<p>A growing majority of French voters see Marine Le Pen&#39;s far-right National Front as a threat to democracy, but a third approve of its ideas, a Kantar Sofres-Onepoint poll showed on Tuesday.</p>

<p>Le Pen, who most polls see coming on top in the first round of France&#39;s presidential election, has sought to make the anti-European Union, anti-immigrant National Front less of a fringe party since she took its reins from her father in 2011.</p>

<p>However, 58 per cent of those surveyed in the poll for Le Monde and franceinfo radio said the party was a threat to democracy. After shrinking for a decade, that number has been rising since 2013, when it stood at 47 per cent.</p>

<p>Only 19 per cent of those surveyed said they wanted Le Pen to win the May 7 presidential runoff. Most polls put her ahead of other candidates in the April 23 first round, but those same surveys consistently see her losing the run-off.</p>

<p>A third said they completely agreed with the National Front&#39;s ideas, a proportion that has changed little since Le Pen took over the party&#39;s leadership.</p>

<p>The Kantar poll found key planks of Le Pen&#39;s platform gaining little traction with voters. Only 22 per cent of those polled were in favour of dropping the euro as France&#39;s currency, for example, down from 34 per cent in 2011 when pollsters started asking the question.</p>

<p>The FN&#39;s anti-EU, anti-immigrant stance helps mark it as anti-establishment but it is also seen as a likely obstacle to its election, in particular with older voters.</p>

<p>It is a key part of the FN&#39;s platform, and on Tuesday Le Pen reaffirmed that, if she were elected president but voters later rejected the EU exit in a referendum, she would resign.</p>

<p>&quot;What would happen if I told voters we must leave and they decided to stay?&quot; Le Pen said at a meeting with a group of entrepreneurs. &quot;I would quit. What else can I do? My whole project can only be carried out if we get the tools and powers back (from the EU.)&quot;</p>

<p>Likewise, only 21 per cent were in favour of giving employment priority to French citizens over foreigners residing legally in France, a level that has changed little in recent years.</p>

<p>(Reuters)</p>


A growing number of French citizens see Le Pen as a threat to democracy, yet a third approve of the far-right party's ideas

A growing majority of French voters see Marine Le Pen's far-right National Front as a threat to democracy, but a third approve of its ideas, a Kantar Sofres-Onepoint poll showed on Tuesday. Le Pen, who most polls see coming on top in the first round of France's presidential election, has sought to make the anti-European Union, anti-immigrant National Front less of a fringe party since she took its reins from her father in 2011. However, 58 per cent of those surveyed in the poll for Le Monde and franceinfo radio said the party was a threat to democracy. After shrinking for a decade, that number has been rising since 2013, when it stood at 47 per cent. Only 19 per cent of those surveyed said they wanted Le Pen to win the May 7 presidential runoff. Most polls put her ahead of other candidates in the April 23 first round, but those same surveys consistently see her losing the run-off. A third said they completely agreed with the National Front's ideas, a proportion that has changed little since Le Pen took over the party's leadership. The Kantar poll found key planks of Le Pen's platform gaining little traction with voters. Only 22 per cent of those polled were in favour of dropping the euro as France's currency, for example, down from 34 per cent in 2011 when pollsters started asking the question. The FN's anti-EU, anti-immigrant stance helps mark it as anti-establishment but it is also seen as a likely obstacle to its election, in particular with older voters. It is a key part of the FN's platform, and on Tuesday Le Pen reaffirmed that, if she were elected president but voters later rejected the EU exit in a referendum, she would resign. "What would happen if I told voters we must leave and they decided to stay?" Le Pen said at a meeting with a group of entrepreneurs. "I would quit. What else can I do? My whole project can only be carried out if we get the tools and powers back (from the EU.)" Likewise, only 21 per cent were in favour of giving employment priority to French citizens over foreigners residing legally in France, a level that has changed little in recent years. (Reuters)

French election: Majority of voters mistrust Le Pen's National Front, says poll

<p>Historically, the universities in India have reproduced hegemonic social values and perpetuated social hierarchies. Yet, on its margins, university and college campuses provide spaces where the young minds can get exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives &minus; including oppositional and counter-hegemonic perspectives &minus; on various social, cultural and political issues. This makes universities a contradictory space.</p>

