Why we love to hate BJP
Education: One of the key allegations that our comrades and their friends in congress have slapped on NDA is their introduction of correct history, or diplomatically speaking adding another perspective of history. Comrades call it saffronization, with the help of “like minded” media, they succeeded in making the common man believe that indeed the history was been colored. This line of painting BJP as saffron stands as a major agenda used by Left and Congress, off course there is no other issue to talk about against BJP in terms of economics, administration and policies. However, this claim of Saffronization demands a rigorous scrutiny; what is this education system that was “colorless” and remained unperturbed for 50 years before BJP came in power? Why is it that BJP felt an acute need to revisit the curriculum in school when school education has hardly attracted more than 5% of GDP? Is there a possibility that the history told to us was not complete, or perhaps incorrect?
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1835 created a draft popularly known as Macaulay’s minutes on Indian education. He proposed “de-link Indians from India” is the only way to subjugate Indians, and he further proposed romanticizing western and Arabic thoughts as reformist and making the Hindu culture and heritage as demonic and barbaric would be the way to achieve it. More than 100 years later, when independent India was drafting its first education model, communists who had heavy patronage of Nehru (who himself was pseudo communist) took the Macaulay’s minutes as their guiding star. They opted a long term strategy of replacing the “white” rule by the “brown” rule; subjugation of Indian Hindu crowd was common factor.
Congress and communists succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation of Indians by controlling the education. They demonized every aspect of being Hindu; Hindu history had little or no glorified mention in text books all the while tenets of Islam were put forward as chapters in History text books, all in the name of secularism. The apex body of historical research was created, Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and was promoted on the lines of JNU, making it a leftist communist bastion. They accepted and promoted “like minded” historians like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar (who also wrote NCERT text books) who proclaimed Islamic rule rid India of the savage uncultured Hindus; they claimed BJP was imposing a ideology on masses but when asked about whether communists were doing the same, they resorted to platitudes (http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/05inter.htm)
1. What did NDA do? They tried to re-link Indians with India, make people take pride in Indian history, and that interrupted the harmony in communist agenda. When cornered and they no solid grounds to object to, they cried saffronization, when in fact it was cleaning the “green” history to make it colorless. NDA believed in keeping all religions on same platform, but to do that one had to put the balance back to shape which was tilted to extreme left and pro-religious minority. NDA never said Islamic rule was savage, or when mughals ruled life was miserable (when in logic, it is more fathomable), they just said, Hindu culture and history is as rich and they did not need to be “civilized” by Islamic advent. In NDA rule, life changed, despite facing a major global crisis of 2001 dotcom bust, NDA gave India rapid economic growth by taking bold economic steps of making people educated and rich. When congress came back, first thing they did was to revert back the communist history. Their leadership, in whom the country trusted with education of its children, sent their own children (Rahul Gandhi) to US and UK in the name of security
2. NDA government reduced the dropout rate from primary education by 2% on an average and conceived “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan” which unlike congress plans, was actually implemented and Constitutional amendment incorporating Education as Fundamental Right was done. Congress on the other hand promised 6% of GDP to be invested in education, whereas actually on ground the spending was an abysmal 2.8%.
Congress cried all foul when NDA asked IIMs to reduce their fee, but NDA never interfered with the autonomy of IITs and IIMs. UPA on the other hand not only did the same, but it also interfered with autonomy to the extent of selection of candidates. The dynasty sycophancy was epitomized by naming an institute of national importance as Rajeev Gandhi IIM Shillong. In demand for higher education, rather than improving infrastructure of existing universities and progressively upgrading them to IIT and IIM status, they cropped up IITs and IIMs in almost every state as if these institutes are created by putting a building and hanging a three letter board. These institutions are carefully crafted temples of excellence, which have sustained scrutiny of time. The best 5 IITs and top 3 IIMs are facing acute faculty crunch, how is UPA planning to provide faculty for new scores of IIT and IIMs. The very rush, with which these institutes of “national importance” were erected, raises doubts on the intention. Prof C N R Rao, chairman of IITs said he did not even know that there were new IITs in Gandhinagar and Patna which were admitting students this very academic year.
Congress had a clear agenda in its mind, keeping Indians underprivileged and uneducated, so that they are surrounded by poverty and Congress shall keep its Gareebi Hatao slogan evergreen. They regressed on all progress made by NDA government, but could not go to pre NDA era because the people of India had tasted good life, there would have been a backlash if they had tried to do that. So they adopted a better strategy, to not to improve it any further and maintain status quo, because status quo maintained over a long time is actually under development.
1. Look at response to the question “The BJP government is being singled out for recruiting scholars who toe their line. But the Left Front government in Bengal has often been accused of appointing people with a Marxist background to sensitive positions. As a Marxist, how can you justify this?”
2. Even there Rahul Gandhi, an intellectual duffer by all means failed to complete his degree from Harvard.