America’s Interest on Modi, the ‘Vikash Purush’

 The article on The Hindu on April, 21st, 2014 entitled as “Is India about to elect its Reagan?” by David Cohen, surprised me a lot. Mr Cohen compared Mr Modi with the former President of U.S.A, Mr Ronald Reagan, more specifically ‘Modinomics’ with ‘Reaganomics’ or ‘Reaganism’. Reaganism was a kind of ‘new right’ model blended with certain characteristics of capitalism and some features of socialism, was in force during his reign in USA. Its UK version ‘Thatcherism’ was named after the late PM of UK, Ms Margaret Thatcher.

The point here is to understand that, what led America or Mr Cohen to praise for Modi? Initially, USA was against Modi, as his name was associated with 2002. Earlier, it denied visa to Modi for the same reason. But, after the clean chit given by Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by Supreme Court of India and by and large, after the media hype about the clear majority of NDA led by Modi in the ongoing 2014 Lok Sabha poll, America started to normalise its stand against Modi. The followings may be the probable reasons for what he suddenly became the hero for USA-


It is a well-known fact that Congress led UPA favours Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and the BJP led NDA favours domestic investors. But Modi is a kind of stature, who bats for both, as we have recently seen him to urge for investments in Gujarat to the foreign countries, while he was in his foreign tour. It implies that Modi’s capitalism is different from that of the NDA’s. Mr Cohen praised ‘Modinomics’ as an Indian version of ‘Reaganomics’ or ‘Reaganism’, i.e. based on free market principle. As it is the most probable thing, as hyped by the media, Modi is going to capture New Delhi by the middle of May, this year, sparked the USA’s policy towards India in particular and East Asia in general.

America wants to normalise its relation with Modi on pretending that he will favour the FDI of USA to further liberalise India’s economy, as the economy of USA is in a dwindling condition with high per-capita debt, marred by the ‘Eurozone Crisis’ and ‘Global Recession’ which hit USA and the world during the later half of the last decade. Earlier, Indo-US relation was jeopardised during the tenure of UPA II, by the nuclear deal in 2008. So, USA imagined that the ‘Vikash Purush’ (Developmental man) will help the grievances of it.


BJP’s 2014 election ‘Manifesto’ said about the abrogation of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which provides Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) a special status. By this Article, the encroachment of an individual other than a domiciled of J&K, has been limited. Both, India and Pakistan is fighting to solve the dispute over the sovereignty over J&K, since the partition of India in 1947. Now, the people of Pakistan is looking for Vajpayee like government in New Delhi, which was quite friendly with Islamabad. But, Mr Modi and Rashtriya Swayamseva Sangh (RSS) – his parent ideology, has been labelled as anti-Muslim and anti-Pak, and its evidence can be cited from the recent speeches of Modi and other leaders of BJP and members of RSS. Likewise, Mr Cohen labelled Modi as he is as bold against Pakistan, as Ronald Reagan was against Soviet Union. The same hatred of USA against former USSR can be found within Modi against Pakistan, which the Washington want to use for their personal benefit. Clearly, the idea of US Congress is not to solve the dispute between Indo-Pak over the J&K, but to further instigate the problem more severely. So, Washington does not want to ease the bitterness against Modi.

Again, the abrogation of Article 370 will invite more pronounce militancy in the valley of Kashmir, sponsored by cross-border terrorism, and funded by the Islamabad based Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ongoing dispute between both the countries has given USA the chance to sell its arms and ammunition in a large quantity, as we know that India is the largest importer of US arms and arsenals in the present day world. So, why will USA want peace between Indo-Pak? Washington never wanted a better relation with Modi actually, but virtually, and also with certain interests. USA wants to use the anti-Pak sentiments of Modi and RSS as a tool to indulge them into severe conflicts. So, that the supply of their arms and ammunition to these countries do not stop. Export of heavy weapons is the main business of USA.

Universal Civil Code:

One of the agenda of BJP’s 2014 election ‘Manifesto’ is the bringing of universal Civil Code. It implies that there will be no separate law for any religious sects. The legislations of separate laws for Hindus, Muslims and other faiths will be on their departure and a Universal law (common for all) will come into force, instead. This provision is directed towards taking the minority identity away. This feature or provision of BJP’s manifesto, has been seen by USA as the so called global ‘War on Terror’, started after the 9/11 terrorist attack on World Trade Centre (WTC), as Washington suspects every Muslim as terrorist. USA’s anti-Islamic attitude leads it to bat for Modi, whose ideology in this context is in direct coincidence with that of USA.