<p>Much more than classroom learning, the broadening of the horizons of critical thinking happens outside the classroom through activities like seminars, theatre, film and documentary screening, and participation in political activities. Most of the times, the political content of these activities is not to the liking of the votaries of the Hindutva. Alongside, in recent times, the university campuses have also seen the political assertion of historical oppressed identities that provide a powerful challenge to the established social hierarchies. This happened partly due to the changing demographic composition of the university students in the last couple of decades due to the constitutionally mandated socially inclusive policies.</p>

<p>For example, in many university campuses a movement like Pinjra Tod has been gaining popularity in last couple of years. Pinjra Tod began as a movement against oppressive hostel rules curtailing women students&rsquo; freedom of movement, but now has become a movement taking up many issues concerning women students. There are also events and activities around the issues of gay and queer rights and expressions. Both these movements have become sources of paranoia and anxiety for the culture of masculinity that Hindu nationalism has always promoted.</p>

<p>Then there is the emphatic assertion of dalit-bahujan politics on college and university campus that challenges and inverts Hinduism&rsquo;s religious myths, as we saw in the controversy around the celebration of Mahishasur on the JNU campus. In addition, There are also left ideological groups active in various campuses, which, in their own ways, continuously challenge the narratives of culture, politics and economy promoted by Hindutva politics and present strong counter-narratives of their own. They often organise programmes related to human rights record of the Indian state; in the process raising isuues related to Kashmir, Bastar, AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), the displacements of people by various development projects.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>All these activities cause serious paranoia and fear among Hindutva groups. Unwilling or unable to respond to all these political challenges, the ABVP has often resorted to violent means in recent past. One strategy that is frequently used by the ABVP for justifying its violence or threats of violence against groups and activities it doesn&rsquo;t approve of is of naming them &lsquo;anti-national&rsquo; or &lsquo;anti-Hindu.&rsquo; The artificial binary of nationalism-&lsquo;anti-national&rsquo; works well for them as a strategy as it puts the opponents on the defensive. In this way, in most such cases, the right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two, wherein the latter faces its ultimate limit at the frontier of nationalism. In this construction of a binary between the two, it is largely forgotten that nation is a continuously changing entity and the limits and scope of the freedom of citizens can never be fixed at any given point in time. Thus it is either outright stupid or a willful pretense of ignorance to say that words like azadi/freedom used in students&rsquo; slogans can only mean advocacy of secessionism.</p>

<p>Nations and nationalism cannot forever limit the possibilities inherent in human freedom and human becoming. The actually existing relation between nationalism and the rights of citizens at any given point defines what kind of nationalism should be acceptable. It is only in the extremely oppressive and claustrophobic version of Hindutva nationalism that citizens&rsquo; freedoms are sought be continuously limited and constricted. But it would be wrong to frame the debate over rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution in the narrow liberal framework of a defence of abstract formal rights of individuals or groups. The freedom of speech should be taken as the very precondition on which depend the possibility of politics as an instrument of social and cultural transformation as well as an enabling condition for the contest over the definition, form and content of nationhood. Thus, another important part of the same strategy of the right-wing groups is to continuously keep invoking the spectre of external and internal enemies threatening the nation, thereby reducing politics to the question of unity of the nation against enemies.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In this way, right-wing politics, in India and everywhere else, tends to divert attention away from the issues of social divisions, dominance, hegemony and oppressions within the nation. The democratic politics, on the other hand, brings these into view and makes possible the articulation of counter-hegemonic struggles. Thus, for right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance. The democratic political contest continuously keeps the internal social composition of the nation open to question and transformation through counter-hegemonic struggles.</p>

<p>The debate or clash, then, is really between various possibilities of collective national existence. Why can&rsquo;t, for instance, we ask for a more federal India wherein the states have much more power than in the existing constitutional arrangement? Is that also anti-national? Because of its extremely oppressive and dark record of nationalism in the last century, particularly in the inter-War years, but also in the 1990s, nation as a desirable form of political community is being questioned in the contemporary political-theoretical discourse all around the world. The argument that its best defenders put forward in its defense is that it is the only viable form of political community that can secure and guarantee a framework of universal rights. However, nationalisms that continuously threaten to limit the scope of rights and freedoms are recipes for totalitarianism.</p>

<p>The question of freedom of speech and expression in India should be considered in its multiple aspects. One is its formal-legal aspect as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The other aspect is political. To what extent this right can be exercised in different situations depends on the balance of political forces on the ground. Historically, in the continuously evolving political culture of democracy in India, the value of individual rights and freedoms is yet to take deep enough roots for it to have a prominent place in this culture. In any case not all freedoms are protected equally. For instance the freedom to criticise and raise voice against caste and gender based oppressions does not find protection on the ground in most situations.</p>

