Advani and Modi
In the "family" called the Sangh Parivar, the operative principle is primogeniture. Thus it is that observers have shown sympathy for Lal Kishenchand Advani, born 1927, being pushed out by Narendra Damodardas Modi, born 1950. All know that Modi was to a large degree created by Advani, so thoughts of parricide cannot be distant.
Primogeniture does not seem to apply in relations between the RSS and the BJP. Advani promptly withdrew his resignation(s) following a phone call from Mohan Madhukar Bhagwat, the RSS Fuhrer. Bhagwat, a former Akhil Bharatiya Sharirik Pramukh who now declares that women "should restrict themselves to doing household chores", was also born in 1950.
A friend remarked yesterday that one of the "brats", Bhagwat, is eminently qualified to handle the other, Modi, by virtue of having studied veterinary science. This may not amuse Advani, though.
Mukul Dube, Delhi
‘More on Sarada’
In the comment 'More on Sarada' (Frontier, June 2-8) a reference has been made to the fraudulent financial concern ''Sanchayita" and Asok Mitra's action against it. Asok Mitra was then the finance minister of West Bengal. There is a remark in the 'Comment' about the reported suicide of one of the owners of the concern that 'there is a widespread belief that a venal police officer took him there and threw him to the ground'. In the recently launched periodical Arek Rakam, Asok Mitra wrote an editorial dated 1 May, 2013, in which the "Sanchayita" episode was briefly described and it was commented on the Sarada scam that there is a possibility of the main culprit's life being endangered at any moment. From this comment, it appears that the 'widespread belief' may not be altogether unfounded. It may be mentioned in passing that the article has been reprinted in a leading Bengali daily. Here a legitimate question is whether the death of the Sanchayita chief was a case of homicide or suicide, and if it was a case of homicide, who were the guilty? Asok Mitra, being the then finance minister, should be able to pronounce with authority in this matter, and he should speak out on it, instead of making tantalizing hints.
N K Chatterjee, Bolpur, Birbhum
Bank account, Tibet etc.
"Where can they save their money?" by Nisha Biswas, [Frontier, June 2-8, 2013] is surprising. Such a situation rarely crops up in Andhra or in the southern States. If anything the entire administration, including that of private or nationalized banks sector, in West Bengal is botched up decades. Otherwise such a situation would not arise. Thanks to the Aadhaar linked bank account system now being brought in some districts of the country [in Hyderabad and two other districts in AP], whatever be the other defects of and objections regarding the Aadhar project, every person—like the sweepers, waiters, and persons belonging to other lowest sections of society—will now have a savings bank account in their own name freely and one may hope that account will not be limited just to subsidies but also be useful for general purposes also.
In the same issue what the editor means in his editorial by saying "India had no border problems with Tibet as along as it was Tibet"? The British imperialists tried to subjugate Tibet also but were not successful; however, they were successful in establishing a mission in Lhasa taking advantage of the weakness of the 'suzerain' China in those days and controlled Tibet's affairs. India only stepped into those imperialist shoes as far as Tibet was concerned. The moment China became liberated and emerged into a strong unified State (1949) problems naturally developed. They would no longer tolerate the expansionist or imperialist designs of the British sought to be continued by India. Strangely, Indian Government, with all its ambitions, and colonial legacies, has also recognized Tibet as a part of China i.e. accepted the sovereignty of China over Tibet, though it has also aided the Tibetan rebels and gave and still gives sanctuary to them. So, Tibet could not have any problems with India since, pre-1947, there was no India proper or Tibet proper (in terms of sovereign existence). Earlier to that there were always tensions—Ladakh from Tibet being occupied by Raja Gulab Singh, still earlier to that Aurangzeb's invasions against Tibet and subjugation of Ladakh, etc. In NEFA Tibet to date has claims over Tawang Monastery and if Tibet becomes independent certainly it will have a dispute with India as to the status of Arunachal Pradesh. This writer sent queries to the exile government of Tibet (in Dharamshala, HP) online about their position on the Sino-Indian border dispute but they did not reply since obviously they are now under the tutelage of Indian Govt. But once Tibet becomes independent or autonomous (even under China), everything will change. They will also sing the same songs of the Chinese Govt. on the border dispute. Please note that the Taiwan Chinese govt. fully supported and to date supports the official Beijing Chinese govt.'s line on the border dispute. Also now UK recognizes not just the Chinese suzerainty over Tibet; it has gone quite farther and recognizes the 'sovereignty' of China over Tibet.
I M Sharma, Hyderabad
Vol. 46, No. 1, Jul 14- 20, 2013
Your Comment if any