Max Blumenthal, gonzo journalist, video provocateur and son of onetime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal. The book is the product, the author says, of four years’ work, including more than a year living in Israel and the Palestinian territories to study the facts on the ground.
As his title makes clear, he didn’t think much of the place. He’s written a collection of 73 short vignettes, weaving together reportage, history and interviews to show the suffering and unbroken spirit of the Palestinians and the callous cruelty of the Israelis. Lest anyone miss the point, many of his chapters have titles like “The Concentration Camp,” “The Night of Broken Glass,” “This Belongs to the White Man” and “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People.”
The hottest debate, though, isn’t over the book itself. It’s about a magazine column devoted to the book. It appeared October 16 in the left-wing weekly The Nation, whose publishing arm put the book out. It’s by Eric Alterman, the magazine’s sharp-tongued media columnist. Its title: “The ‘I Hate Israel’ Handbook.”
A prolific author, academic and liberal pundit, Alterman is regarded as a chronic Israel-basher by the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd, while devoted Israel-bashers call him a “member of the Israel lobby.” He stipulates that Israel’s “brutal occupation” inflicts “daily humiliations” on the Palestinians, but says Blumenthal “proves a profoundly unreliable narrator.” The book, he writes, shows “selectivity” toward truth. Its chapter titles are “juvenile,” its accounts “often deliberately deceptive.”
Alterman elaborated the next day in a blog post. That’s when things heated up. He said the magazine had asked him to write about Goliath, but he’d hesitated, wary of the “avalanche of personal invective” that comes whenever he writes about “BDS types,” meaning those engaged in the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions campaign against Israel. He finally decided to proceed, wanting to be a “team player.”
Then the book arrived. “I expected to disagree with its analysis,” he wrote. “I did not expect it to be remotely as awful as it is…. It is no exaggeration to say that this book could have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club (if it existed).”
The left-wing blogosphere erupted. Alterman was called an “ignoramus,” a “smearmeister” and, repeatedly, a “liberal Zionist.” One blogger, writing at the anti-Zionist group blog Mondoweiss.net, where Blumenthal is a regular contributor, questioned Alterman’s right to call himself a critic of Israel, since he sometimes defends it. Another, also at Mondoweiss, questioned The Nation’s judgment for assigning the review to a “liberal Zionist” known for “impassioned devotion to Israel.”
One blog after another took whacks at Alterman’s credibility: He misspelled the name of novelist Yoram Kaniuk (true). He unfairly ridiculed Blumenthal’s descriptions of the long-dead Israeli philosophers Berl Katznelson and Yeshayahu Leibowitz (arguable). He misrepresented Blumenthal’s substantive assertions about Israeli “fascism,” “racism,” “militarism” and more (entirely untrue).
But once you get past spell-checks and gotchas (for the record, Blumenthal refers to poet Allen Ginsberg as “Alan”; mentions the Canaanite god Moloch, from a Ginsberg poem, as “Mollock”; describes the moshav, a small-holders’ farming village, as a “collective farm,” and much, much more) the critics’ main complaint seems to be that Alterman’s review is the only one that’s appeared in print so far. Outside the far-left and anti-Israel blogosphere, “Goliath” has been ignored.
Blumenthal himself, answering Alterman in a Nation post October 23, seemed to want to blame the book’s invisibility on Alterman, claiming he was somehow “trying to frustrate debate.” Alterman, he wrote, is just the latest in a long line of “self-appointed enforcers” who have been trying—“especially since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin” — to “suppress an honest, free and full debate.”
Blumenthal, on the other hand, intends “to loosen the blockade of suppression.” Among other things, he’s interviewed “all sorts of people who are not the usual sources cited by much of the US media, including Israeli dissidents, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Bedouin villagers, Palestinian popular protest leaders, members of the Knesset from across the spectrum, and a host of right-wing Israeli officials, especially from the younger generation.”
Where to begin? First, to the extent that “self-appointed enforcers” tried to limit debate on Israel, it was much worse in the 1980s. The last two decades have seen an explosion of robust discussion. How Eric Alterman might suppress that is unclear. As for the book’s supposedly unusual interviewees, they appear regularly, everywhere from Charlie Rose to The New York Times, Haaretz and the Forward.
Blumenthal doesn’t know the history and ignores the inconvenient bits of the present, which is one reason his book has flopped. Worse, he thinks he knows all he needs to know, and just what readers need to know. He describes Israel’s assault on Gaza without telling of the thousands of rockets bombarding Negev towns for years beforehand. He touchingly recounts the 2004 assassination of Hamas founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi but doesn’t mention the hundreds of Israelis killed by Rantissi’s suicide bombers. The Palestinians are guilty of nothing. Israel’s actions are entirely unprovoked, motivated by pure racism.
Strangest of all are his accounts of his interviews with prominent Israelis, from novelist David Grossman to politician Shai Hermesh, in which he preaches to them, browbeats them and then finds them storming out on him — or in Grossman’s case, asking Blumenthal to throw away his phone number. Why? Obviously, they’re unwilling to hear the truth.
