[Now in Bihar, the BJP has made the "beef" the central issue. To facilitate that it is trying hard to spread the fire to newer and newer corners - Dadri to Agra, Agra to Mainpuri, in the neighbouring state of UP. The Prime Minister has doggedly refused to condemn the dastardly killing and spreading violence; and done nothing to restrain his foot-soldiers. In fact, he himself is too voluble on "beef". That shows a degree of despair on its part.
For the actual outcome, however, we'll have to wait and watch,] I/III. ***Visit the site for viewing the telling cartoon***: <http://www.dnaindia.com/cartoons/photo-politickle-by-manjul-2133163>. II/II. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/the-dadri-effect-killing-beef-eaters-will-not-win-elections/ The Dadri effect: Killing beef-eaters will not win elections October 11, 2015, 12:04 AM IST SA Aiyar in Swaminomics | India | TOI Predicting elections is a mug’s game. Nonetheless, I predict that the BJP will lose in Bihar. Killing beef-eaters does not win elections. Journalists have long accused the BJP of trying to win Bihar by stoking communal passions with stunts like throwing calf heads or meat near temples. This is not conclusively proven. But BJP governments in many states have banned meat and beef sales, imposing stringent controls on cattle movement that strangle the cattle and leather trade, and make the possession or eating of beef very risky. The BJP views this as a vote-winner. The clincher is the refusal of BJP leaders to condemn outright the lynching by a Hindu mob of a Muslim in Dadri for supposedly eating beef — which is entirely legal. BJP apologists have performed verbal acrobatics to somehow avoid condemning this murder. This terrifies Muslims and millions of Hindus (notably Dalits and tribals) who have long eaten beef. Apart from being morally outrageous, this is also poor politics. On Thursday Modi finally broke his silence on Dadri, saying people should follow President Pranab Mukherjee’s call for tolerance and unity, ignoring all other voices (including BJP voices). Yet that very day, his colleagues in Kashmir beat up a Muslim politician holding a beef party. Modi’s ploy seemed to evade the beef thuggery question via insincere homilies. He wants to appear non-communal without categorically condemning his colleagues or the Dadri murder. This will not wash. Some analysts call this a turning point. Many who gave Modi the benefit of doubt on social harmony are now outright critics. Modi came to power on a platform of development, not Hindutva (despite his RSS background). His appeal to the aspirational classes for better livelihoods and governance struck a chord with voters, and won him the general election. Instead of sticking to that platform, Modi has shifted to communal polarization. No longer does he follow the policy of ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas’. Muslims, dalits, tribals and beef-eating Hindus have been dumped from his ‘sabka saath’ agenda. He thinks that this loss of support will be made good by anti-cow-slaughter fanatics. But the fanatics were always with him. He won last time only by attracting others in the political centre. If he now loses the centrists, and banks on extremists alone, he will surely suffer. The Dadri murder is not just a moral but economic issue. Fear of RSS goons has forced many shopkeepers to stop selling even buffalo meat. Transporters of cattle are fearful of arrest and worse. India has a huge leather and footwear industry employing millions of workers (including many Dalits). All these now face shortages of hides and rising prices that make them uncompetitive in exports. Farmers have always sold aged cows, oxen and buffalos to abattoirs. Indeed, this has enabled India to become the biggest beef exporter in the world. Suddenly this large industry, a major employer, has become very risky, and may become extinct in some states. The price of aged cattle has crashed or gone to zero, diminishing the wealth of millions of cattle owners. In states like Bihar, most farmers own oxen for ploughing and transport, apart from cows for milk. All of them face wealth erosion. So, Modi’s promise to increase jobs and income is turning sour. BJP theorists will claim that the cultural popularity and mobilizing power of the anti-cow-slaughter movement will eclipse any economic side-effects. I disagree, but let us wait and see. Even if the economic side-effects cost Modi no more than 2-3% of the vote, that could be electorally lethal. Many Indian elections are lost on thinner margins. Besides, the beef incident will surely intensify “strategic voting” against the BJP. Muslims and others opposed to Modi will vote not for their favorite candidate, but for the candidate in their constituency most likely to beat the BJP. The Nitish-Lalu alliance has always looked very opportunistic and unlikely to stick, given that the two sides have castigated one another for a decade. Some Nitish supporters might prefer the BJP to Lalu. Yet the advantage the BJP hoped to gain from this will be diminished by the communal polarization (and hence strategic voting) it has now created. ***In every recent state election, the BJP has won fewer votes than in the general election. In 2014, the BJP and allies won 38% of the Bihar vote. They need to take it to at least 43% to win what is mostly a straight fight. So, they need to woo a big chunk of additional voters in the centre. Killing beef-eaters will not accomplish that. Nor will their vague echoing of Pranab Mukherjee’s line atone for the Dadri murder.