Yeddyurappa: The game-changer or spoilsport?

[email protected] (Mathihalli Madan Mohan)
December 18, 2012
The Chances of political stalwarts ceding from parent parties, in search of their own political pastures based on their own performanance and image, have been quite bleak in Karnataka going by the track record in its 56 year old political history.

 

Many stalwarts, leaders with proven record of work in the parent party have tried and failed to chalk out an independent political life outside the fold of the parent party and have found themselves cast mercilessly out of the mainstream of political life.

 

The list is long enough, starting with starting with late K H Patil, Devaraj Urs,  Bangarappa, Ramakrishna Hegde and not but least the former Prime Minister, H D Devegowda.  Of them barring K H Patil all were former Chief Ministers and K H Patil was of the chief ministerial material though had no opportunity to shepherd the states affairs.

bsy 

Three of them belong to Congress and the other two belong to the Janata Dal, a new experiment initiated in Karnataka to  float the third political force, which has fallen asunder both at the state and the national level.

 

It is now the turn of the BJP, which has been in power for the past six years including the stint it had as partner in coalition, to produce one such person from its own stables.   The BJP’s first Chief Minister, Mr. Yeddyurappa, turned former Chief Minister, and is all poised to join the club. He has served notice of his intention to float his own party and try his electoral luck. The question is whether he will succeed in his gamble or meet the same fate as that of his esteemed predecessors.

 

It is the personal ego rather than anything else that has prompted these worthies to launch themselves on what is regarded as politically suicidal path. Before their tiff with the bosses, all of them had a proven record of service in the tasks assigned to them in their parent party.

 

Devaraj Urs for example was the man chosen by late Indira Gandhi when she caused the split in late 60s, by floating her own party the Congress (R).  Urs started out single handedly built the party brick by brick and played a crucial role in the partys resounding victory in 1971 parliament and 1972 assembly polls.  Urs had the distinction of being perhaps the only Congress Minister who implemented both in letter and spirit the 20 point programme of the party. It was during his second tenure as the Chief Minster in the post 1978 period, he developed rift with Indira Gandhi, broke away from the party to head the Congress (U), which failed to click in the next assembly election. This is despite the fact that Urs had reputation of giving a political identity to the Backward Classes.

 

K H Patil,’s rise in political ladder came out on the plank of anti Congressism  initially but he was drawn to Congress during the days of Indira Gandhis rebellion to become one of the valuable colleagues and comrade in arm of  Devaraj Urs.  As the specially chosen president of the state unit of the Congress of Indira Gandhi, he came in conflict with Urs in Karnataka  and when Urs withheld the financial help to the run the organisation, Patil proved that he  party did not depend on the charity of the then Chief Minister. He once mobilised the party MLAs in the Rajbhavan for a headcount to prove that Urs had lost the majority support within the ruling party and made him quit. Urs bounced back to power in 1978 and rival Congress unit headed by K H Patil was total washout in the polls. It could win two seats and polled 7.89% of the votes. Though Patil returned to the party after the exit of Urs, he had lost the political primacy and the Chief Ministers post eluded him till the last.

 

Bangarappa who was anointed as the Chief Minister of the state in as the ailing Chief Minister Veerendra Patil, who had successfully piloted the partys return to power in 1989, had been given marching orders by Rajiv Gandhi in less than a year in office, also did not long. Bangarappa fell out of the favour of the then Prime Minister late P V Narasimha Rao. And went out of launch his own brand of Congress called Karnataka Congress Party (KCP) as it was known.  In the very first trial of strength in 1994 election his bluff was called. He could win ten seats to poll little over 7% of the polled votes. But he had the pyrrhic satisfaction blocking chances of Congress retaining power. Seeing that there was no future for the party, the hand few KCP legislators moved over to Congress leaving Bangarappa in the lurch. Again he had lost the political sheen. Though he came back into the Congress again and later moved over to BJP, the lost political élan never returned.