<p>The most disturbing part of the political culture of democracy in India is that, not only the executive organs of the state like police and administration, but also the political parties &ndash; an essential component of any modern democracy &ndash; have not shown the willingness to take a stand for the defence of individual rights. And there is no exception to this, including the record of the left parties in West Bengal and Kerala.</p>

<p>Yet, there are reasons why it can be argued that, with respect of protection of rights of individual freedom and of autonomy of academic institutions, the BJP, as a political party, now the party in power, is different from other political parties in India because of its connection to the RSS. The RSS as a cultural organisation desires total interpretive control over culture and education. The RSS seeks to establish, as part of its agenda of Hindu rashtra, an exclusive interpretative control over the meaning of nationalism, a definition of the nation&rsquo;s culture, and also over the nation&rsquo;s past and history. This is what makes the RSS-BJP-ABVP as a combined political force far more interventionist in the academic and political spaces of universities and colleges than most other political parties, if not all.</p>


Nationalism that continuously threatens to limit the scope of rights and freedom-- is recipe for totalitarianism

Historically, the universities in India have reproduced hegemonic social values and perpetuated social hierarchies. Yet, on its margins, university and college campuses provide spaces where the young minds can get exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives − including oppositional and counter-hegemonic perspectives − on various social, cultural and political issues. This makes universities a contradictory space. Much more than classroom learning, the broadening of the horizons of critical thinking happens outside the classroom through activities like seminars, theatre, film and documentary screening, and participation in political activities. Most of the times, the political content of these activities is not to the liking of the votaries of the Hindutva. Alongside, in recent times, the university campuses have also seen the political assertion of historical oppressed identities that provide a powerful challenge to the established social hierarchies. This happened partly due to the changing demographic composition of the university students in the last couple of decades due to the constitutionally mandated socially inclusive policies. For example, in many university campuses a movement like Pinjra Tod has been gaining popularity in last couple of years. Pinjra Tod began as a movement against oppressive hostel rules curtailing women students’ freedom of movement, but now has become a movement taking up many issues concerning women students. There are also events and activities around the issues of gay and queer rights and expressions. Both these movements have become sources of paranoia and anxiety for the culture of masculinity that Hindu nationalism has always promoted. Then there is the emphatic assertion of dalit-bahujan politics on college and university campus that challenges and inverts Hinduism’s religious myths, as we saw in the controversy around the celebration of Mahishasur on the JNU campus. In addition, There are also left ideological groups active in various campuses, which, in their own ways, continuously challenge the narratives of culture, politics and economy promoted by Hindutva politics and present strong counter-narratives of their own. They often organise programmes related to human rights record of the Indian state; in the process raising isuues related to Kashmir, Bastar, AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), the displacements of people by various development projects. The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two × All these activities cause serious paranoia and fear among Hindutva groups. Unwilling or unable to respond to all these political challenges, the ABVP has often resorted to violent means in recent past. One strategy that is frequently used by the ABVP for justifying its violence or threats of violence against groups and activities it doesn’t approve of is of naming them ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-Hindu.’ The artificial binary of nationalism-‘anti-national’ works well for them as a strategy as it puts the opponents on the defensive. In this way, in most such cases, the right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two, wherein the latter faces its ultimate limit at the frontier of nationalism. In this construction of a binary between the two, it is largely forgotten that nation is a continuously changing entity and the limits and scope of the freedom of citizens can never be fixed at any given point in time. Thus it is either outright stupid or a willful pretense of ignorance to say that words like azadi/freedom used in students’ slogans can only mean advocacy of secessionism. Nations and nationalism cannot forever limit the possibilities inherent in human freedom and human becoming. The actually existing relation between nationalism and the rights of citizens at any given point defines what kind of nationalism should be acceptable. It is only in the extremely oppressive and claustrophobic version of Hindutva nationalism that citizens’ freedoms are sought be continuously limited and constricted. But it would be wrong to frame the debate over rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution in the narrow liberal framework of a defence of abstract formal rights of individuals or groups. The freedom of speech should be taken as the very precondition on which depend the possibility of politics as an instrument of social and cultural transformation as well as an enabling condition for the contest over the definition, form and content of nationhood. Thus, another important part of the same strategy of the right-wing groups is to continuously keep invoking the spectre of external and internal enemies threatening the nation, thereby reducing politics to the question of unity of the nation against enemies. For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance × In this way, right-wing politics, in India and everywhere else, tends to divert attention away from the issues of social divisions, dominance, hegemony and oppressions within the nation. The democratic politics, on the other hand, brings these into view and makes possible the articulation of counter-hegemonic struggles. Thus, for right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance. The democratic political contest continuously keeps the internal social composition of the nation open to question and transformation through counter-hegemonic struggles. The debate or clash, then, is really between various possibilities of collective national existence. Why can’t, for instance, we ask for a more federal India wherein the states have much more power than in the existing constitutional arrangement? Is that also anti-national? Because of its extremely oppressive and dark record of nationalism in the last century, particularly in the inter-War years, but also in the 1990s, nation as a desirable form of political community is being questioned in the contemporary political-theoretical discourse all around the world. The argument that its best defenders put forward in its defense is that it is the only viable form of political community that can secure and guarantee a framework of universal rights. However, nationalisms that continuously threaten to limit the scope of rights and freedoms are recipes for totalitarianism. The question of freedom of speech and expression in India should be considered in its multiple aspects. One is its formal-legal aspect as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The other aspect is political. To what extent this right can be exercised in different situations depends on the balance of political forces on the ground. Historically, in the continuously evolving political culture of democracy in India, the value of individual rights and freedoms is yet to take deep enough roots for it to have a prominent place in this culture. In any case not all freedoms are protected equally. For instance the freedom to criticise and raise voice against caste and gender based oppressions does not find protection on the ground in most situations. The most disturbing part of the political culture of democracy in India is that, not only the executive organs of the state like police and administration, but also the political parties – an essential component of any modern democracy – have not shown the willingness to take a stand for the defence of individual rights. And there is no exception to this, including the record of the left parties in West Bengal and Kerala. Yet, there are reasons why it can be argued that, with respect of protection of rights of individual freedom and of autonomy of academic institutions, the BJP, as a political party, now the party in power, is different from other political parties in India because of its connection to the RSS. The RSS as a cultural organisation desires total interpretive control over culture and education. The RSS seeks to establish, as part of its agenda of Hindu rashtra, an exclusive interpretative control over the meaning of nationalism, a definition of the nation’s culture, and also over the nation’s past and history. This is what makes the RSS-BJP-ABVP as a combined political force far more interventionist in the academic and political spaces of universities and colleges than most other political parties, if not all.