Of all the aftershocks in the Blumenthal saga, though, none is more telling than his October 17 appearance at the University of Pennsylvania. His host was political scientist Ian Lustick, author of the September 15 New York Times essay, “The Two-State Illusion,” which argued for a single Israeli-Palestinian state.
Almost halfway through their 83-minute encounter (minute 34:00 on YouTube), Lustick emotionally asks Blumenthal whether he believes, like Abraham at Sodom, that there are enough “good people” in Israel to justify its continued existence — or whether he’s calling for a mass “exodus,” the title of his last chapter, and “the end of Jewish collective life in the land of Israel.”
Blumenthal gives a convoluted answer that comes down to this: “There should be a choice placed to the settler-colonial population” (meaning the entire Jewish population of Israel): “Become indigenized,” that is, “you have to be part of the Arab world.” Or else…? “The maintenance and engineering of a non-indigenous demographic population is non-negotiable.”
Lustick appears stunned. And not only Lustick. Philip Weiss, founder and co-editor of Mondoweiss, who was in the audience, wrote afterwards, in a rare rebuke of his own writer, that he saw “some intolerance in that answer.”
We live in a “multicultural world,” Weiss wrote. There should be room for Israelis. “The issue in the end involves the choice between an Algerian and a South African outcome.” Mass expulsion versus coexistence. “I’m for the South African outcome.”
Blumenthal isn’t. It’s a chilling moment, even for the anti-Zionists among us.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/186557/max-blumenthals-goliath-is-anti-israel-book-that-m/?p=all#ixzz2jLmsEQJs
Two Jews Make the Top 20
Two Jews Make the Top 20 of Forbes' Annual 'Most Powerful People' List
Bernanke and Brin Nab 7th and 17th Spots
GETTY IMAGES
Top Jews: Ben Bernanke, Sergey Brin trail behind Vladimir Putin in the Top 20 of Forbes’ ‘Most Powerful People” list.
Published October 31, 2013.\
Ben Bernanke, the outgoing Federal Reserve chairman, was No. 7 on the Forbes annual World’s Most Powerful People list topped by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The only other Jewish person to make the Top 20 on the list released Wednesday was Google co-founder Sergey Brin at No. 17.
Putin displaced President Obama at No. 1; the U.S. leader dropped to second among the 72 people named. Rounding out the top 5 were Xi Jinping, general secretary of China’s Communist Party, Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Other Jews on the list included Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg at 24; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at 26; Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, at 27; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 29.
Also, Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Space Exploration Technologies, at 47; Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, at 58; Jill Abramson, executive editor of The New York Times, at 68; and Janet Yellen, the incoming head of the Federal Reserve, identified on the list as the central bank’s vice chairman, at 72.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei was ranked No. 23.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/186670/two-jews-make-the-top--of-forbes-annual-most-pow/#ixzz2jLiZ2O2R
13 Israelis Make Forbes Billionaires List
By Haaretz
Published March 08, 2012.
This year there are 13 Israelis on Forbes business magazine’s annual list of the world’s billionaires, which was released yesterday. Last year there were 16.
Top ranking among Israel’s billionaires went to Idan Ofer, the son of Sami Ofer of the Ofer Brothers group of companies. The elder Ofer, who died last June, took the top spot in last year’s Forbes list among Israel’s wealthiest. Idan Ofer ranked 161 on this year’s list, with a fortune reportedly estimated at $6.2 billion.
Beny Steinmetz, who currently lives in Switzerland and whose holdings include diamond interests, is ranked 169th worldwide with an estimated worth of $5.9 billion. The third wealthiest Israeli on the list is Idan Ofer’s brother, Eyal, at the 173th spot with $5.8 billion.
Other Israelis to make the Forbes list in descending order include Stef Wertheimer, whose Iscar firm sold a substantial interest in the company to American billionaire Warren Buffett; Shari Arison, of the Arison Group, whose interests include Bank Hapoalim; Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan; Alexander Mashkevitch, who holds Israeli citizenship but lives in Kazakhstan; Gil Shwed of Check Point Software Technologies; Yitzhak Tshuva of the Delek Group; and Lev Leviev, whose interests include diamond industry holdings.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/152775/-israelis-make-forbes-billionaires-list/#ixzz2jLjqnEof
26% of Americans Think Jews Killed Jesus, Poll Says
Many Say Jews Control Media, Talk About Holocaust
By JTA
Published October 31, 2013.
Twelve percent of Americans harbor deeply anti-Semitic attitudes, according to a new poll conducted by the Anti-Defamation League.
The figure marks a decline of 3 percentage points from the last time the ADL took such a poll, in 2011, but approximately the same number as in an ADL poll in 2009. The latest ADL national telephone survey, of 1,200 adults, was conducted this month and has a margin of error of about 3 percent. The results were released Thursday.
“It is heartening that attitudes toward Jews have improved over the last few years and, historically, have declined significantly in America,” said Abraham Foxman, the ADL’s national director.
