Vivaad

Settings unlimited

2011-04-16T22:13:00.000-07:00

In the much better days of Indira Gandhi, when as it happens in a perfect democracy, there was almost no opposition, Congress was busy 'Setting' whatever little opposition it had. So Set the opposition by sending them to jail or Set Punjab through Bhindranwale, Set the industry through excessive controls, Set the media by accepting them on their payrolls (so that when time comes they may crawl when asked to bend) etc etc etc.

What is most intriguing is how, almost 30 years later, Congress is still the same. They are trying to 'Set' the Anna Hazare movement. Anna is probably aware what he is up against. It is not so much corruption as the arrogance of some that they have 'Set' bigger things in past.

Kudos to Anna Hazare for performing the dare devilery of appreciating Modi and Nitish!

Dossier Diplomacy

2010-06-20T04:43:00.000-07:00

Ever since I was told that India has given eleventh dossier to Pakistan, I am wondering what would they have in eleventh which was different then say tenth or even say the preceding ones. Someone is specialising in making better word document. By improving the quality of word document each time, they want to impress upon the Pakistan of their MS Word skills.

It is not a trivial art. Remember Sharm-al-Sheikh. People said it was drafting error. So Indian Govt has now seriously taken up the exercise of plugging this loop hole. I would even recommend Dossier Academies. The best of minds should be employed in making even better word documents.

For countries which limit their options to either Dossier or War, Dossier is the only option. They may have missiles, army, America, China, intent, ideology, Will etc but we have Dossiers.

Bomb them with dossiers and bore them to defeat!

RGRP

2010-06-15T12:30:00.000-07:00

Arjun Singh ensured Anderson's escape from India. If I had not read a little bit of newspaper I would have thought that Arjun Singh was the Prime Minister of India in 1984. Also I am asking my friends how does United States apply pressure directly to a Chief Minister. I have not got any answer except that it can happen when Congress is ruling at center as well as in state. If then, some Gandhi is the PM (or Super PM) then US can apply direct pressure to state governments.

But I would have loved if they had applied their best last resort - It was a state issue!

In that case - I told my friend - only case when a Gandhi would be responsible is when a Gandhi is Prime Minister and another Gandhi a CM.

No then also they'll be safe - he retorted - as then it will be a zila problem... a Kasba problem and so on.

But advantage is not all lost for Family. Lets not doubt the fathomless kindness of Lady bounty. Once thing settle down a little more, some compensation will be given to all victims under RGRP - Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Program.

Finally, if the victims get something we shouldn't complain. Better late than never...

The hidden logic

2010-03-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

Let me summarize Congress argument on Amitabh. They assume they have logic so we can take the liberty of using Syllogism.

Amitabh is brand ambassador of Gujarat

Modi is CM of Gujarat (and a good one too!)

Therefore Amitabh is Brand Ambassador of Modi.

Extending the Syllogism -

Amitabh promotes tourism for Gujarat.

Amitabh is a brand ambassador of Modi (concluded above)

Therefore Amitabh promotes tourism for Modi.

So more and more people would flock to Gujarat to see Modi. Now it has started making sense.

I would myself like to spend one of my holidays in Modi-tourism!

India's Obama

2009-11-04T08:15:00.000-08:00

I too agree that a person who defends A Raja in public, orders closure of 'Q' cases, says nothing against the fatwa banning Vande mataram, presides over dynasties taking more than lions share of his cabinet, concedes unconditional talks to Pak in Egypt etc is surely a suave politician

And the learned man's economics is best known to people who are still waiting for those elusive reforms which have only been talked about and to people who go out to buy potatoes and onions

Manmohan singh is surely India's Obama... if only Times Of India, Hindustan Times and Indian Express had nobel with them.

Disjoint Statement

2009-07-26T05:33:00.000-07:00

The joint statement issued in Egypt has only one meaning - India went there as a victim of terror but came back with Balochistan-terror guilt.

That joint statement was drafted poorly has been accepted even by Menon. But delinking terror & talks and Balochistan are too many bungles in one joint statement. But I must say - "delinking of talks with terror activities on either side" is not new... Manmohan singh had committed a similar blunder in Havana (2005 if I recall correctly). It was later being famously referred to as 'Gujranwala School of Foreign Policy'. A line of thinking that deludes people into believing that the problems could be solved by them because they are more honest, visionary and belong to that part of the world and hence know them quite well. In India Self-delusion is an epidemic.

Apologist of this government still might say... but what's in a statement...
But Statements are important... in this context all the more... It was only one statement made by Nehru... that is bleeding India to this date... It is one statement on plebiscite... which any pakistani or Kashmiri-separatist fall back to every time they are pushed to the wall…

"What are India's Options?" Apologist say.. "Isn't talking with Pakistan the only option left with us?" First of all when you accept that there are no options you have already lost the plot. You don't even need to wait for a battle to lose... In that case you can only hope for mercy. Since you have no options, pray to God that they don't exercise their options anytime in future.

If you don't have options, then create one. How has a small country created so many options but India which seeks being bracketed with the most powerful on planet has no options as the only option. There are no shortcuts to peace. It has to be built on mutual trust and respect. If Pakistan is so bent on making peace with India, let them give up on all ISI modules active in India. Let them make that one step, least of all, handover Dawood to India. Small steps can make big gestures. You won't even need to talk about any big re-write then (refer Shekhar Gupta's article in IE, June 25th).

Sometimes an alternate strategy - of not capitulating to self-delusionary pressure within 6 months , of putting up an image of grief, loss and anger, of talking tough and minimum, and not subsequently saying that it was mistakenly done in full media glare, of doing and occasional namaste or shastriyakal instead of frequent aadaabs, of telling the terrorists that we are going to come hard on you and not put their execution in a queue (on Number-22), of canceling some innocuous activities like export import of cricket, ghazals and goods, building strategic interests encircling the enemy, of talking less about irrelevant borders (well the terrorists did make the borders irrelevant though...) might force enemy into believing that we also have options!

Sons of Fortune

2009-06-06T03:36:00.000-07:00

So the elections are over and we have been assured by media of a Prime Minister this time around. Also the hooplah around young turks is interesting. Manmohan Singh (77), Pranab Mukherjee (74), A K Antony (69), S M Krishna (77) and Kapil Sibal (61) and P Chidambram (64) have really made the young India roaring with glory on their representation.

Then it was said that Prime Minister will discontinue his glorious tradition of keeping people with 'tainted' backgrounds in his cabinet. So we would be deprived of the likes of Shibu Soren, Lalu Yadav, J P Yadav and others who kept him in power for 5 years. Indeed he wouldn't include A Raja, we were fed, inspite of him being a young turk (46) because PM disliked tainted people and he does not compromise with integrity of ministers and finally he is firm and his writ will run this time etc etc. When finally he was inducted we were told that the PM is furious. That should satisfy all.

By this time Rajiv Gandhi's son had ensured that - Madhav Rao Scindhia's son, Jitendra Prasad's son, Rajesh Pilot's son (also Abdullah's son in law), C P N Singh's son, Subhash Yadav's son, Sangma's daughter, Sheikh Abdullah's son, Karunanishi's son, Karunanidhi's grand nephew, Madhav Singh Solanki's son, Dr Zakir Hussain's (former president of India) grandson, Captain Amrinder kaur's (forrmer CM, punjab) wife, Jagjivan Ram's daughter so on and so forth - deepen democracy with young turk representation even as he himself sacrifices an MoS.

One more country where democracy is deepening in such a manner is Pakistan. Bhutto's (original bhutto's daughter) husband, kasuri's son, geelani's son and many more vouch for more democracy as they need to overthrow military every time to become democratic. Such passion is still to be tested in India but the preparations are in place.

To deepen the secularism of India D Zakir Hussain's grandson has been handed over the ministry of minorities something... in appreciation of the defense he had put up for SIMI when it was banned by communal parties in 2002.

Nevertheless, since identity politics is receding, the most vociferous member of Parliament has been unanimously chosen as Speaker. The fact that Babu Jagjivan Ram's daughter is a dalit and women is an absolute coincidence and cannot be treated as a disqualification.

Heard something on change?... we shall get one... after committed Judiciary and committed media and press of the 70s, dawns the era of committed PMs, Presidents, Governers, election commissions, CBIs...

An Open Letter to Abdul Rehman Antulay

2008-12-20T03:59:00.000-08:00

Sir,

This is to appreciate that you are the symbol of all that is wrong with Indian Politics. If India continues to suffer it is because of you and other likeminded people in so called secular parties who don't give us enough breaks. Indeed you are the monument of the perverse forms of Secularism in India. But I concede, you are a monument nevertheless.

Sir, I do know a little bit about you, unlike many people in India. I am just unable to forget about Indira Gandhi Pristhan trust. I would again like to stress that unlike many of your colleagues inside Parliament; you were not accused of corruption, but convicted by Mumbai High Court. Then you were the State CM... Now you are a senior Union Minister. It must have been an exceptional case of corruption so as to get rewarded with a central role.

With this piece of exceptional creativity that you have shown, I am sure you'll be rewarded with something better than minority appeasement ministry next time. I would suggest that you should settle for nothing less than a PM or Home Minister. After all - That Hemant Karkare could be fixed by Hindu Zionists can only be attributed to Pakistan or you is by itself a great leap forward for the government trying to show that it is tough on terror.

Sir, you cannot be let off unless you are reminded that you have done the greatest service to the nation through Sachar Committee ramblings. But for every underprivileged muslim, there are three underprivileged hindus in this country. This however, does not serve to your victimhood interests. But sir, more than ninety percent of income tax raids have been made on Hindus. Please see to it next time that it is done in proportion to the population of India. It is unfair and I am already sensing some Khilafati conspiracy.

