[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Wow!! That's getting hot!

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Dr. Subroto Roy wrote:
> I think with this the India Policy Institute has reached a critical
> and serious political subject-matter.  Both statements above seem to
> me highly contentious and misleading, especially Professor Guptara's
> statement "Unfortunately, some fanatics are actually in political
> power in our country."  What does he mean? Does he mean to speak of
> the present PM and his Council of Ministers?  If so, let him say so.  
> Does he mean that someone like, say, the Hon'ble Defence Minister is a
> "religious fanatic" or has allowed himself to be in the same Council
> of Ministers as "religious fanatics"?  What is the basis in evidence
> for such remarks?  I do think here we have here an example of remarks
> being made totally disengaged from Indian experience.

Dear Professor,

We can carry on this debate only through completely openness to other
people's views, even if those views might appear contrary to one's views.
The struggle on this forum is to arrive at a MINIMUM consensus on the
kinds of statements we can all support.

The Preamble to the manifesto (we can change that word from Manifesto to
something else if you like) states:

"That political groups which use differences of religion, caste, or
language, to come to power, have hurt India very badly both before and
after independence."

In other words, we have a broad, and non-specific criticism (so far) of
anyone who has used - deliberately - any religious motif or religious
belief, to attract people, rather than using policy debate. The above
statement I believe is sufficient and we need NOT (on this forum) either
elaborate on it nor expand on it, just like I am not going about
elaborating who was corrupt, how that corruption took place, etc. We are
not going into personalities at all (at least to the extent possible).

If you or anyone else likes, we could modify this statement in the
Preamble, but surely we are not - none of us are - representing any
political groups/ views. We are saying: this is what we as citizens want
as a bare minimum of policies for our governance. Let us therefore invite
everyone on board (and that is good) but not as reps of any side. Just as
citizens. All of us vote and therefore might be pro- this or pro-that. But
at the moment, we are saying that NONE of these political groups have a
consistent set of policies designed to take India to #1 position in the
world. We are designing those policies.

Thanks! SS

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/