VIEWPOINT
AMITABH SHUKLA
What is the difference between an
apology and expressing regret? The question came to dominate after British
Prime Minister David Cameron expressed regret for what had happened at
Jallianwala Bagh 94 years ago and Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde too took
refuge in the same word for his remarks on “Hindu terror”.
Most of us use both the words
interchangeably and hardly see a difference except the hard core grammar and
literature enthusiasts and the purists. Even the Oxford
dictionary uses the word apology for regret seamlessly.
The core of the issue is the
message delivered and not the actual meaning, more so when diplomacy and
politics are involved rather than a literary expression in a fiction.
Cameron clearly wanted the
message to go home in his country, at Amritsar ,
Punjab and in India
that Britain
indeed was sorry for what happened in Jallianwala Bagh on the day of Baisakhi
in 1919 in which over 1000 people who had assembled for a peaceful protest,
died after the troops under General Reginald Dyer fired without any
provocation. He might not have used the word apology anywhere in the Visitor’s
Book at the memorial in Jallianwala Bagh but by and large it acted as a
soothing balm in the holy city where the memories of that day are still vivid
amongst the older generation through first hand tales and the younger
generation through stories, history books and the physical existence of the
memorial and the place where t he tragedy took place.
Cameron was guided by diplomacy
and officials of the British foreign office must have advised him to do so and
could even have prompted the exact words he chose. But more importantly, it was
obviously politics back home which led the British Prime Minister to visit Jallianwala
Bagh and also the Harmandir Sahib (Golden
Temple Amritsar .
Punjabis constitute an influential and politically active section in countries
like Britain , Canada
and United States
and with this move, Cameron is sure to get a sizeable per cent of their votes
when he seeks re-election for the House of Commons in the May 2015 election in
his country.
This is precisely what guided the
non-gazetted police officer turned Home Minister Shinde when he used the word
“Hindu terror” during the Jaipur conclave of the party and how the BJP was
running terror camps or so. Cameron faces elections in May 2015, Shinde and his
party will have to face it exactly a year earlier, in May 2014. Obviously, the
remarks of Shinde were not an innocent one which just slipped out of his mouth
but is loaded with meaning. With one stroke, he tried to consolidate the
minority vote bank, never mind it helped the terror machines in Pakistan
absolve themselves of all responsibilities for the serial terror attacks on India ,
the latest at Hyderabad . Being the
Home Minister of the country, Shinde is supposed to know what he is speaking
when the matter pertains to terrorism.
But expressing an apology or
regret or whatever you call it for his remarks, clearly shows that politics was
writ large on the “Hindu terror” comments of the Home Minister. Why apologise
or express regret when you have the facts along with all the investigating and
intelligence agencies at your command which can bring out those facts? Once the
purpose was served — of playing the so called secular card, the statement was
conveniently taken back.
Mr Shinde, please don’t play
politics with terrorism. It has no colour or religion. It is simply terror.
Punish all those who indulge in terror — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian or
whoever it is whether he or she is an atheist or practices primitive animism.
It doesn’t matter. Such crude attempts of classifying terror would boomerang.
And it has already boomeranged in a way. Despite the hanging of Afzal Guru, no
message has gone to the terrorists as they continue with their attacks and Hyderabad
is the latest in the series of attacks which the country had to face in the
last two decades or so. Mr Shinde, how would you classify the Hyderabad
terror attack? Which colour or religion does this belong to? Obviously you
would not answer as you have burnt your fingers and you cannot derive political
mileage out of it.
Don’t compromise with the
paramount consideration of fighting terror with all the command and force you
have. Politicising it is not the solution and after tendering an apology, you
have made it clear that the use of “Hindu terror” was political in nature with an
eye on the vote bank. Remember, the country comes first and then Congress, BJP
or vote bank politics. Don’t put the party and vote bank before the country.
This is precisely what you did with the “Hindu terror” comments.
But the problem here is bigger. Congress
is so huge and diverse that even if Shinde says something, someone else would
disassociate himself or herself from the remarks to pander to another set of
vote bank. More or less, this is a calculated exercise. One Shinde or Digvijay
Singh says something to pander to a communal interest and one Janardan Dwivedi
or Manish Tiwari says something else to pander to another set of vote bank and
assuage the feelings of that section which apparently felt hurt by a comment.
Just after Shinde apologised or for
that matter said sorry for his “Hindu terror” remarks, you now have Union
Minister Kamal Nath saying that Shinde had not apologised for his controversial
remarks but only expressed regret. Now, some other leader would say something
and the process would continue. Grow out of this habit. For how long would you
continue to use the same set of tactics which you have been using for the last
60 years to get votes?
Post Script: Cameron’s note on the Visitor’s Book would
ensure him a place in the history books as the first British Prime Minister who
was sorry and expressed regret, almost apologised for a historical blunder
which a fellow British citizen committed in 1919. It would help him get votes of the Punjabis
and the Indians living in Britain .
What Shinde said and apologised for would neither earn him any accolades or
votes for his party. This only showed how immature a politician he is and how
the statement was calculated to cater to vote bank politics. (February 25, 2013)
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/129367-cameron-and-shinde-poles-apart-same-tactics-different-results.html
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/129396-cameron-and-shinde-poles-apart-same-tactics-different-results-.html
No comments:
Post a Comment