PERSPECTIVE: A united political front

In an era of coalition governments where appeasing of allied parties and opportunistic politics are ubiquitous, there is a pressing need for a united political front that isn't driven by partisan politics. The major, and probably solitary, focus of this front should be on issues that are not only sensitive to the people but are fundamentally complicated to control in a democracy.

For example, we know that the deliberations over anti-terror laws are bound to never end. Considering that the BJP is the main opposition party in Parliament, it will always back POTA no matter what. And it is very likely that they know how POTA has been misused. A new legislation to fight terror is likely to be compared with POTA and the saffron brigade will continue to invest their brains (and the country's time) in egotistic politics. To top it off, we have experienced the full force of their parochial mindset in the form of leaders like Sushma Swaraj who will irresponsibly speak up despite not possessing a needle's worth of knowledge and mental discipline.

Talking of the Left and their undying grudge against the nuclear deal and the Government's pro-US views, they are likely to criticize all steps taken by the UPA to curb the spread of terror and adjudicate against those chiefly responsible. With their ideological mentality, they are unlikely to provide us with any positives.

This is not to say that the UPA hasn't gone soft on terror. Terrorism has been the Achilles' heel of the incumbent Government. And with an abysmally weak home minister at the centre of the country's internal security mechanism, we rightly remain skeptical about improvement. They have failed to understand terrorism and its many faces and have only realized the need to act against it at the final curve of their term in office. This despite the fact that terror attacks have continued to increase since the UPA came to power.

These are the problems that a united front could solve. If Barack Obama and John McCain can set their personal differences aside, and that while in a heated presidential race, then why can't we? Terrorism is the principal threat to internal security and even other people-driven issues like secularism.

Of course, the government would remain the policy-makers and decision-takers. But they can be ably aided by representatives of other parties in an open milieu that must result in action and action only. The predicament with issues like terrorism is that the people (mainly, the victims) bear the brunt of an unstable working agenda against it. Loss of lives has become a regular characteristic of terror attacks and only the spirits of the survivors and the people of the city are seen as a setback for militancy.

The perpetrators of terrorism and leaders of terrorist groups remain unfazed with such responses as they are fine with their members being arrested and taken to task. They know very well that more minds can be brainwashed and truckloads of terrorists can be produced since the country has failed to hit them where it hurts the most - eliminating training camps. Such camps were first thought to be outside territorial control, but now they are prevalent in the form of little modules. Today, terrorists even attack to avenge the loss of their associates who died in a previous attack.

Only a united front is capable of taking action against the largely immaculate network of terror outfits being nurtured in the sovereign outlines of India. Only a proactive approach and constant action will purge the scourge of terrorism. End the passive outlook to issues that are piling up the dead. At least, we should pledge to fight for those who lost their lives out of humanitarian reverence.

How can the people unite or even pay enough attention if their leaders at the top fail to offer substantial examples and are always driven by vested interests? How can we eliminate terror if there is no action taken (open condemnation is NOT action)? Why a potential superpower is subjugated to perpetual torment and is brought down to its knees?

Do something, before it's too late. Hell it may already be too late. Or do we even know what late means?


When is enough, enough?

Respected Mrs. Gandhi, PM Manmohan Singh, Mr. Patil,



What the nuclear deal means for.....

A definite shot in the arm ahead of assembly polls in five states, and the general elections in the upcoming year. The NSG waiver comes as a big boost to the alliance's hopes of regaining power next year. The UPA will definitely use the deal in their campaigns, especially when you consider their weak points of being soft on terrorism and record inflation. However, whether we like it or not, we have to agree with the fact that there are some people of respect and honour in the UPA and they are doing right things.

What can you say? The NDA's hopes of winning the forthcoming elections took a huge blow with the UPA's success. To top it off, they are resorting to their customary "oppose everything, whether in national interest or not" tactics by suggesting that the nation has been betrayed. We'll have to wait and watch regarding this point though as the "leaked letter" is still shrouded in mystery. However, they are all for the deal. They probably just can't bear the credit being given to the UPA.

The Left
The deal is definitely a huge blow to the Left, who could now return to being insignificant in the nation's affairs following a four-year period of destructive influence. Unless they resort to their usual pain-in-the-@$$ convention of bandhs and strikes. The political turn-around could also mean that The Third Front will equally suffer.

National interest
The deal was always in national interest. Irrespective of what you've heard or read. India has realized it's growing energy needs and for the country to become a superpower, it was always a must to explore this field of energy generation.

Well, they proved they can never be trusted by emerging as a last-minute obstruction to the deal by raising questions of non-proliferation at the NSG after assuring India that they backed the deal. It probably means that the Chinese can't bear to see India as an equal rival. Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai returns to being rhetorical.

Concerned citizens
Well, India plans to drastically improve it's civilian energy needs through nuclear power(which currently stands at a meagre 3%) with the deal and it definitely means that a new sector of energy opens up in full bloom. This could mean cheaper electricity once the deal is in operation and a reduced dependency on coal-generated power. Also nuclear waste, once disposed carefully, does not influence climate change and global warming.

Ignorant citizens

Mumbai Meri Jaan

Hats off to this masterpiece of cinema from a masala-dogged world of Indian films. In a truly sensational way, the team of this gem of a movie has presented the reality that is there for all to see and why we should, in all seriousness, wake up to the evil of terrorism before it becomes a part of our "dark present".

Hats off to the ridicule portrayed by the film - the scene where Kay Kay Menon realizes how every Muslim is not a terrorist, the scene where Paresh Rawal asks a common man to keep patience in the hunt for the bomb-planters and not just arrest and frame charges against anyone, the Rupali Bani Rudali TV show portraying a juicy story-seeking Indian media that has inherently only worsened the fight against terror. Hats off.

Wake up and fight. Yes, not everyone can do something. But at least we can be vigilant, respect our fellow dead citizens and their grieving families and pledge to help.