Sir, I don't mind a beleaguered Congress again, but you should be most respectfully given a boot for being so kind to the national interests. We can do better with people who are atleast not batting for Pakistan. One of the appeasement tactics resulted in showing Pakistan that Samjhauta Blasts were also coordinated by Hindu Zionists, albeit for only one day. Because the next day it was clarified by Zionists in your own government that it was a ISI handiwork. Nevertheless, Pakistan will always be obliged to you for this one-day self goal.

Sir, Please don't impose your greatness on this nation. We are too small for you. You should look for bigger things in life and leave politics to lesser mortals.

Regards
Gkambasta

Terror Should be Politicized

2008-12-13T14:03:00.000-08:00

Because that seems to be the only way they can be forced to work. It is only the fear of 'loss-of-power' that propels political parties. It was not out of proverbial 'taking-responsibility' that some of our esteemed politicians had to resign. UPA (actually Congress) feared a backlash - It forced them to act. This time the action was finding scapegoats and making long speeches- the text of which was more than ninety-percent borrowed from what the communal elements of Indian Politics, the principal opposition had been telling them till the other day. In any case, better late then never. In fact it took so long for the government to even think of acting is because terror was not properly politicized. Otherwise we might have seen some action earlier.

Media was very clever in deflecting the angst against the Government as anger over the whole political class. So, inspite of repealing POTA, inspite of not hanging Afzal, inspite of doing absolutely nothing to make the intelligence and Policing systems more robust and effective - we are being fed that this is not the failure of Government - but that of the whole political class, including those who have no executive powers. Its all eyewash. For me the decision making body is the Govt. The onus of all successes and failures ultimately lies with the government. There is no point in blaming opposition party for the failures of the government. And this is precisely the reason that the (so-called) secular class prefers Terrorism(particularly the islamic variant) to be de-politicized. Till the other day they were shouting that the "Inflation" should not be politicized. According to them all issues except the farce of "saffron terror" should be kept out of politics in the national interest. They spoke against the atrocities of Tamils in Sri lanka because they feared that DMK may walk out, they agreed on the Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti demands because they feared electoral losses in Jammu, they went back on the "There-is-no-Ram" affidavit because they feared a Hindu Backlash... Everywhere it is politics that restores the equilibrium. It is like the invisible hand of Adam Smith.

And then there is call for unity. Unity in what? Inaction?? For the last four and half years the only action that has been done to counter the terrorists is - to wish them away. Or call to address the invisible "root causes". Unless this inaction results in a political loss this (or for that matter no) government is going to act. But even before the Govt could promise to do anything, leave along doing anything - the thugs in the liberal media are out to project Sheela Dixit's win in Delhi as a vote for inaction of UPA on the terror front. They said that people rejected terror as Poll issue. It also means that the whole country can now safely go back to the pre-26/11 days.

Moral of the story - If you want any concrete action on terror, the best way you can ensure that is by voting anyone who is soft on terror out of power. Which establishes my premise – Terror should be Politicized.

Start again

2008-11-04T20:54:00.000-08:00

Reforms: Insurance Bill

The BJP is opposing increasing of FDI in Insurance sector. Their argument is that this government has lost legitimacy (after cash for votes scam) and that this government has virtually slept through 4 and half years without any reforms. So it cannot help this government pass this bill and claim a reformist tag.

Again reforms are a casualty to politics.

Marathi-North Indian debate

India is slowly becoming a nation of permanently aggrieved. Whether Bihari or Maharashtrian, upper caste or lower caste, Hindus or Muslims, all feel they are being victimized. The sanity lies in finding a center which is absent today. Hopefully we will have a government and a Prime Minister in next elections.

Nuclear Deal

What is bound to happen naturally will happen. If there is anything as clash of civilizations, then India and US are on the same side. There is some amount of subjectivity in the interpretation of the deal. India needs to walk carefully and diplomatically now. It has a best friend and a dangerous ally with it.

Terrorism

Either we fight all forms of fanaticism or get perished. There is no middle-ground. It is not easy for a country to fight insurgents, separatists, extremists, terrorists without a Prime Minister and a Home Minister. Let’s hope to elect one in the next General Elections.

Economic Recession

Manmohan Singh said that we need to focus on infrastructure to get out of recession. The statement was valid for last 60 years and will be valid for next thousand years. My problem is that he is not a consultant to PM but a PM himself. What has he done for infrastructure growth in the last four and half years? Even the Highway Programs started by Vajpayee is moving at less than snails speed.

With this let us start Vivaad all over again

Some Eminent Journalists II - Modi & Media

2008-01-04T08:48:00.000-08:00

The principle opposition in Gujarat - the Media - has lost it hands down. The people of the state have denied the entry to secular evangelists who believe that only terrorists have human rights and that their name should be spoken in a manner they think is good for the people of India.

Such intolerance towards the other ideology and such self-righteousness is fetching diminishing returns. Even the congress which used the media to further its own interest realize now that people are going more by what they see around them then by secular Gospels.

I have never seen media getting such obsessed with one personality in my life. They say they were obsessed with Gandhi too. That is however a different issue. But the manner in which they tried to manufacture a Hitler out of Modi has exposed their intellectual hollowness and fanaticism. If you just go through the Modi Special issue of Outlook where everything from his Yoga to workaholicism has been used to create an image that reminds of a German bigot.

However, others are not behind -

"....Even Hitler came through democratic election..." - How does that make any person who wins elections, Hitler?

"...He is dangerous because he is not corrupt..." - This Gem is from Ashish Nandy, the famous sociologist.

"...Will BJP want a person who does not get a Visa to go to USA, to become a PM candidate..." - (Barkha Dutt)
Shall we then have an election in US first, as to who they approve should become our PM candidate?

"...Here is the new religiosity of Moditva.Hinduism is democratized not elite, congregational not individualistic, loud not quite. Dandiya on the street sends out a strong message that there are no weak Hindus..." (Sagarika Ghosh, CNN-IBN)

It is very interesting how she is trying hard to push her point down our throat. Dandiya on the streets was existent before Modi and it'll be there after him too. But Sagarika Ghosh believes that unless you don't cow down, that unless you don't confine your religiosity to the closed doors of your house, you are not a true Hindu... In fact you are a militant playing into the hands of Modi.

Inspired by their ideological convictions they started inventing 'spins' to the whole campaign. It progressed in stages -

1st stage - All are angry with Modi in Gujarat. The Patels, the Kolis, the dalits, the Muslims, the farmers, the adivasis, the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, and BJP itself. Are bhai, if all are angry then he would lose in any case. Then why are you bothered so much. But in heart they knew - that 2 patels is not the patel samaj, that 1 RSS, 2 VHP, 5 BJP members and a few Bajrangis were individuals and not the organization. That the whole sangh cadre was with modi is was a tactical ommission.

2nd Stage - Modi is not drawing crowd. Sonia is.

3rd Stage - Sonia has shown 'spine' in calling spade a spade. It was only when the maut ke saudagars were reversed that media conceded that a fatal mistake has been done.

4th stage - When all such spins failed. Then exit polls were out showing marginal victory or even a possible defeat of BJP.

5th stage - This was the epitome of wishful thinking. When everything else failed then they called for the mother of all spins - That even if he wins, BJP loses. And that Advani would be challenged. And because of which there is going to be chaos .

The spins have not stopped yet. The winner is Ashok Mitra. He analysed that Modi won because people of Gujarat were angry from Congress as Sardar patel did not become the first PM of India.(Todays Telegraph)

The "counter" has been presented best by Lord Meghnad Desai in todays Times of India -

"... On TV, people asserted that a man who had just won a second election in a row with a two-thirds seat count was a dictator. He had to be just because he was not one of them.

I know the feeling well. I had similar feelings - as a member of the British Labour Party - as my party lost election after election to Margaret Thatcher. All the 'right-minded' people like myself and my friends thought she was authoritarian, strident and more or less fascist.

Yet the Great British Public went on voting for her and we kept losing. It was only after three defeats that we began to ask whether we had not got something wrong and whether the public was trying to tell us something.

After a fourth defeat even without Margaret Thatcher, the Labour Party decided to change. It adapted to the positive kernel in the Tory package. Thatcher, far from being reviled as an authoritarian monster, is now recognised as one of the greatest British prime ministers of the post-war period. ..."

Of course Modi is still not a Thatcher or a Ronald Reagan. But as Reagonomics, as Thatcherism, we have a Moditva. Because Moditva much like them believes in entrepreneurship, creation of wealth,empowerment to the poor, less subsidies, and even less Government interference. To top it all he has no ideological confusions on national identity and security and is firmly rooted in the traditions of Bharat. That makes him an absolute opposite of all that the Communists and the leftist stand for. This is what makes him different, a Rightist and hence an object of hatred for people who have not grown out of their Nehruvian predilections. In a TV debate Swami Aiyer said that he had not seen a politician who stopped Power theft and still managed to win election.

I think, people make a mistake in judging Modi. He is not an ordinary, another run-of-mill politician. And that is why he is not governed by wishful contours of the left-liberal. Swapan Dasgupta has most aptly called him the 'Voice of Future' and he was even more correct when he said that - 'After Mahatma one more Gujarati is going to set the national agenda'.

Some Eminent Journalists - I

2007-11-25T11:42:00.000-08:00

There is a sense of nonsense prevailing in the media both print and electronic for quite sometime now. Being mostly left-liberals, self-righteousness comes effortlessly to this lot. Whatever be the popular discourse of the day, there are a handful of people who know they are in possession of the truth and see the world through the prism of their rights and wrongs. Thus a religious Hindu is obscurantist (follow "Outlook" magazine on why Amitabh and Sachin should not visit temple too often) and a pious Muslim is practicing a religion of peace.