India-Sri Lanka and Jayalalitha:

It is an obvious fact that it is an impossible task for any single party to have clear majority to form the government at the centre. So, as it is believed that NDA (with all its allies) will capture power at New Delhi, on May, 16th. One of the major former allay of NDA, Ms Jayalalitha’s AIDMK, will play a significant role in the formation of foreign policy for the next government, though she is distancing herself from NDA due to her personal political gain. Nothing is absolute in politics rather everything is relative and that relativity is defined by the interest of an individual party or a person. Jayalalitha recently was in a controversy after her decision to release the convicts of Rajiv Gandhi murder case and her stance against the Sri Lankans on the rehabilitation programme for the Tamils of Jaffna in Sri Lanka. But her action also brought popularity among some Indians.

She will again join NDA, if her political gain centred on Tamil Nadu and Tamil people at Jaffna will not be compromised. She wanted India to vote against Sri Lanka, which demanded a probe into the war crimes and human right’s violation inflicted by Sri Lanka during the war against Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) and against the Tamils. The abstention of Congress led UPA government from voting, a motion moved by USA against Sri Lanka in UN Security Council, recently, led Washington and Jayalalitha unhappy. But BJP did not comment anything over the abstention of India in the voting.

USA sees an opportunity in Modi to programme an unhealthy environment for the relation of India to her neighbours through him, as BJP was distancing itself from commenting on that issue which is very dear to Jayalalitha. As NDA needs her, it will keep itself away from being indulged on Tamil issues. This gives Washington a chance to use its theory of ‘Balance of Power’ in East Asia, as there are few emerging economies with nuclear capabilities.


India is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic, as the Preamble to the Constitution of India states. So, the dictatorial hegemony of an individual will not be entertained. Whatsoever be the motive of USA behind its generosity towards backing Modi, the youngest country of the world will leave no stone unturned to save the basic framework of the Constitution, and to upheld India’s mutual friendship and integrity with her neighbours. And the responsibility of doing so, solely rests on the shoulder of the young mass of this country.


Twitter ID: @modontanti

Reservation is Regressive or Casteism ?

We Indians, as a society and as a global power, are becoming the forerunner among all the South Asian nations. But some regressive concepts like casteism, on which the present domestic Indian politics is dependent, are still prevailing, which does not allow an individual to have frank and free relation with the so-called ‘untouchables’ of the society.

To address this nuance, we first have to look towards the origin of this nonsense approach. Historically, our society was tolerant to each other. Till the Vedic Period, there was no sign of casteism. However, in the later Vedic Period, the classification of the society was started on the basis of economic activities, namely the Brahmins, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the Shudras.

In Hindu mythology (originally in the Sanatan), it is believed that Brahma is the creator of the Universe (Brahmand). Thus, the privileged persons of that time (later Vedic Period) in the society to claim their prowess on rest of the less privileged, derived the tool of nomenclature of the classified society.

The classed society had the Brahmans as the head of the society as they were associated with the elite jobs like worship of God, Yagna etc. And because they represent the head of the Creator of this Universe (the Brahma), this class was named Brahmans.

Next class was the Kshatriya who represents the hands of the Creator because they had chosen the work of protection of the society,i.e; the ‘warriers’. The rationale behind this nomenclature was that hands are always there for the protection.

The Vaishyas were associated with commerce and business and they represent the thigh of the Brahma. The last section of the society was the Shudras and the then ‘untouchables’ who represent the feet of the Brahma, associated with the work of cleansing the garbage and the waste materials of the society. As they represented the feet of the Brahma, their destiny was to revere the Brahmins with full gratitude; this is still in practice in some of the countryside.

The prevalence of caste is there in the society on the basis of heredity, despite the fact that the society was classified on the basis of the economic activities of the people. Now, in our society, the opposite thing is happening, here the classification of the society is on the basis caste. By this arrangement, the Brahmins reclaimed their sovereignty over the society and still continue to do so. They are always pessimistic about the greater freedom of the‘untouchables’ on pretending that the freedom of the downtrodden will dilute their dominance over the society. Legally, these so called ‘untouchables’ are named as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Now, the social condition of the SCs and STs is not too much different from that of the time of later Vedic Period. Here the high caste people is too reluctant to have relation with them, even there is a few who do not want a glass of water from these so called ‘untouchables’. Economically also, they are yet to be emancipated, freedom of choice of profession (Article 19) is alien to them, caste-based discrimination, sexual exploitation and atrocities (as prohibited by the Article 15)are the fate of the women of this section, even naked parade and witch hunting are usual phenomenon.