 

The fall of the Ramakrishna Hegde and Devegowda, two of the original founders of the idea of the formation of the third front, runs rather identically. First it was Devegowda who rose in rebellion under the spacious plea  of inadequate resources for irrigation development, and later brought down his own party government lead by S R Bommai in 1988.  In the 1989 his outfit succeeded in winning two seats and polled a little over 11% of the votes. But his entry had a decisive impact in spoiling chances of Janata Dal retaining power and paved way for the return of Congress after a gap of five years.

 

After seeing the futility of ploughing a lonely furrow, Devegowda made it back to the parent party after showing signs of repentance to be rehabilitated as the state party president. He hit a jackpot in the 1994 elections, when he could become the Chief Minister and within two years he hit another jackpot. The Chief Minister, with a just 16 MPs in the loksabha catapulted himself as the Prime Minister due to quirk of circumstances outwitting  Ramakrishna Hegde who was eyeing on the post, since Gowda was safe in the home turf as the Chief Minister. Devegowda who is known to be vindictive in political life, did not spare the Samaritan  who had given a him a new lease of  political life and went to expel Ramakrishna Hegde,  from the party, notwithstanding the fact that Hegde was one of the pillars of the party.

 

As a result the onetime national icon, Ramakrishna Hegde, often projected by the media as the Prime Minister in waiting, found himself reduced to the state of regional leader in Karnataka. And the new outfit that he formed the Janata Dal (U) held on to the power for a while before going down in the next assembly election of 1999 to be completely wiped out in 2004.

 

Devegowda in his hurry to drum out Hegde could hardly realise that by drumming out Hegde, he was cutting at the very branch on which he was standing. His new outfit the Janata Dal S failed to catch the imagination of the voters and could hardly carry the legacy of the Janata Dal. The one time Prime Minister has found himself heading a “national party” with a sub regional presence in Karnataka.  His politics at the moment is centred around not on how his party could come to power (which is impossible at the moment) but on how to play the number game in this coalition of Karnataka politics to his advantage. He is confined to play a third fiddle in the state politics.

Now comes Yeddyurappa.  It is an undeniable fact that Yeddyurappa has played a stellar role in the growth of the party in Karnataka. As a matter of fact both of them grew together. As the party continued to acquire electoral clout moving from the leading opposition party  to partner in a coalition government and later became ruling party on his own, there was a commensurate rise in the status of Yeddyurappa, who moved  gradually to the top to become a Deputy Chief Minister and later Chief Minister in 2008. Nobody grudged the rise in the status and for the first three years of his regime as the first BJP Chief Minister he was the tallest of the political leader in Karnataka, with none having the stature and gumption to challenge him either within or outside the party. The high command trusted him implicitly. He was looking forward for an effortless completion of the present term and looked for a second term, which would have helped him to beat the record of eight years reign as the Chief Minister held by Devaraj Urs.

 

The vortex of the scams of sorts including that of illegal mining in which he and his government was drawn, triggered off his downfall.  The indictment by the Karnataka Lokayukta and denotification of land scams proved to be last nail in the coffin.

 

The high command which had given him a long rope had no other alternative in asking him to demit office till he was cleared of the charges. But he hedged for a while before giving in.  It was in this process that two of the hitherto unknown facets of his personality have come for public attention.

 

One is that from a loyal soldier of the party, Yeddyurappa has graduated to nurse a feeling that he is bigger than the party and that it is the party which should be beholdened to him than otherwise.

 

Secondly, his excessive obsession with power. It looks as if, Yeddyurppa cannot live without power for a single moment. All that tolerance which was there when he was in the opposition, appears have been overtaken by his six years experience in power. He feels that he is inevitable for Karnataka and that it is he only who is capable of leading the state on the path of progress. It is he or the deluge. This is what he would like the people to believe.

 

It is because of this that he has started throwing tantrums at all and sundry, hitting out  at the national leaders, and  deriding the party  patriarch like Advani,  berating the national leadership in general and national president Mr Nitin Gadkari in particular.  He has been quite critical of the way the party government headed by his own chosen protégés are functioning.

 

The prospects under circumstances for the Yeddyurappa’s new political outfit in the forthcoming assembly elections have to be assessed  taking into consideration some ground political reality.

