In the parliamentary party meeting of the BJP on Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed MPs to ensure they work towards increasing the scope of the Covid-19 vaccination drive and act as “facilitators” and “help people”.
The BJP has launched the hashtag “#SevaHiSangathan”, which has also been translated in various languages apart from Hindi and English. Through the campaign, the BJP karyakartas learn about the steps they need to take to aid people in the vaccination process.
Some of the instructions on the campaign is to go to door-to-door and sensitise citizens about the eligibility criteria of vaccination in the ongoing phase. Ministers have also been instructed to help people with registration on Co-Win and Aarogya Setu app and set up help desks at vaccination centres and in public places.
The MPS are needed to ensure clean drinking water at vaccination facilities and run awareness programmes through various social media platforms, share photographs of the vaccination of eminent personalities to encourage the general population.
All public representatives must play an active role in this massive vaccination drive and organise video conferences at various levels to kick start the program within a week’s time.
Senior party leaders, including Rajya Sabha MP Dr Anil Jain, have also taken meetings with various state leaders to tell them how to go about this renewed vaccination drive.
A few MPs like Bangalore South representative Tejasvi Surya and Kutch MP Vinod Chavda have started taking such initiatives and have shared the pictures on Twitter.
On Tuesday Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that “encouraging people to vaccinate themselves as India fights covid should be considered as one of the greatest services to humanity and not a mere job.”
In the second phase, India is looking to innoculate close to 27 crore people, including senior citizens above 60 of age and people 45 years and above with certain comorbidities.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Sunday described Prime Minister Narendra Modi a ‘formidable enemy’ who ‘crushed’ his opponents and vowed to send him to political oblivion by following the path of love and non-violence. Accusing Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami of ‘bowing’ and ‘surrendering’ to the Prime Minister, Gandhi, addressing public meetings and road shows said the CM does not work for Modi but the people of the state.
“I don’t care if the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has a history of corruption. I want to know why he does not stand up to Narendra Modi,” he said. Rahul Gandhi is touring southern Tamil Nadu for the second day today as part of his second leg of campaign for the April 6 Assembly polls. Congress is an ally of the main opposition DMK in Tamil Nadu and BJP is a partner of the ruling AIADMK.
During an interaction with professors at the St Xavier College here, Gandhi said he counted on people’s support to defeat the BJP. When a participant wanted to know if Gandhi felt it was possible to nudge the Modi government to implement his ‘good ideas’ rather than waiting to assume power which seemed ‘Utopian’, he said it could be done with the ‘powerful’ and ‘valuable’ support of the people.
It was important to dream big, though some of it may not come true, he said in an obvious reference to snatching the reins of power from the BJP at the Centre. Continuing, he said, “yes we are fighting a formidable enemy (Modi). We are fighting an enemy that is dominating the money in this country. We are fighting an enemy that is crushing its opponents. But we have done this before. We have defeated a much bigger enemy (British) than this new enemy that has come.” Recalling the country’s independence movement, he said the Britishers were much more powerful than Modi would ever be.
“Who is Narendra Modi in comparison to the British empire? Nobody.. People of this country sent the British empire back and in the same way we will send Narendra Modi back to Nagpur (RSS headquarters in Maharashtra),” he said. Apparently, he meant that Modi would go into political oblivion after defeat by the Congress with people’s support.
Gandhi said this would be achieved without any hatred, anger or violence towards PM Modi or his party even if they may ‘abuse’ or unleash ‘violence’ against them. Former Chief Minister and Congress stalwart K Kamaraj implemented the mid-day meal scheme for school children after listening to the voice of the people and later that plan was replicated by the rest of the nation, the Lok Sabha MP said.
Though economists initially dubbed it a bad idea, later they changed their stand and welcomed it as a good initiative. “That is the type of leadership we want (in Tamil Nadu).
A leader who listens to and believes in the wisdom of the people.” A most important trait for such a leader should be a commitment to defend Tamil language, culture and tradition, the Congress leader said. “We do not want somebody who sells out the people of TN.
That is the main issue in the election.” If Palaniswami wanted people’s votes, he should stop bowing and surrendering in front of Modi and rather surrender himself to the people and he should only then solicit the support of the general public, he said. The Congress leader said he looked forward to a state government that worked for the poorest people and realised Tamil Nadu’s full potential and yet again be a model for the rest of the nation.