*** [Emphasis added.] III. http://www.asianage.com/columnists/silence-akhlaq-storm-beef-964 Silence on Akhlaq, storm on beef Oct 10, 2015 Pavan K. Varma In the cut and thrust of politics, people begin to understand the difference between symbolism and substance. The ghastly killing of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri took place on September 28, 2015. India, and the entire world, was aghast that just a few kilometres from the capital of the world’s largest democracy, in an area ironically named after one of the world’s greatest messiahs of peace and non-violence, Gautam Buddha, a man was publicly lynched and his son almost killed on the question of what meat the family ate. While the dastardly attack became the subject of headlines and comment globally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a silence on the subject for a full 10 days. Not a word. Then, on October 7, when President Pranab Mukherjee issued a statesman-like admonition on the importance of tolerance and the need to protect and respect the plural and composite nature of our national fabric, Mr Modi woke up. At a rally in Bihar on October 8, he finally broke his silence and belatedly endorsed what the President had said. The question is stark: Why did the Mahamahim Rashtrapatiji have to make a pointed public comment for the Prime Minister to take public cognisance of this horrific incident? The President makes carefully considered opinion statements only on certain occasions, notably on the eve of Independence Day on August 15, and on January 26, Republic Day, apart from the opening speech to a joint session of Parliament for the Budget Session. Since I have had the privilege to have worked as press secretary to two Presidents, I know that even these speeches have major inputs from the government, and the President but rarely makes very significant modifications. The other speeches of the President — and there a great many of these in a variety of important forums — are politically correct, fairly predictable, neutral and above the political events of the day, as befitting a constitutional head of state. What made the President deviate from this tradition and make a hard-hitting comment stressing that “diversity, tolerance and plurality are core values that have kept India together and must never wither away”? Earlier in the year too, in his address to the nation on the eve of our 69th Independence Day, he had emphasised that “our democracy is creative because it is plural”. “India’s strength”, our President said, “lies in its unique capacity to blend apparent contradictions into positive affirmations”. A related but fundamental question must also be asked: Why did Mr Modi have to await a presidential expression of anguish and concern before he reacted to what happened in Dadri? Could he not, as the democratically elected Prime Minister of the nation, who is accountable to the people directly and must respond to any development that impinges on the security and well being of citizens, have suo motu issued a statement of condemnation urging that peace and harmony should be maintained at all costs and the most stringent action taken against the culprits? And, when he did break his silence a day after the President had spoken, did he really mean what he said? He broke his silence in a rally in Bihar; he had held four rallies that day, but this issue commanded his attention only in one of them, and that too towards the end, almost, it seemed, reluctantly. In doing so, what is significant is that he publicly referred to what the President had said. Invoking the Rashtrapatiji’s comments, he said, “Only communal harmony and brotherhood will take the nation forward”. But he made this comment after he had himself brought in the issue of beef in his speech. He first became a part of the vicious campaign of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh against the purported comments of Lalu Prasad Yadav, which they had selectively interpreted as an endorsement of beef eating by Hindus. Mr Yadav had already clarified a dozen times at least by then that he did not say this, and that he strongly believed that beef eating is not something that he practices or propagates. The BJP, he said, was openly trying to distort what he had said in order to further communal polarisation. This was graphically brought out on Friday, October 9, by the IBN-7 TV channel when it played a video clip of a tweet of Giriraj Singh. Mr Singh had put a six-second selectively edited video clip distorting what Mr Yadav had said, and the channel exposed this by playing out the full clip of Mr Yadav’s statement to ANI. The inference was clear: notwithstanding the barbarity witnessed in Dadri, the BJP had no compunctions in importing beef politics into Bihar in order to somehow win a losing election. Mr Modi, in his latest round of rallies, had no compunction in adding fuel to the inflammatory nature of such politics. Instead of vikas, that the BJP claims is its main agenda, here was the spectacle of Mr Modi speaking about beef, with the explicit attempt to entice Hindu voters, and in particular “Yaduvanshis” away from the Maha Gathbandhan. After doing so, with uninhibited blatancy in all his rallies, Mr Modi then made the perfunctory gesture of endorsing the President’s statement on the importance of communal harmony. ***Given this context, how should we assess Mr Modi’s real intentions? His own ministers, MPs and other functionaries are busy using Dadri to inflame religious hatred. Sadhvi Prachi said on camera that those who eat beef deserve the same treatment as was meted out to Akhlaq. Mr Modi has not said a word in condemnation. Nor did he say a word in sympathy for the family of Akhlaq. But he had no compunctions in indulging in beef politics in his speeches in Bihar. This is the real backdrop to his symbolic statement of support for “communal harmony and brotherhood”. The respected President of India will have to speak much more often with candour to enable our Prime Minister to understand that India is greater than the short-term compulsions of narrow, partisan politics.*** [Emphasis added.] Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma is a [JD-U] Rajya Sabha member -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