Hindutva nationalism, democracy and fear of university speech

<p><em>India&#39;s Union minister of&nbsp;Urban Development, Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and Information &amp; Broadcasting in the Narendra Modi administration took time out to speak about the merits of demonetisation, the concept of nationalism and his party Bharatiya Janata Party&#39;s chances in Uttar Pradesh, which is India&#39;s largest regional elections.</em></p>

<p>WION: Has demonetisation served its purpose of taking out black money from the system?</p>

<p>Venkaiah Naidu: &nbsp;Yes, it has done so. It is a vaccine against the scam and it has done the job.</p>

<p>WION: Critics say that large amount of black money is abroad and not in India and all cash is not black?</p>

<p>VN: This is wrong to say that most of the black money is stashed abroad. You may recall that the first decision taken was constituting a special investigation team&nbsp;to find the black money stashed abroad. Secondly, we also came out with a bill in Parliament on the funds stashed abroad. Then we took initiative in G20 and entered into an agreement on multiple avoidance tax treaty with Mauritus and Cyprus and then followed it up with Switzerland and then with the US on FETA. PM (Prime Minister Narendra Modi) has been consistent. He also gave time to people to declare their (unaccounted) money. He has been doing things systematically. The black money is now in the open and this is the biggest achievement. Every rupee is being accounted for.&nbsp;</p>

<p>WION: The scheme has caused public inconvenience. Could&nbsp;it have been avoided?</p>

<p>VN: It was not possible. It was like a cancer spread across the country. The entire system was affected. Serious action was required. In 1971, the former finance minister YB Chavan recommended demonetisation. Justice Wanchoo committee also recommend it. But the previous governments didn&rsquo;t act on it. In the 80s, benami &nbsp;(without name) transaction bill was passed but the government did not notify it. We did it. In 2012, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to form a mechanism to bring back black money. This government did it. UPA (the previous government) slept over it. The chemotherapy has been administered under our regime. People welcomed it as a game-changer. People wanted drastic action and we have done it. We have 130 crore (1.3 billion) population. We had parallel economy, drug mafia, high number of fake notes and a neighbour which promotes terror etc. All of them were using black money. We delivered a death blow and that is why there is so much hue and cry. I admit that there is inconvenience. It might continue for few more days because people are used to (having) cash (on them). Arrangements could not be made because advance information could not be given. It is a temporary pain for long term gain.</p>