 

Basically, the Karnataka voters  are  hardly prone to change their political preferences in the elections. It has been seen that despite the change in state leadership, there is hardly any change at the voters level as a class, with little variation here and there.  The political adventurism by anybody has hardly been able to influence the voters in any appreciable manner.

 

Added to this are some of the developments, which are peculiar to Yeddyurappa’s case.  One is the projection of Yeddyurappa as a Lingayat leader. Castewise constituencies developed by the leaders have never been beneficial, as has been experienced by Devaraj Urs, and Bangarappa, (OBCs) and  Devegowda (Vokkalingas). In the ultimate analysis, it has always proved to be counterproductive. Besides, Yeddyurappa inherited title after the exit of  Ramakrishna Hegde, a non lingayat  who was  immensely trusted by Lingayats of Northern Karnataka.

 

Besides Yeddyurappas own political propensities, which were manifest in the recent days have hardly enhanced his profession, namely the obsession with political power, and projection of his image as something bigger than party, besides his own act of reneging the party, which has given him the stature. It is quite unlikely that the potent weapon of appealing to the sentiments of the people, which Yeddyurappa successfully worked  during the 2008 election, projecting himself as a man wronged by the JDS, will work  this time. For the things are different this time. He has not been hounded out of the party but it is the party, which is being virtually blackmailed by him. It is because of this that the spectre of political uncertainty has been hanging on the minds of his supporter legislators as the day of the reckoning is drawing near.

*The writer is a senior journalist and columnist based in Hubli

 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
August 9,2020

Contrary to present impression that Muslims are separatists due to whom the partition of India took place, the truth is that Muslims contributed to freedom movement and upheld India’s composite culture in equal measure. The partition process, mainly due to British policy of ‘divide and rule’ well assisted by Hindu and Muslim communalists is being hidden from the popular vision in India and Muslims in general are held responsible for the same. Not only that the communal historiography introduced by British to pursue their policies has become the bedrock of communal politics and worsening of the perceptions about Muslims is in progress in India.

Yet another example of this has been a series of tweets by the bureaucrat, who is close to retirement, K. Nageshwar Rao. Contrary to the service rules he has made statements, through his tweets which are appreciative of RSS-BJP and demonise the stalwarts Muslim leaders who not only contributed to the freedom movement but also later gave valuable service in laying the foundation of Independent India. As per Rao, his tweets he accuses Maulana Azad and the other Muslim Education ministers of “deracination of Hindus”. After naming “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — 11 years (1947-58)”; “Humayun Kabir, M C Chagla & Fakruddin Ali Ahmed — 4 years (1963-67)”; and, “Nurul Hassan — 5 years (1972-77)”, he posts: “Remaining 10 years other Leftists like VKRV Rao.”

He points out that their policies were meant to “1. Deny Hindus their knowledge, 2. Vilify Hinduism as collection of superstitions, 3. Abrahamise Education, 4. Abrahamise Media & Entertainment, 5. Shame Hindus about their identity!  and 6. Bereft of the glue of Hinduism Hindu society dies.”

Then he goes on to praise RSS-BJP for bringing the glory back to Hindus. These statements of his on one hand promote the Hate and on the other tantamount to political statement, which civil servants should not by making. CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has written a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah to take suitable action against the erring bureaucrat.

Rao begins with Maulana Abul kalam Azad. Surely Azad was one of the major leaders of freedom movement, who was also the youngest President of INC, in 1923 and later between 1940 to 1945. He opposed the partition process tooth and nail till the very last. As the Congress President in 1923 he wrote a remarkable Para, symbolizing the urge for Hindu Muslim unity, “If an angel descends from heaven and offers me Swaraj in 24 hours on condition that I give up Hindu Muslim Unity, I will refuse. Swaraj we will get sooner or later; its delay will be a loss for India, but loss of Hindu Muslim unity will be a loss for human kind”. His biographer Syeda Hamid points out “He spoke without an iota of doubt about how debacle of Indian Muslims has been the result of the colossal mistakes committed by Muslim League’s misguided leadership. He exhorted Muslims to make common cause with their Hindu, Sikh, Christian fellow countrymen.” He was the one who promoted the translation of Hindu scriptures Ramayan and Mahabharat in to Persian.