Kuldip Nayar holds an important place in Journalism in India. He is one of the relics of Nehruvian Era. He has seen the good times when his version of secularism was unchallenged. Even today he could be seen with candles on wagah border trying to show some light to Indian Government which indulges time and again in needless confrontation with its best friend - Pakistan.

Some of his writings -

"...In reality, that something is the sense of unfairness, the feeling that the government does not attend to grievances. The oft-repeated charge that Muslims get the wrong end of the stick is not without foundation. They are the most secular community in the country...."

And who is the least secular is quite obvious.

He continues - "..So much so, they have never voted since partition for a party claiming to represent Muslims or appealing in the name of Islam..."

But sir, Muslim league went to Pakistan after independence.

"... What happened in Ajmer or Ludhiana may have been a violent protest against pending cases of injustice. The persons involved may well be outsiders. But the point I want to underline is that the Hindu community, 80 per cent in the country, has to wake up to the excesses committed against the minorities including Christians... "

Let me add to it. Hindus are responsible for Islamic terrorism in not only India but outside too.

His Gems on BJP
---------------

"...we had always considered caste and communalism as enemies from the days of the freedom struggle. We looked forward to a society without caste and communalism. But what could one do when the pro-Hindutva forces pressed ahead with their one-point programme of saffronising India from Independence Day itself?,..."

He again says -

" Both casteism and communalism are bad for the country’s health. Both are divisive in their approach and both tend to drag India down. But what does one do when one political party is determined to break the country in the name of religion? "

So what can one do- if some people want to divide the country in the name of religion - it is better to divide them in the name of castes. What can one do??

"..It is true that caste and communal forces arrayed against one another have criminalised and corrupted society. But the tyranny of Hindutva’s standard-bearers has forced the backward classes and minorities to seek security even in tainted quarters..."

So if there are criminals in Lalu's RJD then the people responsible are in BJP!!

But sympathies are stored for Communists
-----------------------------------------

"..I should have written about the Nandigram tragedy earlier. I did not do so intentionally, because I felt that a leftist government could not do all that the media was highlighting. I believed that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was the only political party which followed certain norms — norms that the rest had forsaken long ago."

Amen.
Since when have communists followed norms?? And what norms?? What are norms?? We know so much about the communists now that this sermon is of no use to us.

The best part is that these are just two articles.

(Source - Asian Age)

UPA Achievements

2007-09-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

There is so much of rumor floating around about mid term elections that such a list was needed to highlight the achievements of the Government.

Communist Support - Congress is slowly becoming indistinguishable from them.
Tainted ministers

A Rajya Sabha PM -
His Rajya Sabha tenure came to an end earlier this year. But still our PM chose to make a back door entry in Parliament. The Prime Minister for the first time is someone who has never been elected directly by people to get inside the House.

Mithrokin Archives
Volcker Scam
Shankaracharya mistreatment
Pratibha Patil
Stalled reforms
Periods of high inflation
No disinvestments
Farmer's suicides

Wheat Scam -

Pawar still has not explained why the tender finalised at $265 a tonne was cancelled and subsequently renewed at a whopping $390 per tonne. The government has paid Rs 800 crores more to foreign traders for the 13 lakh tonnes of imported wheat, compared to what Indian farmers earned by selling the same quantity to the public procurement agency. More food grain is to be imported, without the government offering Indian farmers even half the price the foreign farmer would get.(Asian Age)

Havana meet - ISI role neglected
POTA repealed

Islamic Terrorism
From Shekhar Gupta in Indian express -
IT is a cruel question to ask a government which has a record of complete, total, ‘spotless’ failure in cracking any of the major terrorist attacks that have taken place on its watch in three full years. Not in one single case — most significant of which, of course, is the Mumbai train bombings — has this government been able to catch any suspects and charge them. Even by the usually dismal standards of Indian policing, this record is remarkable. Terror attacks in Malegaon, Jama Masjid in Delhi, Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, Ayodhya, Samjhauta Express, Sankat Mochan Mandir in Varanasi, the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Sarojini Nagar in New Delhi have all gone fully unresolved. And these were no minor attacks, these have claimed nearly 300 lives in what is generally considered a phase of India-Pakistan thaw.

On Security Morale -
Ask the police forces in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Hyderabad, the counter-terror veterans in the intelligence agencies and even the army, and the answer will stare you in the face. After the attacks they faced in the first flush of the Mumbai rail attacks for ‘targeting’ Muslims and the hurry in which they were forced to call off the searches and interrogations have put the fear of God in the minds of securitymen. Politics is much too complicated for them to figure, and fighting this kind of terror is an unconventional and risky business at the best of times. They have simply concluded that this is not the time to take those risks.

Naxalites consolidate power
IMDT
vande Mataram
Madani Welcome

Godhra carnage misrepresentation - Supreme court declared the doctoring 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional'. Nothing could describe it better than Chandan Mitra's description of the whole episode in the pioneer -
Developments over the past fortnight suggest that the UPA is getting ready to resume the politics of polarisation in a big way. The grossest indication of this is the ordering of a fresh probe into the Godhra carnage in which a gang of Ghachi Muslims are believed to have thrown inflammable objects into two Sabarmati Express coaches resulting in the fiery death of 52 kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya.

Even before the probe has been constituted, it is being said, and probably with good reason, that the final report has already been drafted by the scheming Mr Yadav who is no paragon of constitutional or moral probity. The "report" which is ready, will be published on the eve of the Bihar elections and presumably show that the kar sevaks or their associates were gripped by a death wish and torched themselves with the aim of igniting anti-Muslim riots all over Gujarat. Certain pro-Pakistan journalists of mainstream publications have been peddling this theory anyway, and Mr Yadav won't need to look far to have his "ready-for-release report" have its t's crossed and i's dotted by these English media editors.

The report was, by the way, published two days before Bihar elections!!

Afzal Guru
Communal Reservation
OBC Reservation in education
Communal policing
communal budgeting - minority villages selected
Supporting Maoists in Nepal - Prachanda
Aligned with Naxalites in India for AP elections
Multiple office of profit
Increased Conversions
Arunachal Pradesh - China
Kashmir mishandling
Goa & Bihar - Murder of Democracy

Quattrocchi let off (http://ibnlive.com/news/quattrocchi-was-indeed-let-off-by-upa-govt-cbi-exchief/49485-3.html)

Raam not there
Silence on DMK's abuses (Sadist Secularism)

Praises Karunanidhi for contempt of Court -
(http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/SC-pulls-up-TN-Govt-UPA-backs-Karunanidhi/223140/)
The court said -
"Is this a government. Is this the Tamil Nadu government. Is this the DMK government, a strong ally of UPA government? If this is attitude of the DMK government, the UPA government should not feel shy of dismissing it and imposing President rule," the bench observed.

In response -
Maintaining that the issue did not figure in the Union Cabinet meeting, Dasmunsi said Chief Minister M Karunanidhi is "one of the stalwarts" not just of the DMK but of the entire country.

He said the Chief Minister has begun a "fast and (is) not violating the court order. This is a non-violent response showing respect to Mahatma Gandhi's ideals a day ahead of his birth anniversary."

Karunanidhi, Dasmunsi said, has set an example through his support and concern for the poorest of the poor, the scheduled castes and tribes, minorities and the downtrodden sections of the people.

One wonders why at all the farce of withdrawing the affidavit on Lord Raam...

Potentially Positive but ambiguous -
----------------------------------
Nuclear deal
Railway Profit

Prove Ram for Sethu

2007-09-12T09:52:00.000-07:00

History is strange, because it is as much science as art. It is as much interpretation of facts as the facts themselves. Consequently, history can be interpreted in such a way that it can become a wonderful servant of your ideology. Simultaneously it has the uncanny ability of being interpreted in an opposite manner so that it becomes a tool in the hands of a rival ideology. A marxist historian looks at the conquest of the barbarians of medieval period as a cause to 'liberate' the so called lower castes. While a nationalist may see it as an attack of nation where the poor where asked to convert under the might of sword.

Similarly, a marxist view of Bhagwad Geeta is that Bhakti Yoga was invented to suppress the poor into believing that God would come to protect them and they need to do nothing except wait for God. While, the lesser progressive people might question that - but Bhakti Yoga is only one of the many paths preached in Geeta. Also, why if Geeta was made to ask people to resign to fate, then at last Sri krishna urges and even succeeds in making Arjuna fight himself.

Now lets come to pure facts. Until 1920s there was no proof of Indus valley Civilization. Does that mean that it had never existed? It always did exist but it was not found out.

So history is not only potentially dubious on account of interpretation but it can be miserably inadequate on account of facts!!

Can we then make the current interpretation of History based on current findings as absolute truth? Who is to say that Valmiki falsified and Romila doesn't? Or that Ved Vyaas was less learned that Irfan habib, D N Jha, Shrimali etc. When the smritis of Hindu Holy books have been said to be 'itihaasas' (which is History written from memory) then surely an interpretation of History according to some ideology cannot be a valid ground to falsify it.

We are then left with mother of all ideologies - Belief.

Just like culmination of capitalist inequity into a communist harmony is a belief. Similarly, there are many beliefs that constitute how we look to different facts of life. A Ramayana, hence, can serve as a matter of fact, as history to many. In doing so, a person is not only correct but also rational.

So, the stand of the Government that Ram Sethu should be demolished because presence of Ram cannot be historically proved, falls flat on its face. The inability of the archaeologists and Historians to find something that could satisfy 'them' about the history of Ramayan is none of my concern. As far as the people of India are concerned they are convinced.