<p>WION: When will the caps go? When do we expect the liquidity to return to normal?</p>

<p>VN: The prime minister has already assured that pain will be eased step by step</p>

<p>WION: On this issue, the opposition did not allow the (India&#39;s) parliament to function. Do you expect demonetisation to cast its shadow on the budget session as well?</p>

<p>VN: I hope it doesn&rsquo;t happen. Parliament is a place for debate and discussion, but that&nbsp;could not happen. The Opposition wanted a debate but they later avoided and instead disrupted the parliament. They then went to the president. The government was willing and the prime minister was ready to respond. In fact, the debate had started and Opposition had fielded Anand Sharma, Pramod Tiwari and Manmohan Singh (to debate in the parliament). Mayawati , Ram Gopal Yadav, Piyush Goel and others,&nbsp;including me, spoke (about the merits of cash scrap) but they (the opposition) changed the goal posts and asked for the prime minister (to address their concerns). And when the prime minister came on the floor, the opposition didn&rsquo;t allow the house to function. They lost a golden opportunity for a debate. It was a proper forum to highlight the issue but they missed it.</p>

<p>WION: There is a perception that senior leaders of BJP and Congress don&rsquo;t talk unlike the days when Vajpaye was the prime minister?</p>

<p>VN: Everyone has a different style. Vajpayee&rsquo;s style was different, Modi&rsquo;s style is different and so was (Jawaharlal) Nehru, Indira (Gandhi) and Rajiv&#39;s (Gandhi) style. The prime minister told the opposition that we are ready for discussion but it didn&rsquo;t happen. I always tell the opposition:&nbsp;I propose, you oppose and let the House dispose.</p>

<p>WION: Rahul Gandhi (the de facto opposition leader) has attacked Modi on issues of demonetisation and Sahara papers. Your response?</p>

<p>VN: Rahul Gandhi is behaving in most irresponsible and immature manner. My personal advice is that he should graduate himself otherwise he would be failing himself and his party in the process. The personal criticism has been out of frustration. Congress has called Modi names. They (Congress) first called him &#39;maut ka saudagar&#39; (death merchant), then Rahul Gandhi called him Hitler, Mussolini and&nbsp;Gaddafi. The former external affairs minister (Salman Khurshid) called him impotent. This has not helped them and their stature has gone down.</p>

<p>WION: The principal charge of the opposition is that 50-odd families are being helped through the process of demonetisation?</p>

<p>VN: Absurd and meaningless. They shouted slogans in the parliament (accusing us of helping&nbsp;the Adanis and Ambanis, two large business conglomerates in the country). Adani and Ambani were not born during Narendra Modi&rsquo;s regime. They were born and brought up during the Congress-led governments. Who are these 50 families and how did they prosper?&nbsp;1.86 lakh crore of the bank money which has become NPA (non-performing assets) was all given during the Congress regime by these people. All concessions to Ambani and Adani were given by them. Now in order to portray us as pro-business and anti-poor, they (the opposition) are shouting these slogans. We are different. We feel that both industry and agriculture are equally important. Each should be respected. There are black sheep in the media. Every sector has a black sheep. We are looking to take action against them. Vijay Mallya was given loans during the Congress regime. The loans were restructured during the Congress tenure.</p>

<p>WION: BJP in 2016 was able to makes its presence felt in the Northeast (of India) by winning Assam. What are the party&#39;s prospects in Uttar Pradesh (India&#39;s largest state)?</p>

<p>VN: Absolutely. BJP is becoming an all-India party. When I joined this party, people would make fun of me that I&rsquo;m joining a Brahmin-baniya, urban-north India party. Today we have lawmakers across the country. We will win Karnataka. We have done well in Kerala. Our vote share&nbsp;has gone up. In Tamil Nadu, we have chances due to the demise of Amma (Jayalalithaa; she died earlier this month). In UP, the stakes are high but we are confident of winning. We got 71 seats (of 80 seats) during the general elections in the country (in 2014).&nbsp;People have seen the performances of the other regional players in the state and are not happy. The alternative to Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samajwadi Party -- the hitherto dominant parties in UP -- is BJP</p>

<p>WION: Doesn&rsquo;t it worry you that demonetisation might impact BJP adversely?</p>