Alleging Modi remote-controlled Palaniswami, the Congress MP said the Prime Minister does not understand that he cannot control Tamil Nadu through the Chief Minister. Only the people determined their future, he said. “When PM says that one history, one culture, and one language should dominate this country, he insults every single Tamil person.” India is home to several religions, languages and cultures and Modi should respect diverse cultures and faiths.
Palaniswami should not accept Modi’s views on Tamil Nadu,’ he said apparently reiterating his accusation that the Prime Minister slighted Tamil and its culture. Interacting with salt pan workers, he alleged that disparity in wealth distribution has become much stronger during the BJP rule at the Centre.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday exhorted toy manufacturers to use less plastic and more eco-friendly and recyclable material in a bid to increase the share of the domestic industry in the global market. Inaugurating the first India Toy Fair, the Prime Minister said, “We have to become Aatmanirbhar in the toy sector and also cater to the global market”.
Observing that India’s share in the USD 100 billion global toy market is very small, and 85 per cent of the toys in the country are sourced from abroad, Modi said there is a need to change this situation. “In the field of toys, India has tradition and technology, India has concepts and competence. We can take the world back towards eco-friendly toys. Through our software engineers, computer games can bring the stories of India to the world,” he said.
While referring to the traditional toy industry, the Prime Minister underlined the need for promoting Handmade in India. If there is a demand for Made in India today, then the demand for Handmade in India is also increasing equally, he said, adding “today people do not only buy toys as a product, but also want to connect with the experience associated with that toy. So, we have to promote Handmade in India as well”.
The Prime Minister appealed to the manufacturers to make toys that are better for both ecology and psychology, using less plastic and more of such things that can be recycled. Referring to the initiatives of the government, Modi said the country has now graded the toy industry in 24 major sectors.
The National Toy Action Plan has also been prepared, he said, adding, “it has included 15 ministries and departments to make these industries competitive, the country to become self-reliant in toys, and India’s toys also go into the world. Throughout this campaign, state governments have been made an equal partner in developing the toy clusters”. He said along with this, efforts are made to strengthen the possibilities of toy tourism. Toyathon-2021 was also organised to promote Indian sports-based toys and more than 7,000 ideas were brainstormed.
The Prime Minister also used the occasion to interact with traditional toymakers from Chennapatnam, Varanasi and Jaipur and impress upon them the need to innovate and make toys more relevant keeping in view the changing taste of children. More than 1,000 exhibitors participated in the Toy Fair 2021, which will continue till March 2.
The first toy fair is not just a business or economic event, he said, adding that it seeks to strengthen the country’s age-old culture of sports and cheer. This toy fair is one such platform where one can discuss toy design, innovation, technology, marketing and packaging and also share their experiences, he said, adding the world has done research on toys from the era of Indus Valley civilisation, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa.
A new book, titled Vajpayee: The Years that Changed India is all set to hit the stands on 25th December to mark the birth anniversary of veteran BJP leader, and former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The book charts the course of Vajpayee’s prime ministership and tries to give the readers a glimpse into Vajpayee’s thought process and political philosophy.
Written by Shakti Sinha, who had worked very closely with Vajpayee during his tenure as the prime minister, and is currently the honorary director of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Policy Research and International Studies, at MS University, in Vadodara, this book outlines in details many highlights of Vajpayee’s career, including the series of nuclear tests that the prime minister conducted in Pokhran. In the book, the author writes that although initially the decision to go nuclear caused domestic euphoria, and silenced the opposition, as more tests were conducted Vajpayee faced international criticism, with the then US President, Bill Clinton, calling it a ‘terrible mistake.’ The book states:
“After the initial domestic euphoria, which forced the Opposition to keep mum, domestic criticism (of the Pokhran Nuclear Test) gained force. The left parties criticized the Vajpayee government for deciding to change national policies unilaterally. They felt that the other political parties should have been consulted. The Congress was confused as to how they ought to react. Should the tests be celebrated as a programme begun by Indira Gandhi, which received a major fillip during Rajiv Gandhi’s regime? Or would such a stand make Vajpayee look good, hinting at the Congress’s implicit acceptance that this was the right thing to do? Their initial reaction was, ‘Why now?’ Essentially, the Opposition did not know how to react, as was soon illustrated by I.K. Gujral. His remedy was that India should sign the CTBT, like France and China did after conducting tests.
This ignored the fact that both these countries were recognized nuclear weapons states under the NPT, and the CTBT allowed them to test if they felt that their national security was imperilled, a luxury denied to India. Another Opposition leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav, had a simpler criticism—that the tests should have been kept a secret.