Surely Mr. Rao, neither has read Azad or read about him nor knows his contributions to making of Modern India. While today, the ideological formation to which Mr. Rao seems to be pledging his commitment is critical of all that happened during Nehru era, it was during this period when as education minister Azad was shepherding the formations of IITs, Academies of Science, Lalit kala Academies. It was during this period that the efforts to promote Indian composite culture were undertaken through various steps.

The other stalwarts who are under the hammer have been outstanding scholars and giants in their own field of education. Humayun Kabir, Nurul Hasan, Dr.Zakir Husssain gave matchless ideas and practical contributions in different fields of education. One can say that contrary to the accusations, India could match up to the Computer era, software and associate things, due to creation of large manpower in these areas mainly due to these foundations which were laid down particularly in the field of education during this period.

The charge that these ‘Muslim’ education ministers white washed the bloody Islamic rule is a blind repetition of the offshoot of communal historiography introduced by British. While Kings were ruling for power and wealth, their courts had Hindus and Muslim both officers. The jaundiced vision sees this as a bloody Islamic rule but as a matter of fact the syncretic culture and traditions developed precisely this period. It was during this period that Bhakti Traidtion with Kabir, Tukaram, Namdeo, Tulsidas flourished. It was during this period that humane values of Sufi saints reached far and wide. It was during this period that poets like Rahim and Raskhan produced their classic literature n praise of Hindu Gods.

We also need to remind ourselves that large number of Muslims participated in the freedom Movement. Two scholars Shamsul Islam and Nasir Ahmad have come out with books on the myriad such freedom fighters, to recall just a few names. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Zakir Hussain, Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Kadri, Bakht Khan, Muzzafar Ahmad, Mohammad Abdir Rahman,, Abbas Ali, Asaf Ali, Yusuf Mehrali, Maulana Mazahrul Hague.

These are just a few of the names. The movement, led by Gandhi, definitely laid the foundations where composite Indian culture and respect for all religions, others’ religion was paramount and this is what created Indian fraternity, one of the values which finds its place in the preamble of Indian Constitution.

This blaming of Education ministers who were Muslims is an add-on to the process of Islamophobia in India. So for there have been many actions of Muslim kings which are selectively presented as being bloody, now the post Independent History, where glorious contributions have been made by Muslim leaders are being used to further deepen the divisive process. We need to pay respects to builders of modern India, irrespective of their religion.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
June 29,2020

In Minneapolis, US an African American, George Floyd lost his life as the white policeman, Derek Chauvin, caught hold of him and put his knee on his neck. This is a technique developed by Israel police. For nine long minutes the knee of the while policeman was on the neck of George, who kept shouting, I can’t breathe.

Following this gruesome murder America erupted with protests, ‘Black lives matter’. The protestors were not just African Americans but also a large section of whites. Within US one police Chief apologized for the act of this. In a touching gesture of apology the police force came on its knees. This had reverberations in different parts of the World.

The act was the outcome of the remnants of the racial hatred against blacks by the whites. It is the hatred and the perceptions which are the roots of such acts of violence. What was also touching that the state of democracy in US is so deep that even the police apologized, the nation, whites and blacks, stood up as a sensitive collective against this violence.

US is not the only country where the brutal acts of violence torment the marginalized sections of society. In India there is a list of dalits, minorities and adivasis who are regularly subjected to such acts. But the reaction is very different. We have witnessed the case of Tabrez Ansari, who was tied to the pole by the mob and beaten ruthlessly. When he was taken to police station, police took enough time to take him to hospital and Tabrez died.

Mohsin Sheikh, a Pune techie was murdered by Hindu Rashtra Sena mob, the day Modi came to power in 2014. Afrazul was killed by Shambhulal Regar, videotaped the act released on social media. Regar believed that Muslims are indulging in love Jihad, so deserve such a fate. Mohammad Akhlaq is one among many names who were mob lynched on the issue of beef cow. The list can fill pages after pages.