<p>VN: That is what is being discussed by the media. But in reality, our appeal has increased at the grassroots level. This is the feedback I&rsquo;m getting from Uttar Pradesh. Look at the result of Chandigarh (a Union Territory in India). We won 20 seats. A lot of people from Uttar Pradesh stay there. We&nbsp;did well in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan local body elections as well. We won all the elections after demonetisation.</p>

<p>WION: The prime minister has invested his political capital in a scheme like demonetisation. Do think it was worth the risk?</p>

<p>VN: Yes, it was worth taking. We have not come to rule the country. We want to develop it. He is known for taking risks. He has taken it up as a challenge. He went for a surgical strike against our neighbour, who were interfering in our domestic affairs. He is known for taking tough and bold decisions. He wants to improve the living conditions of the people.</p>

<p>WION: Last year, the debate on nationalism dominated conversations in universities and many other areas of our society. How do you see it in retrospect?</p>

<p>VN: What is wrong in discussing about nationalism?&nbsp;Nation means people and people means all communities. It means all sections of the country. It means Bharat Mata ki Jai (a slogan that hails India). It means &#39;Dalito ki jai, Christian ki&nbsp;jai, Jains ki&nbsp;jai, sabhi backward castes&nbsp;ki&nbsp;jai&#39; (Victory to the Dalits, Christians, Jains and other backward castes). It encompasses every community. We should feel proud of it. Earlier, talks on nationalism would be looked down upon. Now, people feel proud and people talk about it. There nothing wrong in it.</p>

<p>WION: Many scholars would say that there is a difference between ethnic and civic nationalism.</p>

<p>VN: Those who say it are a product of 2,000 years of foreign rule and Macaulayism. This education system has gone into our heads. The influence of socialist model has also affected us. &nbsp;People have changed, the political mandate has changed but people in certain sections who were well entrenched, there minds have not changed. They have lost the battle but still holding key positions, like in the media. The so-called progressives and the leftists have not changed with the times either.</p>

<p>There was a big clash in Dhulagarh, West Bengal. Hundreds of shops were looted and people were thrown out of houses but the so-called secular media is neither reporting it nor discussing it. On the other hand, Zee TV has reported it prominently but a criminal charge&nbsp;has been filed against them. People sitting in Lutyen&rsquo;s Delhi, who are apparently progressive, aren&rsquo;t talking about it. Is talking about Hindus&nbsp;a crime in this country?&nbsp;This is perverted secularism and that is why people have rejected it. Secondly, ultra-Leftist people take up issues happening at Jawaharlal Nehru University and shout slogans at Hyderabad University, but the society at large have remained peaceful. I don&rsquo;t know why the essence of Hinduism is being twisted. Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. We don&rsquo;t want to discriminate between people on the basis of religion and race. Ever since Modi came to power, there are&nbsp;less communal clashes and focus is on development and good governance. Modi&#39;s opponents lost the 2014 general elections badly and that&#39;s the reason for the opponents are attacking Modi personally and indulging in a disinformation campaign.</p>

<p>WION: Lastly, did surgical strike change the nature of play between Pakistan and India?</p>

<p>VN: I don&rsquo;t think Pakistan would understand but a message has been sent.&nbsp;It (the surgical strikes) was not (done) for political reasons but to show Pakistan and the world that India is capable of retaliation. That has been done. It has raised the morale of the Indian armed forces and it has raised the morale of the Indian people living in India and also abroad.</p>

<p>(WION)</p>


India's federal minister defends government's policy by charting the steps taken by PM Modi to counter the menace