Constitutionally, all the citizens of India have the right to live with full dignity with equal opportunity in all the affairs of life. Article 14-18 of the Constitution deals with the provision of “Right to Equality”, within which Article 16 deals with the “Equal Opportunity of Employment”. Freedom of choice of profession is also guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 19).  So, it is not the wisest thing to force a section of society to practice a profession on the basis of heredity. They should have greater say while choosing their mode of wage-earning.  Similarly, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India empowers the State to have some special provision for the backward classes of the society, if their representation is not adequate in any affairs of life. For this purpose, the policy of reservation (Article 335) came into existence, which is politically called as “Affirmative Action”.

In this context, the hypocritical high class is always against this provision with the excuse that reservation policy deprives the other section (high class) of the society and it also causes the grave violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. To my understanding, it is not a violation of the Constitution and nothing in this provision deprives the others. The weaker sections of the society are too weak to compete with the economically elite class on equal terms. They should be brought in the mainstream first; they should economically be as empowered as the elite, then they should be asked to compete on equal basis. The thing is like that a race between a physically challenged man and a man on bike cannot be considered. So, the policy of reservation is not as regressive as it has been widely circulated. It is a type of special care taken by the Government of India, by its Constitutional obligation, for the downtrodden.

Politically, to safeguard the privileges of the SCs and STs, the Constitutions has guaranteed the rights of the scheduled people of India. The National Commission for SCs and The National Commission for STs are there under the Article 338 and 338A, respectively, established after the bifurcation of the combined Commission by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, but came into existence in 2004. SC and ST women’s seat has been reserved in the Rural and Urban local bodies respectively, by the 73rd and 74thConstitutional Amendment Act, 1993. These were the ‘Special Provisions’ enacted by the framers of the Constitution and the Government of India for the SCs and STs.

But, here we have to argue, why there is a necessity to entertain such provisions like ‘reservation’?

We are living in a welfare state, so welfare schemes are anticipated. The economy of Indian society is a mixed kind of economy (though Preamble of the Constitution of India describes India as a ‘Socialist’ country but actually we are moving towards ‘Capitalism’), in which some precautionary measures are being taken by the government to protect the weaker section from the exploitation of the capitalists. This is exactly the same reason, for which the Indian companies are given some protection from the exploitation of big multi-national corporations (MNCs), by reserving few commodities to be produced by the domestic companies only. Here, the hypo-critic class should shout on the basis that Government of India should not reserve the goods to be produced, as government has liberalized its economy in the 1990’s and the companies should be left to the demand and the competition of the market. So, reservation is inevitable, in both economic and social aspects.

Now, the question arises, on what basis should the reservation be given? Whether it should be given on the basis of caste, or on the basis of economic status, or on the basis of religion? For how long the policy should be continued?

According to me, the criterion of reservation should be made on economic line rather than on the caste-heredity.So far, the policy of reservation benefitted the weaker people (though ghost beneficiaries are there) among the Hindus only, leaving the weaker ones of other faiths into the pyre of struggle. Sachar Committee Report (2006) says, the conditions of the people among the Muslims are much worse than average. The righteousness is that weaker sections of the society from all faiths should be brought under the umbrella of reservation, on the basis of economic status. So, this is imbecile to say that reservation should be given to Hindus only, though so far the politics of India has been alluding to the same.

The argument about the duration of the policy should be addressed in a constructive manner. When the policy was inaugurated, it was piloted only for 10 years and from then it has continuously been renewed for another 10 years and still is being renewed. The renewal was on the basis that the upliftment of the SCs and STs was not as much as anticipated. But, this policy has now become hereditary and the already benefitted are still plucking the spring blossoms of the policy of reservation. We have to stop this sinful practice; we have to push the marginal to avail this benefit. If, once a generation being benefitted and has been brought into the mainstream, its entitlement to reservation should be cancelled and be forced to compete with equal terms with the rest privileged. But, in reality, the privileged are getting more and more privileged and the section which deserves it most is still in the darkest hour of the day. So, the policy should be for one generation rather than on heredity.

Finally, we can conclude with the statement that, as we living in a ‘Socialistic’ country, as such the Constitution of India describes us, we cannot escape from the fact that the gap between the have and have-nots is widening day by day. We need to bridge that gap, as people of ‘India’ is in an advanced stage of society, whereas the people living in ‘Bharat’ is not as capable as the elite. So, social welfare schemes like ‘reservation’ is needed but have to say no to casteism to have the emancipation of the scheduled people been done.

Twitter: @modontanti