A 1964 ADL survey on the topic found 29 percent of American held anti-Semitic views.
In the latest survey, 14 percent of respondents agreed that Jews have too much power in the United States; 30 percent said American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the United States; and 19 percent said Jews have too much power in the business world – all figures virtually unchanged from the 2011 survey.
The percentage of respondents who believe that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus was 26 percent, down from 31 percent in 2011. Eighteen percent said Jews have too much influence over the news media and about one-quarter agreed that Jews talk too much about the Holocaust.
The survey was released on the first day of the ADL’s two-day centennial conference being held in New York.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/186664/-of-americans-think-jews-killed-jesus-poll-says/#ixzz2jLlWIAOi
Monday, 28 October 2013
Modi cannot lead India effectively
Modi cannot lead India effectively: NYT editorial board
The editorial, published yesterday, also questioned Modi's economic track record in Gujarat.
NEW YORK: Narendra Modi, BJP's prime ministerial candidate, cannot hope to lead India effectively if he inspires "fear" and "antipathy" among many of its people, New York Times has commented in an unusual move.
"Mr Modi has shown no ability to work with opposition parties or tolerate dissent," the editorial board of New York Times said in a stinging editorial on the 63-year-old BJP leader.
The editorial said that Modi has already "alienated" BJP's political partners when Janata Dal (United), an important regional party broke off its 17-year alliance with the "party because it found Mr Modi unacceptable."
India was a country with multiple religions and "Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people," it said while recalling that nearly 1,000 people died in the 2002 riots in Gujarat.
The editorial, published yesterday, also questioned Modi's economic track record in Gujarat.
The "economic record in Gujarat is not entirely admirable, either," it said.
"Muslims in Gujarat, for instance, are much more likely to be poor than Muslims in India as a whole, even though the state has a lower poverty rate than the country," the editorial said.
"His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities," said the 19-member editorial board, headed by India-born Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of New York Times.
"Mr Modi has shown no ability to work with opposition parties or tolerate dissent," the editorial board of New York Times said in a stinging editorial on the 63-year-old BJP leader.
The editorial said that Modi has already "alienated" BJP's political partners when Janata Dal (United), an important regional party broke off its 17-year alliance with the "party because it found Mr Modi unacceptable."
India was a country with multiple religions and "Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people," it said while recalling that nearly 1,000 people died in the 2002 riots in Gujarat.
The editorial, published yesterday, also questioned Modi's economic track record in Gujarat.
The "economic record in Gujarat is not entirely admirable, either," it said.
"Muslims in Gujarat, for instance, are much more likely to be poor than Muslims in India as a whole, even though the state has a lower poverty rate than the country," the editorial said.
"His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities," said the 19-member editorial board, headed by India-born Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of New York Times.
Narendra Modi’s Rise in India
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: October 26, 2013
In 2002, rioters in the western Indian state of Gujarat savagely killed nearly 1,000 people, most of whom were part of the Muslim minority. Now, barely a decade later, Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat at the time and still holds the office, is aleading candidate to become prime minister of India.
Today's Editorials
Editorial: Bill de Blasio for Mayor (October 27, 2013)
Editorial: What the Pollen Says(October 27, 2013)
Editorial | Notebook: An Optimistic Investment (October 27, 2013)
Editorial | Notebook: The A Train to Autumn (October 27, 2013)
Mr. Modi, a star of India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, would become prime minister if the party won enough seats in parliamentary elections next summer with support from its political allies. His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country’s 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities. They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.
Supporters of Mr. Modi argue that an investigation commissioned by India’s Supreme Court cleared him of wrongdoing in the riots. And they insist that Mr. Modi, who is widely admired by middle-class Indians for making Gujarat one of India’s fastest-growing states, can revive the economy, which has been weakened by a decade of mismanagement by the coalition government headed by the Indian National Congress Party.
There is no question that the Congress Party has failed to capitalize on the economic growth of recent years to invest in infrastructure, education and public institutions like the judiciary. And instead of trying to revive itself with new ideas and leaders, it is likely to beled in the coming election by Rahul Gandhi, the inexperienced scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family.
But Mr. Modi’s strident Hindu nationalism has fueled public outrage. When Reuters asked him earlier this year if he regretted the killings in 2002, he said, if “someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is.” That incendiary response created a political uproar and demands for an apology.
Mr. Modi has shown no ability to work with opposition parties or tolerate dissent. And he has already alienated political partners; this summer, an important regional party broke off its 17-year alliance with the B.J.P. because it found Mr. Modi unacceptable.
His economic record in Gujarat is not entirely admirable, either. Muslims in Gujarat, for instance, were much more likely to be poor than Muslims in India as a whole in 2009 and 2010, according to a government report, though new data has shown a big improvement in the last two years.
India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr. Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 28, 2013
An earlier version of this editorial relied on a 2012 Indian government report on poverty rates, which included the rate for Muslims in Gujarat in 2009 and 2010. Newer data shows that poverty among that group has declined substantially in the last two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)