India's Union minister of Urban Development, Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and Information & Broadcasting in the Narendra Modi administration took time out to speak about the merits of demonetisation, the concept of nationalism and his party Bharatiya Janata Party's chances in Uttar Pradesh, which is India's largest regional elections. WION: Has demonetisation served its purpose of taking out black money from the system? Venkaiah Naidu: Yes, it has done so. It is a vaccine against the scam and it has done the job. WION: Critics say that large amount of black money is abroad and not in India and all cash is not black? VN: This is wrong to say that most of the black money is stashed abroad. You may recall that the first decision taken was constituting a special investigation team to find the black money stashed abroad. Secondly, we also came out with a bill in Parliament on the funds stashed abroad. Then we took initiative in G20 and entered into an agreement on multiple avoidance tax treaty with Mauritus and Cyprus and then followed it up with Switzerland and then with the US on FETA. PM (Prime Minister Narendra Modi) has been consistent. He also gave time to people to declare their (unaccounted) money. He has been doing things systematically. The black money is now in the open and this is the biggest achievement. Every rupee is being accounted for. WION: The scheme has caused public inconvenience. Could it have been avoided? VN: It was not possible. It was like a cancer spread across the country. The entire system was affected. Serious action was required. In 1971, the former finance minister YB Chavan recommended demonetisation. Justice Wanchoo committee also recommend it. But the previous governments didn’t act on it. In the 80s, benami (without name) transaction bill was passed but the government did not notify it. We did it. In 2012, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to form a mechanism to bring back black money. This government did it. UPA (the previous government) slept over it. The chemotherapy has been administered under our regime. People welcomed it as a game-changer. People wanted drastic action and we have done it. We have 130 crore (1.3 billion) population. We had parallel economy, drug mafia, high number of fake notes and a neighbour which promotes terror etc. All of them were using black money. We delivered a death blow and that is why there is so much hue and cry. I admit that there is inconvenience. It might continue for few more days because people are used to (having) cash (on them). Arrangements could not be made because advance information could not be given. It is a temporary pain for long term gain. WION: When will the caps go? When do we expect the liquidity to return to normal? VN: The prime minister has already assured that pain will be eased step by step WION: On this issue, the opposition did not allow the (India's) parliament to function. Do you expect demonetisation to cast its shadow on the budget session as well? VN: I hope it doesn’t happen. Parliament is a place for debate and discussion, but that could not happen. The Opposition wanted a debate but they later avoided and instead disrupted the parliament. They then went to the president. The government was willing and the prime minister was ready to respond. In fact, the debate had started and Opposition had fielded Anand Sharma, Pramod Tiwari and Manmohan Singh (to debate in the parliament). Mayawati , Ram Gopal Yadav, Piyush Goel and others, including me, spoke (about the merits of cash scrap) but they (the opposition) changed the goal posts and asked for the prime minister (to address their concerns). And when the prime minister came on the floor, the opposition didn’t allow the house to function. They lost a golden opportunity for a debate. It was a proper forum to highlight the issue but they missed it. WION: There is a perception that senior leaders of BJP and Congress don’t talk unlike the days when Vajpaye was the prime minister? VN: Everyone has a different style. Vajpayee’s style was different, Modi’s style is different and so was (Jawaharlal) Nehru, Indira (Gandhi) and Rajiv's (Gandhi) style. The prime minister told the opposition that we are ready for discussion but it didn’t happen. I always tell the opposition: I propose, you oppose and let the House dispose. WION: Rahul Gandhi (the de facto opposition leader) has attacked Modi on issues of demonetisation and Sahara papers. Your response? VN: Rahul Gandhi is behaving in most irresponsible and immature manner. My personal advice is that he should graduate himself otherwise he would be failing himself and his party in the process. The personal criticism has been out of frustration. Congress has called Modi names. They (Congress) first called him 'maut ka saudagar' (death merchant), then Rahul Gandhi called him Hitler, Mussolini and Gaddafi. The former external affairs minister (Salman Khurshid) called him impotent. This has not helped them and their stature has gone down. WION: The principal charge of the opposition is that 50-odd families are being helped through the process of demonetisation? VN: Absurd and meaningless. They shouted slogans in the parliament (accusing us of helping the Adanis and Ambanis, two large business conglomerates in the country). Adani and Ambani were not born during Narendra Modi’s regime. They were born and brought up during the Congress-led governments. Who are these 50 families and how did they prosper? 1.86 lakh crore of the bank money which has become NPA (non-performing assets) was all given during the Congress regime by these people. All concessions to Ambani and Adani were given by them. Now in order to portray us as pro-business and anti-poor, they (the opposition) are shouting these slogans. We are different. We feel that both industry and agriculture are equally important. Each should be respected. There are black sheep in the media. Every sector has a black sheep. We are looking to take action against them. Vijay Mallya was given loans during the Congress regime. The loans were restructured during the Congress tenure. WION: BJP in 2016 was able to makes its presence felt in the Northeast (of India) by winning Assam. What are the party's prospects in Uttar Pradesh (India's largest state)? VN: Absolutely. BJP is becoming an all-India party. When I joined this party, people would make fun of me that I’m joining a Brahmin-baniya, urban-north India party. Today we have lawmakers across the country. We will win Karnataka. We have done well in Kerala. Our vote share has gone up. In Tamil Nadu, we have chances due to the demise of Amma (Jayalalithaa; she died earlier this month). In UP, the stakes are high but we are confident of winning. We got 71 seats (of 80 seats) during the general elections in the country (in 2014). People have seen the performances of the other regional players in the state and are not happy. The alternative to Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samajwadi Party -- the hitherto dominant parties in UP -- is BJP WION: Doesn’t it worry you that demonetisation might impact BJP adversely? VN: That is what is being discussed by the media. But in reality, our appeal has increased at the grassroots level. This is the feedback I’m getting from Uttar Pradesh. Look at the result of Chandigarh (a Union Territory in India). We won 20 seats. A lot of people from Uttar Pradesh stay there. We did well in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan local body elections as well. We won all the elections after demonetisation. WION: The prime minister has invested his political capital in a scheme like demonetisation. Do think it was worth the risk? VN: Yes, it was worth taking. We have not come to rule the country. We want to develop it. He is known for taking risks. He has taken it up as a challenge. He went for a surgical strike against our neighbour, who were interfering in our domestic affairs. He is known for taking tough and bold decisions. He wants to improve the living conditions of the people. WION: Last year, the debate on nationalism dominated conversations in universities and many other areas of our society. How do you see it in retrospect? VN: What is wrong in discussing about nationalism? Nation means people and people means all communities. It means all sections of the country. It means Bharat Mata ki Jai (a slogan that hails India). It means 'Dalito ki jai, Christian ki jai, Jains ki jai, sabhi backward castes ki jai' (Victory to the Dalits, Christians, Jains and other backward castes). It encompasses every community. We should feel proud of it. Earlier, talks on nationalism would be looked down upon. Now, people feel proud and people talk about it. There nothing wrong in it. WION: Many scholars would say that there is a difference between ethnic and civic nationalism. VN: Those who say it are a product of 2,000 years of foreign rule and Macaulayism. This education system has gone into our heads. The influence of socialist model has also affected us. People have changed, the political mandate has changed but people in certain sections who were well entrenched, there minds have not changed. They have lost the battle but still holding key positions, like in the media. The so-called progressives and the leftists have not changed with the times either. There was a big clash in Dhulagarh, West Bengal. Hundreds of shops were looted and people were thrown out of houses but the so-called secular media is neither reporting it nor discussing it. On the other hand, Zee TV has reported it prominently but a criminal charge has been filed against them. People sitting in Lutyen’s Delhi, who are apparently progressive, aren’t talking about it. Is talking about Hindus a crime in this country? This is perverted secularism and that is why people have rejected it. Secondly, ultra-Leftist people take up issues happening at Jawaharlal Nehru University and shout slogans at Hyderabad University, but the society at large have remained peaceful. I don’t know why the essence of Hinduism is being twisted. Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. We don’t want to discriminate between people on the basis of religion and race. Ever since Modi came to power, there are less communal clashes and focus is on development and good governance. Modi's opponents lost the 2014 general elections badly and that's the reason for the opponents are attacking Modi personally and indulging in a disinformation campaign. WION: Lastly, did surgical strike change the nature of play between Pakistan and India? VN: I don’t think Pakistan would understand but a message has been sent. It (the surgical strikes) was not (done) for political reasons but to show Pakistan and the world that India is capable of retaliation. That has been done. It has raised the morale of the Indian armed forces and it has raised the morale of the Indian people living in India and also abroad. (WION)