A closer look at the logic of government can make it look even more ridiculous. How about if tomorrow this becomes truth - Uttar Pradesh needs a lot of electricity. A Plant at Mathura can serve the purpose. The temple at Mathura can be an obstacle in making the plant. So, extending the same logic of History from Rama to Krishna (after all both are avatars of Vishnu !!) , would it be appropriate to destroy the temple? Let us go one step further - None of the Gods and Goddesses mentioned in Hinduism can be proved. What rights do then they have to keep even
'one' of the temples.

One can almost predict what is going to happen now. How the 'rationalists' would want clinching proof of Ram, how the media would look to embrace secularism even more tightly by denouncing those who oppose the project etc etc. In fact India will suddenly overcome the dark ages into the new age of scientific enlightenment. There were many invaders who destroyed many temples throughout the history of India. Today also it is the same. Only the invaders have been replaced by our own people.

History, however dubious it may be on facts and interpretation, does have one habit - that of repeating and is usually harsh on people who refuse to learn from it.

Foreign Policy - A Vivaad in making

2007-08-29T12:33:00.000-07:00

It is true that the next battleground of secularism will arise more in foreign policy than domestic considerations. As a matter of fact Islamism paraphrased as secularism is more a matter of political consensus now then anytime earlier in India's History. But the acid test in future is going to be foreign policy. For those who are standing for secularism will also have to stand against America and Israel.

There is hardly any debate in the Muslim world regarding America's "war on terror". Almost all are convinced that it is a disguised war of civilizations. There is no issue under the sun that could evoke uniform response from all Muslims as anti-America and anti-Israel can. If there is any doubt that in India it is different then one should look at the pictures of demonstrations against George Bush when he came to India. Such was the opposition to his visit that the secularists thought it would be imprudent for Bush to address the joint session of Parliament.

(Anti-Bush Demonstrations in India. Source - Frontline Jul. 15-28, 2006)

But in spite of the electoral compulsions to feed to the ummah victimhood, there is also a necessity - to have strategic relationship with US and Israel. The relationship has been considered important irrespective of which political group comes to power. But this may not be the case always. The electoral test of both Iran Vote and Nuclear deal is yet to happen. After working so hard for the enticing "minority votes", I don't believe that Congress would be willing to estrange a guaranteed vote-bank for pragmatic foreign policy. If UPA's record of handling and responding to terror is any indication then the vote-bank is obviously dearer than national concerns.

The communists had long been looking for a partner for their anti-Americanism. Global Islamic outburst against America is giving rise to new red+green combination. Such alignment is also fruitful for communist in domestic polity. It should therefore not surprise us that both left and congress were competing with each other in their celebration to welcome - Abdul Nazar Madani - a radical cleric, who was acquitted in Coimbatore blast case which was designed to target Advani. It remains to be seen when congress will realize that their pro-America policies can cost them on election field.

Shahid Siddiqui, editor of Nai Duniya and Samajwadi Party MP says - "...All the same, Muslim sentiments should worry the Congress.”They are upset with the government's inability to forcefully condemn the atrocities in Iraq. There is a growing perception in the entire Urdu press that India is getting into a triangle with the US and Israel..."

Madani believes that the Left will gain ground with the Muslim community if they are consistent in their opposition to the US. "The process has just begun. Let us see if they stick to their position against the US. Then certainly they will get greater respect from Muslims."

(Source - Outlook)

In other words there is a misalignment in secularism of domestic politics of Congress and secularism of foreign policy. Sooner or later the two have to align themselves. The question is when.

Secularism Triumphs: Three incidents

2007-08-08T11:12:00.000-07:00

Secular hypocrisy and pseudo-secularism are not new in India. But now they are threatening that they may well become a matter of Government Policy and simultaneously prevail as common sense in media . There are three incidents that are the defining moments in modern "secular" theology.

1. Case of Dr. Mohammed Haneef -

This is what B Raman writes in outlook in his article - The Cover Up? (B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.)

".....During the investigation into the Madrid blasts of March 11, 2004, in which 191 civilian suburban train commuters were killed, the Madrid Police had arrested two Indians and questioned without arrest two Spanish citizens of Indian origin on suspicion that the SIM cards used by the terrorists for triggering the explosions had been bought by the terrorists from their shops. All the four were Hindus. The investigation indicated that they were not aware of the background of the persons to whom they had sold the SIM cards. They were, therefore, not charged and released from detention...

There was no campaign against the Madrid Police in India at that time. The Indian media did not try to create a drama over the issue. The Indian intelligence and investigative agencies did not adopt an un-cooperative attitude. No attempt was made by the government of India to exercise pressure on the government of Spain in order to secure the release of the detained Indians before the completion of the investigation.

Western counter-terrorism experts have expressed concern and resentment over the manner in which the government of India has been trying to exercise pressure on the government of Australia to release, before the completion of investigation.... "

Now whether or not you get help in a foreign land depends also on your religion! If selective insomnia of our Prime Minister is not triumph of secularism then what is.

2. Secular President -

Shivraj Patil could well have been the President of India. But as it turned out to be - he is not secular enough. Because he is a devotee of Sri Satya Sai Baba. But he is secular enough to be the Home Minister of India. Dr. Karan Singh is an eminent scholar of Hinduism. Again, this is a disqualification. You need to be a scholar who repudiates Hinduism, not one who glorifies it to become the head of state. He has also done a lot of research on Shri Aurobindo Ghosh. No one in his right mind can make such a person supreme commander of armed forces. This is secular blasphemy.

So the top leaders of a secular government are secular for seeing that the administrative machinery of the whole country is not biased but are not secular enough to take up a symbolic post!

3. Secularism For Train Blast Victims:

This is again from B Raman - Article - Cry, The Beloved Country

"..Large sections of the nation shed tears on July 11, 2007, in memory of the 190 innocent Indians belonging to different religions who were killed a year ago in a series of explosions in suburban trains of Mumbai by jihadi terrorists inspired by the ideology of Al Qaeda. Their tears were also an expression of solidarity with the surviving relatives of these victims.

Just as millions of Americans and their leaders belonging to both sides of the political spectrum shed tears on September 11 every year in memory of the over 2,500 innocent civilians belonging to different nations who were killed by Al Qaeda in the US homeland on September 11,2001, and in solidarity with their relatives.

Just as millions of Indonesians and Australians and their political leaders shed years every year on the anniversary of the Bali bombing of October,2002, in which nearly 200 innocent civilians--Indonesians, Australians and others--were blown to pieces by jihadi terrorists.

Just as millions of Spanish people, their royal family and their political leaders shed tears every year on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing of March,2004, in which the jihadi terrorists targeted suburban trains, killing nearly 200 innocent civilians.

Just as millions of British, their royal family and their political leaders shed tears every year on the anniversary of the London bombings of July,2005, in which jihadi suicide terrorists targeted the public transportation system killing over 50 innocent civilians.

There was a significant difference between the observance of the anniversaries of these great human tragedies inflicted on humanity by the jihadi terrorists in other countries and in India.

In other countries, the head of the state or government participated in the observance of the anniversaries. On July 7, 2007, we saw on the TV touching scenes of Mr Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, and his wife visiting the tube stations where the terrorists struck and placing flowers at the scene of the tragedy.

In India, our so-called secular political class and elite kept away from the observance of the anniversary of the Mumbai tragedy of July 11, 2006.

Forget about flowers.

Not a drop of tear.

Not a word of sorrow.

Not a sign of grief.

Not a single expression of solidarity with the relatives of the victims.

I did not write this article yesterday because I waited to see whether our Prime Minister would fly to Mumbai and lead the people of the nation in remembering the innocent Indians--men, women and children--who were blown to pieces by the jihadi terrorists last year. I was convinced in my mind that he would not. Still, I was hoping that he would prove me wrong by participating in the observance of the anniversary. He didn't.

Why didn't he?

Busy dealing with grave crises confronting the nation?

No.

Lack of time?

No.

Bad weather?

No... "

Is there a limit to this perversion?

If Afzal Guru case is any indication, the shrill campaign for the Mumbai Blast conspirators has the potential of leaving these three incidents far behind!!

National Parties for a Strong India

2007-07-03T00:22:00.001-07:00

After the UP polls there is a larger question that should haunt us then the so-called miracle pulled by Mayawati. Why are the congress and bjp looking like desperate losers in front of pragmatic regional players? Is it the right trend for the country?

When President Kalam said that two party system was needed to maintain stability as well as strong centre, he was not speaking something from nowhere. There is a concern that if one party rule of four decades was painful for the country then several party rule with all having equal powers is also a recipe for disaster. Like it always happens, the people who got offended most are the ones who think all others are still not 'enlightened' enough to appreciate the revelations of Prophet Marx. Hence a two party system that keeps the ideology of congress and bjp at centre would ignore the most "progressive" of all.

Although in my view the congress today is the kind of rot which should be thrown into the dustbins of history, I am ready to trade a congress driven rule to any of the regional parties driven rule any day. It is better to let the oldest party to have some feast than to invite the whims and fancies of regional vultures all ready to have their 'pound of flesh' irrespective of what is happening to the nation as whole.

In short the BSPs, RJDs,TDPs,AIADMKs etc etc etc cannot see the India beyond their Bihar, UP, Andhra, Tamil Nadu etc etc. Neither they have a national presence nor they have intended to have any national policy. It is their region that matters most like in case of TDPs and AIADMKs or their caste-religious combinations that matters - like Lalu's Muslim-Yadav and Mayawati's Dalit-Muslim with the twice born as one time aberration. In other words they have been the beneficiaries of divisive politics of India and why would they ever like to end those divisions when they are feeding on it. So to end caste differences they do caste politics. Why would they ever want casteism to end? Ditto for communists. They don't want poverty to end as their whole politics revolves around using the poor.