Even as reactions to the initial tests, conducted on 13 May, were coming in, two days later, India conducted two more tests. These ‘were required to demonstrate our capacity to miniaturise, at sub-kilo yields, and with that India concluded its planned series of tests’, as the media was informed by the government. The next step taken was possibly the best thing to have been done as a follow-up to the tests, though it received a lot of flak at that time.
This was to write to world leaders explaining the circumstances which had made testing a compulsion for India. Unlike normal diplomatic correspondence, which is all sweet and cloying, this one was direct but polite. A great deal of effort went into the writing of these letters.
No sooner had Vajpayee’s letter reached the White House than it appeared in the New York Times. This caused considerable embarrassment for us, since we had pointed to the ‘China factor’ as the primary reason for our decision to test. It was said that the compulsion to go nuclear was driven by, to quote from the letter, ‘. . . overt nuclear tests on our borders, [conducted by] a state which committed armed aggression against India in 1962, [and] although relations had improved in the last decade or so, an atmosphere of distrust prevails mainly due to unresolved border problem. That country has materially helped another neighbour of ours to become a covert nuclear weapons state, [due to which, we] have suffered aggression from that neighbour, [making us] victim of relentless terrorism and militancy.’
Factually, the statement was correct, but all hell broke loose. The Chinese were livid and made their outrage known. Domestically, too, a lot of people criticized the government for having spoilt relations with China; Chinese perfidy in supplying nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan which undermined India’s security was conveniently ignored.
The international reaction to Vajpayee’s letter was subdued, almost bordering on disbelief. The American analysts only picked up the 1962 part, ignoring the rather nuanced reference to India–China relations in the letter. I remember reading an American comment that India could not expect to be taken seriously if it used the 1962 war as justification for the tests. Clearly, the commentator either did not read the statement, or if he did, its meaning escaped him.”
The author Shakti Sinha pointed out that the criticism against conducting the tests grew louder as the series of nuclear tests continued and it wasn’t just America, but United Nations, as well as Nelson Mandela, who condemned them. During such circumstances, Vajpayee got an unexpected supporter in Dalai Lama, who was primarily against nuclear armament of any kind but, more importantly, did not like the ‘undemocratic’ way in which countries were accessing the dangerous weapon, with some having more right and access to it, than other. In the book, Sinha writes,
“The international reaction after the second series of tests and the letters was several degrees ‘hotter’ than what had followed the initial tests of 11 May. And yet, there were some realistic voices who singly agreed with India’s need to move ahead but in groupspeak went along with condemnatory statements. Clinton said that India had made a terrible mistake. He even moved on removing the hurdle of the Pressler Amendment so that arms sanctions on Pakistan could be lifted. Nelson Mandela condemned the tests. The United Nations Security Council expressed its dismay. On the other hand, France said that sanctions made no sense.
They were joined by the UK and Russia, who also said that they would not impose sanctions. Within the US itself, different voices now started speaking up. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Clinton was being one-sided, blind to China’s doings, and was in fact selling nuclear technology to them, which was adding to India’s security concerns and making the latter more worried about China than about Pakistan. Congressman Frank Pallone, co-founder of the India Caucus (a group within Congress, sympathetic towards India), opposed the tests but asked Clinton to consider the situation India was in and put it in perspective.
India had a long and contested border with China and faced a large PLA presence on its border. The Chinese presence in Burma was of concern to India as well, and there was Chinese support for hostile groups operating against the Indian state. Pallone’s recommendation was that the US should take the threat India faces from China more seriously and consequently work in closer coordination with India. A few years later, as India’s position as a rising but responsible power was being recognized, Henry Kissinger backed the tests. Despite his long ties with the Chinese regime and old history of rubbing India the wrong way, he conceded that India had a case for a deterrent against China. Like many others, he felt that the American sanctions were probably a mistake.
The Dalai Lama sent a personal letter to Vajpayee, in effect supporting the decision to test by alluding to the point that the possession of nuclear weapons would deter any offensive actions and would therefore ensure peace. Vajpayee was very touched when he read the letter. Later, the Dalai Lama went on record saying that India should not be pressured into giving up nuclear weapons; it should have the same rights as developed countries. His basic point was that he thought ‘nuclear weapons are too dangerous. Therefore we should make every effort for the elimination of nuclear weapons.’ However, he disagreed with the assumption that it was all right for a few nations to possess nuclear weapons when the rest of the world did not; it was undemocratic.”
The following excerpts have been published with permission from Penguin Publishers.