Recently a young dalit boy was shot dead for the crime of entering a temple. In Una four dalits were stripped above waste and beaten mercilessly. Commenting on this act the Union Minister Ramvilas Paswan commented that it is a minor incident. Again the list of atrocities against dalits is long enough. The question is what Paswan is saying is the typical response to such gruesome murders and tortures. In US loss of one black life, created the democratic and humane response. In India there is a general silence in response to these atrocities. Some times after a good lapse of time, the Prime Minister will utter, ‘Mother Bharati has lost a son’. Most of the time victim is blamed. Some social groups raise their voice in some fora but by and large the deafening silence from the country is the norm.

India is regarded as the largest democracy. Democracy is the rule of law, and the ground on which the injustices are opposed. In America though the present President is insensitive person, but its institutions and processes of democratic articulations are strong. The institutions have deepened their roots and though prejudices may be guiding the actions of some of the officers like the killer of George, there are also police officers who can tell their President to shut up if he has nothing meaningful to say on the issue. The prejudices against Blacks may be prevalent and deep in character, still there are large average sections of society, who on the principles of ‘Black lives matter’. There are large sections of vocal population who can protest the violation of basic norms of democracy and humanism.

In India by contrast there are multiple reasons as to why the lives of Tabrez Ansari, Mohammad Akhlaq, Una dalit victims and their likes don’t matter. Though we claim that we are a democracy, insensitivity to injustices is on the rise. The strong propaganda against the people from margins has become so vicious during last few decades that any violence against them has become sort of a new normal. The large populace, though disturbed by such brutalities, is also fed the strong dose of biases against the victims. The communal forces have a great command over effective section of media and large section of social media, which generates Hate against these disadvantaged groups, thereby the response is muted, if at all.

As such also the process of deepening of our democracy has been weak. Democracy is a dynamic process; it’s not a fixed entity. Decades ago workers and dalits could protest for their rights. Now even if peasants make strong protests, dominant media presents it as blocking of traffic! How the roots of democracy are eroded and are visible in the form where the criticism of the ruling dispensation is labelled as anti National..

Our institutions have been eroded over a period of time, and these institutions coming to the rescue of the marginalized sections have been now become unthinkable. The outreach of communal, divisive ideology, the ideology which looks down on minorities, dalits and Adivasis has risen by leaps and bounds.

The democracy in India is gradually being turned in to a hollow shell, the rule of law being converted in to rule of an ideology, which does not have faith in Indian Constitution, which looks down upon pluralism and diversity of this country, which is more concerned for the privileges of the upper caste, rich and affluent. The crux of the matter is the weak nature of democracy, which was on way to become strong, but from decades of 1980s, as emotive issues took over, the strength of democracy started dwindling, and that’s when the murders of the types of George Floyd, become passé. One does complement the deeper roots of American democracy and its ability to protect the democratic institutions, which is not the case in India, where protests of the type, which were witnessed after George Floyd’s murder may be unthinkable, at least in the present times. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
January 14,2020

In the beginning of January 2020 two very disturbing events were reported from Pakistan. One was the attack on Nankana Sahib, the holy shrine where Sant Guru Nanak was born. While one report said that the place has been desecrated, the other stated that it was a fight between two Muslim groups. Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan condemned the incident and the main accused Imran Chisti was arrested. The matter related to abduction and conversion of a Sikh girl Jagjit Kaur, daughter of Pathi (One who reads Holy Guru Granth Sahib in Gurudwara) of the Gurudwara. In another incident one Sikh youth Ravinder Singh, who was out on shopping for his marriage, was shot dead in Peshawar.

While these condemnable attacks took place on the Sikh minority in Pakistan, BJP was quick enough to jump to state that it is events like this which justify the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Incidentally CAA is the Act which is discriminatory and relates to citizenship with Religion, which is not as per the norms of Indian constitution. There are constant debates and propaganda that population of Hindus has come down drastically in Pakistan and Bangla Desh. Amit Shah, the Home minister stated that in Pakistan the population of Hindus has come down from 23% at the time of partition to 3.7% at present. And in Bangla Desh it has come down from 22% to present 8%.