The congress and the bjp should mend their ways, introspect and become stronger from here. That is the only way out. Then there will be two groups at centre - NDA and UPA which would do the job of two party system for the time being. Congress and BJP apart from being national party are also different in ideology. So people have an option to support what they like. Also, their views converge on majority of the issues that concern economy, defence and foreign affairs, which is also desirable in the present context. So in a Lok Sabha election UPA and NDA should be two groups with Congress and BJP as the dominant parties. That also means that congress and bjp should together take around 350 seats. For 2009 it looks like an almost impossible task as of now. A mandate like 2004 is very confusing. The party that rules and the party that opposes have a difference of 7 seats!! The sum of congress+bjp seats is not even 300. Thus we can see the power that resides with the ruling party seems to be far less than a party with less than half the seats of Congress. If the ruling party has to be strong then it should take 170-190 seats. Otherwise it’s a waste of another 5 years.

What is more worrisome is that both the national parties are definitely going to shrink in 2009. Their losing in the Hindi heartland is a big blow. If they both have 100 seats each then it adds to only 200. This also means that UNPA with all its regional parties could be in majority - of course CPM and RJDs will drift. How can they support an anti-people government?? Since Communists are the only representatives of people they would join UNPA. Here they along with BSP would have the biggest say. If that is the case then Mayawati may be the Prime Minister with Laloo as Home Minister ,Mulayam as defence minister and Karat as China Minister. And finance ministry will be a horror story irrespective of the person in charge. Those who think that Mulayam and Mayawati cannot be in same ministry may like to think twice - Laloo and Paswan are in the same ministry at present. The coalition would then be conglomeration of interests of various regions, various castes but never of India.

When the redoubtable head of RSS - "guru" M S Golwalkar was informed that the congress has split involving Indira Gandhi and Syndicate he immediately condemned the weakening of congress internally. Although always opposed to congress, he saw in the weakening of a national party - weakening of the nation itself.
The only way congress can emerge stronger is by appreciating the fact that there were other leaders in Congress who were as good as and even better than Nehru. So it is the family that needs congress and not the other way round. For the 5 years under Narasimha Rao - when it distanced itself from the 'family', congress made many bold and revolutionary decisions for which many think that he was the best Prime Minister India ever had. It is sad that the party that can boast of people like Sardar Patel, C Rajagopalachari, G B Pant, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Lal Bahadur Shashtri and so many others is compelled to rise and fall with the destiny of one family.

BJP needs to see to it that it does not congressify itself. A party that defines itself by its ideology has an extra burden of integrity. Along with other things bjp had emerged as a 'party with difference'. However, from what has happened in last three years it has become a party with a lot of differences. Thankfully the Uma Bharti episode seems to be over (ghosts would come back soon in MP elections) and people are beginning to forget the adventures of Advani with Jinnah episode. A person who has re-written the rules of Indian politics can be spared one ideological error. Unlike congress - BJP has good mass leaders in Narendra Modi, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj who are just waiting for their innings at centre. Narendra Modi is an excellent administrator and brilliant at implementing economic reforms as the success of Gujarat has shown. He is a Prime Minister material.

Thus it is not extra-terrestrial to assume that these two national parties would rejuvenate themselves and become stronger. It is only in the interest of the nation.

Selective Freedom of Expression

2007-05-27T04:31:00.001-07:00

In objecting to Goddess Durga's (whom the Hindus dare call mother) nude paintings we are told that we are actually objecting to the freedom of expression of the artist. There are many spins to this problem and it is not as simplistic as portrayed by the left-liberal intellectuals of our country.

First, in reporting such incidents, they normally omit the content of the painting. They hide the sinister motives of the artists behind the shrillness of NGO brigade. In doing so, they report only one part of the story. The story that suits their columnists. The same is done in a case of Gujarat fake encounter case. They manufactured a communal problem out of a terrorist encounter. I would like to see them protesting with so much fervor when terrorists blow up common man, police and army alike.

Secondly, constitution does not give Freedom of expression as an absolute right. It has a few restrictions. They empower the state which can make laws and restrict the exercise of this right in the interest of public order, decency or morality. So, there should be no 'legal objection' to the opposition of paintings. When these intellectuals cry that M F Hussain is being targeted by our courts, they miss the fact that in exercising his freedom of expression he actually overstepped the mark in the eyes of Law and hence the courts are fully entitled for judicial scrutiny. All such depictions that attack religious symbols are deemed offensive and are liable for prosecution.

So, just as they have the freedom to paint, others have freedom to protest and courts are free to prosecute!

Much to the disappointment of SitaRam Yechury and his likes, there is absolutely no sympathy for the arrested artist in the eyes of public. It is not only the Hindus but the Christians also who had protested paintings which had objectionable images of Jesus Christ too.

Then there is another shout - "The manner in which they protest is objectionable". This can still hold some water. VHP and Bajrang Dal should not indulge in Vandalism, if there was any. But this is what they have learnt from recent history. How was Salman Rushdie's book banned? How a small group of people was able to reverse the Supreme Court's judgement by pressurizing the government to amend the constitution in Shah Bano case? How was the reaction of demands of "head" of a cartoonist made, when somewhere in Europe someone sketched a fully "dressed" image of Prophet and how the Congress and Left (yes same people) condemned the sketch. The fact of the matter is everyone has got the tool now. If you want to get your point across the table, the safest bet in India is to turn a little "violent". Where are Booker Prize winners & Co. when the whole of Punjab is burning where a person, within the limits of decency, and using his "freedom”, dressed himself like the tenth guru of Sikhs. Freedom of expression cannot be used to selectively hurt non-violent targets. India is a secular country. Keeping with the tradition of equality of faiths, the VHP and Bajrang Dal should instead, demand the painters to give the same respect to Prophet as they have shown to the symbols of other religions. I am sure we won't need this debate after that. The left-liberals have hijacked the intellectual debate in this country for quite some time now. Their members in the media outnumber any other ideology by 99 to 1 ratio. It is high time they do some answering.

But even if we go beyond the double-speak of these self-proclaimed messiah of humanity, we should address a more fundamental question. We have two ways to go. Either we decide that no religion should be denigrated or that all religions can be lampooned. Then Virgin Mary, Goddess Durga or Prophet's wife all would meet the same fate. Also the CD released in UP would then be endorsed as freedom of expression of some people. Everyone is then free to treat the religion of others as he/she likes. While the first may call for a little less freedom (or in other words freedom with responsibility), the second is a sure shot guarantee of a blood-bath and a society entrenched in turmoil. But nothing could justify their crying foul only when the Hindus protest under the clichéd argument of a more-than-thousand year old sculptures. Selective freedom of expression is a self-defeating argument.

This should not be confused with questioning of religions. India has a tradition of questioning the very existence of "existence”, God and creation. The atheism of Carvaka is a blasphemy according to some other religions, but it finds a place in the Hindu religion. In the sarvadarshansamagraha of Madhavacharya, he includes atheistic philosophy also. But sexual perversion of a painter is not a pre-requisite to questioning faiths.

Finally, the Prime Minister Office should give some work to the likes of Arundhati Roy. For a change, next time they should be given a task to protest against the terrorists who blow up places of worship and parliaments, and who have links with ISI and underworld and ask them to extol police officers who get rid of the menace for us in spite of working in hostile conditions. Or is this too unfashionable for them?

Their Distaste for Judiciary

2007-05-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

Those who are informed with the congress' and Left's participation in the emergency days would surely be now reading between the lines on all their comments on judicial activism or Judicial "overreach" as described by the Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi had said just a week before emergency that Indians are enjoying too much of freedom. At that point of time nobody had thought what was she was trying to say. The current statement by the PM that the "judicial overreach" should be curbed should draw our attention. May be something is again being cooked in the Congress-Left camp. This time it seems Judicial independence is at stake.

And this time I don't see a Jaiprakash Narayan, not even in the opposition. The whole Legislature seems convinced that Judicial Activism is encroaching upon their area. Needless to say there will be a counter reaction from Legislature. But of all the parties, Congress and Communists are the most convinced. There is a history of their distaste for Judiciary which began with Supreme Court's judgment that Hindutva is secular back in 1995. That the party alone is always correct is anyways central to communist ideology. So if it was possible for them they would have done away with Judiciary. However, in the realm of reality, they cannot do so. These two recent judgments by court has angered them most -

1. An evaluation of the OBC reservation case. There is no data to support the case. Besides the selection of OBC castes are subjective and not uniform throughout India. But no party is likely to question this one. Although it was Congress under Rajiv who had opposed Mandal Commission initially. But he is invoked only selectively, to remind people of the savior family.

2. Recent Judgment by Allahabad High court, stating that Muslims are not minorities in UP. That would have bolted the long history of communal politics in India, once and for all. Naturally, the whole secular industry would have gone bust in one day. Secularism or more aptly pseudo-secularism in India thrives on minorytism. When there is no minority, there is no industry. But sadly, that was stayed after a huge protest from the "secular" lobby.

Not to forget the cases where Bihar's Governor Buta singh was booked or the case where Bannerji commission instituted by Laloo Yadav to probe into Godhra train burning was adjudged "illegal" and "unconstitutional". They had made a mockery of themselves when they described their fable of how 60 people decided to burn themselves. The "collective suicide" story had injected a new life in the secular coterie for quite sometime.