Demonetisation is a vaccine against black money: Minister Venkaiah Naidu defends move that has discomfited people

<p>The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ruled the Indian national anthem must be played in movie theatres before movie screenings.</p>

<p>All exits will remain locked during that time so that no one can create any kind of disturbance that will amount to disrespect to the national anthem, a bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said.</p>

<p>&quot;It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the national anthem and the national flag,&quot; the bench said.</p>

<p>&quot;People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,&quot; the bench said. &quot;At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism,&quot; the bench added.</p>

<p>The order also states that everyone present in the hall must rise and &quot;pay respect&quot; to the national anthem.</p>

<p>(WION with inputs from agencies)</p>


The order also states that all exits will remain locked during that time and that everyone in the hall must rise

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ruled the Indian national anthem must be played in movie theatres before movie screenings. All exits will remain locked during that time so that no one can create any kind of disturbance that will amount to disrespect to the national anthem, a bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said. "It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the national anthem and the national flag," the bench said. "People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland," the bench said. "At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism," the bench added. The order also states that everyone present in the hall must rise and "pay respect" to the national anthem. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India: National anthem to be played before movies, rules Supreme Court

nationalism

Nationalism, News on Nationalism, stories on Nationalism, articles on Nationalism, Nationalism stories at Wion, Nationalism news, Nationalism latest news