While not denying the fact that the religious minorities are getting a rough deal in both these countries, the figures which are presented are totally off the mark. These figures don’t take into consideration the painful migrations, which took place at the time of partition and formation of Bangla Desh later. Pakistan census figures tell a different tale. Their first census was held in 1951. As per this census the overall percentage of Non Muslim in Pakistan (East and West together) was 14.2%, of this in West Pakistan (Now Pakistan) it was 3.44 and in Eat Pakistan it was 23.2. In the census held in Pakistan 1998 it became 3.72%. As far as Bangla Desh is concerned the share of Non Muslims has gone down from 23.2 (1951) to 9.6% in 2011.

The largest minority of Pakistan is Ahmadis, (https://minorityrights.org/country/pakistan/) who are close to 4 Million and are not recognised as Muslims in Pakistan. In Bangla Desh the major migrations of Hindus from Bangla Desh took place in the backdrop of Pakistan army’s atrocities in the then East Pakistan.

As far as UN data on refugees in India it went up by 17% between 2016-2019 and largest numbers were from Tibet and Sri Lanka.  (https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publication…)

The state of minorities is in a way the index of strength of democracy. Most South Asian Countries have not been able to sustain democratic values properly. In Pakistan, the Republic began with Jinnah’s classic speech where secularism was to be central credo of Pakistan. This 11th August speech was in a way what the state policy should be, as per which people of all faiths are free to practice their religion. Soon enough the logic of ‘Two Nation theory” and formation of Pakistan, a separate state for Muslim took over. Army stepped in and dictatorship was to reign there intermittently. Democratic elements were suppressed and the worst came when Zia Ul Haq Islamized the state in collusion with Maulanas. The army was already a strong presence in Pakistan. The popular formulation for Pakistan was that it is ruled by three A’s, Army, America and Allah (Mullah).

Bangla Desh had a different trajectory. Its very formation was a nail in the coffin of ‘two nation theory’; that religion can be the basis of a state. Bangla Desh did begin as a secular republic but communal forces and secular forces kept struggling for their dominance and in 1988 it also became Islamic republic. At another level Myanmar, in the grip of military dictatorship, with democratic elements trying to retain their presence is also seeing a hard battle. Democracy or not, the army and Sanghas (Buddhist Sang has) are strong, in Myanmar as well. The most visible result is persecution of Rohingya Muslims.

Similar phenomenon is dominating in Sri Lanka also where Budhhist Sanghas and army have strong say in the political affairs, irrespective of which Government is ruling. Muslim and Christian minorities are a big victim there, while Tamils (Hindus, Christians etc.) suffered the biggest damage as ethnic and religious minorities. India had the best prospect of democracy, pluralism and secularism flourishing here. The secular constitution, the outcome of India’s freedom struggle, the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru did ensure the rooting of democracy and secularism in a strong way.

India so far had best democratic credentials amongst all the south Asian countries. Despite that though the population of minorities rose mainly due to poverty and illiteracy, their overall marginalisation was order of the day, it went on worsening with the rise of communal forces, with communal forces resorting to identity issues, and indulging in propaganda against minorities.

While other South Asian countries should had followed India to focus more on infrastructure and political culture of liberalism, today India is following the footsteps of Pakistan. The retrograde march of India is most visible in the issues which have dominated the political space during last few years. Issues like Ram Temple, Ghar Wapasi, Love Jihad, Beef-Cow are now finding their peak in CAA.

India’s reversal towards a polity with religion’s identity dominating the political scene was nicely presented by the late Pakistani poetess Fahmida Riaz in her poem, Tum bhi Hum Jaise Nikle (You also turned out to be like us). While trying to resist communal forces has been an arduous task, it is becoming more difficult by the day. This phenomenon has been variously called, Fundamentalism, Communalism or religious nationalism among others. Surely it has nothing to do with the religion as practiced by the great Saint and Sufi traditions of India; it resorts mainly to political mobilization by using religion as a tool.

Comments

Ashi
 - 
Tuesday, 14 Jan 2020

If Malaysia implement similar NRC/CAA, India and China are the loser.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.