Whatever is the case and there are many of them, the current standoff between the two "pillars" of democracy guarantees interesting times for us. E.g., it would be interesting to know which party takes what position in identifying where is the line that Judiciary should not cross. Meanwhile, we the ordinary citizens of India, for whom Judiciary is the "last resort", can only keep our fingers crossed.

Patent on Mahatma's Legacy

2007-03-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

Who is the inheritor of Mahatma's legacy? A party which is the primary faction of Pe-Independence Congress party which was mentored by Mahatma thinks it is the only inheritor. In a recent ceremony held to celebrate 100 years of Satyagraha Congress invited most of the political parties to attend and collectively remember one of the greatest man to have born on Indian Soil. Congress considers Mahatma was not a life but an inspiration for the whole mankind except that the mankind does not include BJP & RSS. The current patent on his legacy supposedly lies with Sonia Gandhi.

What amuses me is not the selective invitation but the sheer absence of all logic since if we go by facts and not by the secular rheotric, BJP today follows Mahatma more than congress. Most of the policies of Congress today (and were of yesterdays) very anti-Mahatma.
Inspired by Rahul Gandhi's Ifs (remember disputed structure in ayodhya controversy) I also have a "If". If Gandhiji would had been alive today his political inclination would had been as interesting, given his views on many issues .

Secularism
----------
Definately a sacred cow. But it isn't that it was always so. The word Secularism was incorporated in the constitution during the emergency days. The authors of our constitution did not mention this word and obviously noone was deficient in Vocabulary. The concept which was abhorred by Gandhiji to say the least. He himself had used religion to convey his message of non-violant political struggle. For him, if you are a believer, then religion pervades all aspect of your life. Secularism could only be associated with atheism, a socio-political arrangement which evolved in Europe and is still rejected by catholics as heresy. As opposed to what Gandhiji thought, Congress today claims to be an ultra-secularist party. Which has become synonymous with Islamism in India. BJP is largely regarded by the secularists as non-secular but wasn't the Mahatma also non-secular ?

Cow Slaughter
------------

Cows are worshipped by the Hindus. Gandhiji was against slaughtering of cows. He maintained throughout his life that people should not hesitate to give their lives to save cows. But if there is any party that talks about it even today then it is the BJP. It was, in Mahatma's period also, a "cheap source of protein" for poor and eating patterns of so-called minorities were also similar back then. Still Mahatma was against cow slaughter. In today's India Gandhiji would had been a communal reactionary.

Caste system
------------

This surprises many. Gandhiji was never against caste system. He openly praised Brahminism that had made Hinduism survive throughout the ages. His opposition to untouchability had a more doctor like approach. In the process he did not inspire conversion to other religions, but tried to address the root cause. This is unlike the ideology of some of the political parties today which were invited in that centenary celebration. In a recent interview on CNN/IBN, RSS chief appealed to the Hindu society to reform itself on untouchability.

Religious Conversion
--------------------
On January 2nd, 1937 a Professor of Philosophy from Poland, Krzenski came to see Gandhiji. Krzanski told Gandhiji that Catholicism was the only true religion. A part of the conversation -

Krzenski: "But I have studied all religions and have found that mine is the only true religion."

Gandhiji: "But so have others studied other religions. What about them? Well, I go further and tell you that religion is one and it has several branches which are all equal."

Krzenski: "I accept that no religion lacks divine inspiration but all have not the same truth, because all have not the same light."

Gandhiji: "It is an essentially untrue position to take, for a seeker after truth, that he alone is in absolute possession of truth. What is happening to the poor astronomers today? They are changing their position every day, and there are scientists who impeach even Einstein's latest theory."

After some time... The conversation is -

Gandhiji: "It is no use trying to fight these forces without giving up the idea of conversion, which I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth."

Krzenski: "But I have a great respect for your religion."

Gandhiji: "Not enough. I had that feeling myself one day, but I found that it was not enough. Unless I accept the position that all religions are equal, and I have as much regard for other religions as I have for my own, I would not be able to live in the boiling war around me. Any make-believe combination of spiritual forces is doomed to failure if this fundamental position is not accepted. I read and get all my inspiration from the Gita. But I also read the Bible and the Koran to enrich my own religion. I incorporate all that is good in other religions."

Krzenski: "That is your goodwill."

Gandhiji: "That is not enough."

Krzenski: "But I have great respect for you."

Gandhiji: "Not enough. If I were to join the Catholic church you would have greater respect for me."

Krzenski: "Oh yes, if you became a Catholic, you would be as great as St. Francis."

Gandhiji: "But not otherwise? A Hindu cannot be a St. Francis? Poor Hindu!"

(The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol 64, pp. 203-4)

A very good demonstration of what the Mahatma thought about all religions and religious conversions. He referred to conversions as the "deadliest poison" . Contrary to that any opposition to religious conversion is thought as a communal repressive measure to undermine the rights of minorities. So was Gandhiji communal ? So when Vajpayee said that there should be a national debate on conversions, was he not following Mahatma? If anything, how can they, who favor conversions become the torch bearers or inheritors of Gandhian legacy?

RSS & Gandhiji
--------------

It was RSS which deployed 500 swayamsevak with the consent of Nehru, for protection of Gandhiji at Bhangi Colony in New Delhi in September 1946. In his address to the RSS swayamsevaks he said “I visited the RSS camp years ago, when the founder Shri Hedgewar was alive. I was very much impressed by your discipline, the complete absence of untouchability and the rigorous simplicity. Since then the Sangh has grown. I am convinced that any organization which is inspired by the high ideal of service and self-sacrifice is bound to grow in strength.” (
(The Hindu: 17th September 1947).

Not only gandhiji but Pt.Nehru invited swayamsevaks, in recogntion of their service during China war, to participate in the Republic Day Parade on January 26 in Delhi. 3000 swayamsevaks in full uniform and band participated in this parade within a short notice.

When BJP was being formed in 1980 their foundation document embraced what they called as - Gandhian Socialism.

Now who are the real inheritors of Gandhian legacy !!

Selective Hindutva

2007-03-20T13:20:00.000-07:00

Hindutva is a bad word. It is at best an equivalent of Fascism, Nazism etc.. Because Hindutva is bad all that have a connotation of Hindu is also bad. E.g., Vande Mataram, which is written in sanskrit, reminds us of all that was bad, Hindu in origin, a language of the Vedas, Puranas,something that binds people with their roots, and a tool of oppression. So bad is Hindutva that the serialization of Ramayan and Mahabharat is also frowned upon by the self proclaimed secularists.(........" Contrast Doordarshan's treatment of the film Tipu Sultan with its generosity towards Ramayana whose serialisation many now acknowledge was a mistake of great consequence" by A G Noorani, Frontline - Volume 16 - Issue 18, Aug. 28 - Sep. 10, 19990). They also detest Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad's overt hinduism which was also shown in their support for reconstructing Somnath temple.

When L K Advani said that Hindutva is not religion based, but a culture based term, he was castigated as communal. How dare he said that Ram dwells in the consciousness of all Indians, whichever faith they may take.He is certainly trying to subjugate (mainly) Islam by giving one identity to all within the geography of India.

But then, my question is- Why if Hindutva is so bad, it is accepted by the secularists and also islamists and others minority leaders as and when it suits them ?

Caste system is a typical characteristic of Hindu system. It was in its practice and as popularly thought, a discriminatory system. It gave special rights to some people, based on heredity. To rectify this "social discrimination" a system of reservation was thought of, which would correct historical mistakes by giving reservation to those people who have been historically under-privileged because of this social discrimination.

But there has been a case made in India, to grant reservation to dalit Muslims and Christians too. M J Akbar argued in Asian Age that such a discrimination, where reservation is granted to only religions originated in India, is non-secular. It was once, even attempted by congress in Andhra. Thereafter, Sachar was called to make the case. In doing so, an argument is made that, in India, caste cuts across religions. How come, in this case, a Hindu system permeates into the society of non-Hindu followers?? By doing this, aren't they accepting Hindutva ? Isn't this an effort to give a single casteist identity to the whole of India ? What is so wrong about saying Ram dwells in the consciousness of all Indians if castes can ? More so, by accepting discrimination inspite of conversion of people for so many hundreds of years to other faiths, aren't they making a case against conversion ? And how can muslims claim discrimination? Weren't they the ruling class for 700 years? For so many years, they have been glorifying Islam and Christianity, saying that it would liberate people from all ills that are possessed by a Hindu society. What happened to the lofty claims, which were the and still are the basis of conversion activities ? Why doesn't M J Akbar, write against conversion, which is inherently based on an assumption that one religion can be better than other ? With this assumption isn't it against secularism ?

It should be noted that reservation was never meant to end economic discrimination. Otherwise, there is no dearth of poor Brahmins in India. But that is not the point here. The point is that a Hindu system is acceptable, in the entire country, uniformly among all religions, if and only if there is an opportunity. In the absence of opportunism, Hindutva is imperialist in nature, trying to subjugate the identity of other faiths.

Nothing has been as misrepresented as Hindutva. Even after the Supreme Court vindication, regarding it as secular. But, when elections come so called secularists are found taking a dip in the ganges, or going to Tirupati for blessings. They have devised a new term for this opportunism - "soft hindutva". So, secularists would decide what is soft Hindutva of Mulayam Singh and what is hard hindutva of Advani !!

Predictable Reactions To Terrorism

2007-02-23T10:41:00.000-08:00

Although which place the terrorists are going to target next is known probably to none, we can all guess what would be the reaction from each and every section of media and government if such an act, God forbid, does take place again. This has been the story all the while and we have travelled a long way now. We have numerous experiences to certify our observations as statistically significant. Latest among them being the Samjhauta Express fire-bombing.

The guardians of secularism inevitably react to any such terrorist endeavor with a typical mundane and often almost unrelated to the incident cliche - "The investigating agencies should keep in mind that no specific community is targetted." - and very cautiously not naming any community in a true secularist style. For the uninitiated this was the first reaction of Congress chairperson after Mumbai train blasts. The Prime minister being too preoccupied with distributing sops to the communities who have first claim on resources does not have the time to make innovation on his rheotric. He reacts - "The culprits would not be spared". The opposition has been given a template of reaction. "UPA government is playing with security of this country." The Special advisor(internal security) who has been accused of speculating on politically incorrect targets has decided to remain silent for a change. Sadbhavna apologists would show tremendous responsibility in supporting inaction and would chatter away the news and debate programs on English news channels. They anyways, have to play a vital role if any muslim is caught and is sentenced to death by Supreme Court.

And each time there is such an incident a lollypop is given to the citizens of this country. That lollypop differs with the incident but the spirit behind the lollypop is much the same. E.g., After Varanasi blasts the lollypop was - "Both the communities have shown great maturity by not succumbing to communal provocation". After Mumbai train blasts the lollypop of "Mumbai spirit" was distributed to the whole country through the media. And the latest chocolate has been - " Nothing will derail the peace process between India and Pakistan". We are quite happy with the lollypops at the moment, and secular enough not to complain.

There is something about the latest Samjhauta express blasts that looks different on its face. No, not the reactions. They have been much the same. A section of media with pervert notions on secularism, would see themselves vindicated when the targets are muslims. Thus, terrorism has no religion. Also, India and pakistan logically become similar targets of terrorism !! A notion rightfully dismissed by Vajpayee in his meeting with Kasuri. Immediately after the Malegaon blasts, Frontline came up with articles from immaculate Praful Bidwai who found out meticulously, how many and where all Bajrang dal and other hindu fundamentalist organization are placed around the town and how they would have beyond any doubt, executed the blasts. He has been shameless enough not to apologize later, when the truth was discovered. This time similar arguments were made in the Pakistan media (amazed at similarity of thought ??) , but there is noone to buy them.

The acts of terrorism are designed to make us bend and we oblige them with a stoop. India needs to critically assess whether there is enough political will among the policy makers or enough courage in media to address the issue head-on and stop beating around the bush at the cost of lives of all Indians irrespective of their religion. Terror is terror and must be dealt with severly. As far as addressing the root cause is concerned - Leaders, saints and scholars of ALL faiths should unequivocally assert that ALL Religions Are Equal. There is nothing special about any one of them. I, for one, have not heard this seemingly trivial statement from leaders of all religions. They'll shout on everything but this small feat is still not achieved when probably all around the world know how heavenly titillations can inspire zealots to blow buildings, trains, parliaments and of course, themselves ! Instead, the more comfortable and predictable reactions are again and again reiterated. Is God too busy receiving guests in heaven ?

Buddhism as a Political Weapon

2007-02-07T13:04:00.000-08:00

Mayawati has threatened to convert India into a Buddhist country as and when she becomes the PM of this country. The occasion was B R Ambedkars birth anniversary. True to the legacy of Ambedkar, Mayawati spilled venom against Hinduism and true to the characteristics of the 'secularists' which includes the media, she was lauded for her intellectual remarks.
Sometimes, I wonder what would have happened if a Narendra Modi would have threatened to change the whole of India into a Hindu state. The whole media would have come to the rescue of secularism and the secularists and marxists would have ranted throughout the country on the dangers of communalism.
We, however, have graduated from the levels of this double-speak. The basic premise, of putting Buddhism against Hinduism is flawed. I don't know how much of Buddhism or Hinduism, Mayawati knows or B R Ambedkar had known. It looks more as if, Buddhism is being used as a political weapon and since vast masses of people don't prefer to get into the intricacies of philosophy, it bcomes easy for them to incite people on misinformation.

"A persistant misreading of India's religious history is responsible for the prevalent view that Buddha's faith is an alien one opposed to the Vedas...........he appeared for the establishment of Vedic Dharma and not for undermining of it... There are no doubt similarities between the views of Buddism and Advaita Vedanta, and this is not surprising in view of the fact that both these systems had for their background the Upanishads."

The writer is not a communal historian of RSS school, but an eminent scholar of philosophy, S Radhakrishnan (Indian Philosophy Vol 2, page 472).
Ambedkar had once said that he was born a hindu but would not die as a Hindu. So he became a Buddhist and converted many thousands of people to Buddhism. Contrast this with what Rhys Davids had to say and Radhakrishna quotes him in Indian Philosophy, Vol 1, page 361 -

" Gautama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu...There was not much in the metaphysics and principles of Gautama which cannot be found in one or other of the orthodox systems, and a great deal of his morality could be matched from earlier or later Hindu books.."

"..Buddhism in its origin atleast, is an offshoot of Hinduism.." (Vol 1, page 361)

According to Swami Vivekananda also, Buddhism is a logical conclusion of Hinduism.
There is practically a very small difference between Hindu and Buddhistic philosophy.Hinduism emphasizes Self as the Brahman, the ultimate of the universe, the creator and the created, the essence of all is Brahman. Lord Buddha, on the contrary chose to remain "silent" on the ultimate reality. He never cared about metaphysics as he said, that would not end the misery. He thus, spoke only of the phenomenal. He neither approved nor denied Brahman. He thus, opened his philosophy to interpretation. So, someone like rahul Sankrityayna ( a devout communist) interpreted that he was teaching nothing but Marxism, with the exception of doctrine of karma.( I think Tibet got a taste of that). The ambiguity in the philosophy have been exploited to the fullest in their selfish political pursuits.So, an agnostic philosophy which was full of practical Vedanta was turned against Hinduism.It was and it is being campaigned that Buddhists became a victim of persecution by Hindus. How ?? By making Buddha an Avatar of Vishnu ?? What kind of persecution was that?? This is another of their several self defeating logics.

I think the Mayawatis and Ambedkars of India need to revisit their hate campaigns. These hate campaigns are based on Marxist interpretation of our History. Where everything in India before Mahmud Ghazni's invasion is exploitative. What else, would serve their interest better than misappropriation of teachings of someone who spoke against the reduction of religion into a ritualistic affair. Thus, Brahmins formed the bourgeois and all of Hinduism becomes a sham to protect the interest of ruling class. Since, it is made to stand against Hinduism, it becomes a favourite among dalit politicians and communal Islamists, who want to deface Hinduism. Recently, a book fair was organised in Mumbai, where I came across many such books. One book even said, that Bhagwad Gita was made in order to suppress the masses into believing that they were poor because of their own karma, while the ruling brahmin class could continue to enjoy the fruits of power.

This is however, what Radhakrishnan writes about castes and Buddhism (Vol 1, page 437)
"..There is a good deal of misconception about Buddha's attitude to caste. He does not oppose the institution, but adopts the Upanishad standpoint. The Brahmin or the leader of society is not so much a Brahmin by birth as by character......" He quotes from the Vasala Sutta, Vasettha Sutta and Dhammapada -
".. The Brahmin who has removed all sinfulness, who is free from haughtiness, from impurity, self-restrained, an accompalished master of knowledge, who has fulfilled the duties of holiness, such a Brahmin justly calls himself a Brahmin.He that gives way to anger and feels hatred, a wicked man, a hypocrite, he that embraces wrong views and is deceitful, such a one is an outcast..."
It is clear that the intention is to purify and not to vilify. But who cares for what the Lord's intentions were. As long as the political points can be scored on ignorance, why not denigrate a religion in the name of the nineth Avatar of Lord Vishnu !!

Misplaced Pluralism

2007-01-18T11:42:00.000-08:00

A country that worships 330 million Gods needs no lecture on Pluralism. These Gods have successfully co-existed with everyone seeing all of them with equal respect. So, why do people keep harping on pluralism, which otherwise to us Indians, is a non-issue.

It is a gift of an idea, a theory, a mindset, a doctrine. The stress on pluralism is so high that it has reduced India to a compromise. That we are one country is lost in the shrillness of celebration of imposed diversity. Is India defined only by a geographical expression ? Is India a larger version of Bombay Municipal Corporation ? Is there no other reason of why we should exist as one country other than, that we different people from different regions opposed British, and hence combined. Now that the British are no more, is 'we are a conglomeration of states' theory, the only secular theory that justifies India as one combined state?

The theory (mainly comes from Marxists and pseudo-secular schools of thought) is that we are anything but Indians. We are Biharis, bengalis, tamilians, rajasthani, hindu, muslim, christian, sikh, Aryans, Dravidians, upper caste, lower caste, dalits, tribals, yadavs,jats and the emphasis on the pervert notions of pluralism goes on and on. We therefore, are not one culture. We have, and to this they'll agree, agreed to tolerate each other after the covenant of independence . There is otherwise, no oneness, no reason to be united. A conception that is best described by Arun Shourie in his article - Media in crises. He says -

"...Beneath the presumptions that we have noticed, lies indoctrination of a hundred and fifty years: the notions that we have taken in from the elder Mill, Macaulay, Marx, and the missionaries. Our commentators are hybrids of these forbears. India is not a country, Indians are not a nation. It is a zoo, to recall Girilal Jain’s description of their view. There are monkeys in it, zebras, elephants, the whole lot. But each of these is a separate species. When a Vivekananda or a Gandhi looks at the people, what strikes him are the myriad common elements. But when these persons see the very same people, what strikes them on the other hand is what is different! India is not real, they declare...... It was never one country. It was put together only recently – and that too by the British. Not one country.................... India is not real, they declare; caste is real, being Hindu or Muslim, being Tamil or Bengali -- that is what is real...."

And what we see allover India today is the implication of these theories. Biharis would get butchered in Assam, a dravidian seperatist would speak of hindi imperialism, a dalit would invoke baseless & eurocentric Aryan Invasion theory and burn Vedas, a Tilak would be confined to Maharashtra, a Subhash Chandra Bose to Bengal, opposition to illegal Bangladeshi immigrant is communal, a muslim would get so moved by Iraqi dictator's execution that he'll bring the system to a standstill in India(see Saddam death protests end in clash, Indian Express, Jan 5), a Mayawati would threaten to mass-convert people, Kashmiri pandits would become a regional issue, Vande Mataram becomes a song of one community, and best of all, any region can demand itself to be a seperate state any time and he is supposed to be completely 'justified'. Everyone is ready to assert a divisive identity and the theorists are ready to oblige. Such emphasis on pluralism, is looked upon by the likes of Mulayams, Laloos, Arjun singhs as an opportunity. One percent reservation here and two percent there. Keep a part always against the whole. And propogated by the honourable Prime Minister, as 'first claim' on resources. There can be infinite divisions of 100%, and so are the opportunities of exploitation. They would recognize the similarity between apes and homo sapiens but not Indians. They are all seperate.If we go by these theories than we should have never asked for independence from British.In fact Winston Churchill once said that British had full right in India,just as the Aryans have !

For ages people of Bharat have regarded this whole piece of land as Holy, as One. The seers of past & present have even made her into one single being, that of a mother. Even when they were not politically one, this piece of land was one in the minds of people.When guru adi Shankaracharya was building matths,in the four corners of this land, he was not doing it in different countries. He shared the popular view of the common people. For him this whole was one. It is all in the mind.Vedanta preachess oneness in variety. But such coceptions do not serve the political & intellectual interests of our theorists. The day we see the white light in the rainbow of India, many of our problems will automatically get resolved.

Creation Vs Evolution

2007-01-06T10:05:00.001-08:00

There are two individuals of our time greatly influencing the religious thought around the world. One is Harun yahya who claims to have disproved evolution and hence have proved creation and the other is Richard Dawkins, who is a militant atheist and believes that religions, initially thoght to have been a harmless nonsense, has outlived its utility.

Although they are propogating rival thoughts, we can safely conclude that they both suffer from the same disease.

Let us take Harun Yahya first. He is so convinced of creationism that he cannot see any logic in evolution. He believes that evolution is ungodly. That creation alone is the answer to the complexity of nature. He has written various books on the topic.
In his book - 'The evolution deceit' he confronts natural selection with this logic -

"..Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer..."

The understanding of evolution as we can make out, is limited.

The danger is not so much in what he believes but in what he is set out to do. In the process he is falsifying all fossil evidences that point towards evolution. The greater danger is that he is being considered an authority by vast number of people and cite his theory to support their creationist fanatasies. However, what amuses me is that noone ever has asked him some simple questions on 'creator God' like - If there was no universe before universe than where was God before universe ? What was God doing before creating ? If he is eternal and has produced the world a finite time ago than there is still infinite time before his creation. What was he doing then ? The patterns of fossils, he claims, does not point to evolution. He argues that evolution, cannot be proved in a lab and hence it can only be a theory and not a 'fact'.

For all practical purposes, Dawkins belongs to the same category. He says that there is no need for the intervention of any supernatural authority as evolution is a good enough theory to explain all life. In his book, The God Delusion he says - "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable." A little more than ad hominem.

What he does not answer and what I have not read anyone asking him is, why does he believe that existance can be a product of non-existance? Even if he believes that object(non-consciousness) is the cause of subject(consciousness), how can we convincinly say that the object was not subject in the first place ? That consciousness does not precede evolution cannot be proved by him? He finds a target in creator God and uses that to bash the relevance of religion in the world. Isn't reason itself a matter of belief ? Isn't he replacing the Popery of religion with the Popery of Science, when he says an infinitely Complex God cannot precede evolution as evolution starts with smallest of living beings. This is quite an unnoticeable 'assertion' or a mere 'opinion', slipped between some theories.

Dawkins rejects religion as fantasy, but forgets that fantasy is not a sustainable model. All religions are based on experience. Christianity is based on experiences of Christ, Islam has experiences of Prophet Mohammed behind them, Buddhism is similarly based on the personal experiences of Lord Buddha.Just as I would refer to an Einstein if I want to study relativity, a Darwin to study evolution, I would refer to the saints (and not religious scholars) for matters that concern God.
To reject experiences of great people is also a demostration of bigotry and hence incompatible with scientific temperament, irrespective of how big a scientist you are. The mystics have been there in every age and time and they are the real carriers of religion. The world would not have seen much of religion, if the only purpose of religion was to give a moral code to a barbarian society. This does not mean that religious philosophies should not be brought to the test of reason. But this simply means that reason has to expand its boundaries. The boundaries of senses, if they were enough, would not have compelled us to make a telescope or a microscope. But we increased our scope, not by replacing one dogma by another but by supplimenting and increasing the boundatries of our senses.All religious philosophies are then to be studied in the light of modern scientific theories.

Myth of Minority

2006-12-17T07:01:00.000-08:00

There is a strong myth in India that Muslims constitute the minority. The reason being very easy to cite that approx 80% are Hindus and approx 15-20 % are muslims and hence they are a minority.The fight as the marxist have been suggesting (from the pre-independence days) is of Upper class ( who are Hindus) and Muslims which form the lower oppressed class inspite of Muslim rule in India for 700 years.

However, there is another theory from the same set of people. That divides India so many times over.Thus Hindus become actually - Aryans,Dravidians, Upper caste, lower caste, OBC, creamy layer, Tribals,Shaivites,Vaishnavites,hindus of Goddess-cult,Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Ambedkarists, Gandhians,cow eating secular hindus, cow worshipping and beef hating communal hindus etc etc etc. The more divisions the merrier it is for them.

The choice of which theory to adopt, depends entirely on the circumstance. Each case is taken on its merit. So when Muslims vote come into play, there is "tyranny of the majority" theory. But when reservation card has to be used, "Hindus are perpetually divided" theory is called for. It is wonderful double-play, mastered by the pseudo-secularists.

Let us talk practically. The majority or minority in a democracy is decided by voting patterns. The ability of a group of people of being heard should decide their minority or majority status,if any such status has to exist.
Now a Hindu seldom votes as a Hindu(except for a brief period in 90s). When voting for a sub-group within Hindus, the identity of Hindu is absent. In the book Bookless in Baghdad, Shashi Tharoor (who stops just short of proclaiming Sonia Gandhi a born leader) says about a hindu - "...Even his Hinduism is no guarantee of majorityhood, because his caste places him in a minority as well;if he is a brahmin,90 percent of his fellow Indians are not;if he is a Yadav,85% Indians are not, and so on..."

At the same time, Muslims have been fed to their insecurity by so called secularists and their leaders. Hence, they vote mostly on Muslim identity. E.g., Some Muslim leaders issue fatwas for all the muslims to vote for their selected party in an election !! (Read Asian Age, 8th December, Secular Left's strange heart by Balbir punj).
Hence, there is a monolith Muslim vote of Muslims and a fragmented non-Hindu vote of Hindus. Thus, to call Hindu a majority is 'practically' wrong.

Secondaly, look at the sheer numbers. India is second most populous muslim country. Number of Muslims in India is two and half times that of whole population of United Kingdom. In UK - Muslims are 2.7% and Hindus 1%. Such small percentages qualify as minorities and not 15-20%. If that is the case then India is a country of lot of minorities and no majorities.Their number along with their voting style make them a powerful voice in a democracy like India. And it has not been that their demands have been unfulfilled.They have religious Personal laws, they oppose Common Civil Code (talking of which is rabidly communal), they have seperate institutions where they are free to preach and teach according to (their version of) Islam, one even has the right to potray Hindu Gods and Goddesses as he wishes to satisfy his creative urge. They face no discrimination (and quite rightly so) in job opportunities, Vande Mataram(a song to arouse communal feelings) is optional,it is easier to put a Shankaracharya behind bars on a suspicion of murder on a Deepawli day, but it is impossible to launch an FIR even when Shahi Imam assaults a media-person. However, the nature of demands of their leaders have seldom addressed the 'real' issues within their community. That is another story.

So, Muslims are almost equal,if not more, partcipants in Indian democracy. The obsessed 'secular' media is hell-bent on giving Muslims a 'bechaara' tag. What they end up doing is giving more food to the jehadi mongers. This also does not imply that all is well within the Muslim community. There are socio-economic issues that need to be addressed on war front. No sane person can deny 'inclusive' growth of all sections of Indian Society. What is objectionable is potryal and premises on which the government wishes to operate.

The Love for Dictatorships

2006-12-06T03:50:00.000-08:00

The communist's undying love for dictatorships is hard to explain.
From amongst the trinity of Stalin-Mao-Castro only Castro is the surviving torch-bearer of the Communist flame. So it was the most important duty of Prakash karat to grace the occasion of Castro's 80th birth anniversary celebrations. It is not only a celebration but a declaration of the "defeat of Imperialism" by people. After all the Aim of their Constitution is - "socialism and communism through the establishment of the state of dictatorship of the proletariat."
However, the love cannot be taken for granted. A "hitler" is unacceptable "imperialist" (of course after Hitler-Stalin pact was broken !!). So the affinity is between communists(especially of india) and communist dictators and not communists and dictators.Of late, however, Islamic dictators are also in demand.
Puzzling it may seem but interestingly this is the case.Also, any Hindutva ideology leader is an automatic neo-fascists. Because they are not dictators, and they win genuine elections, they thus become their objects of hatred. It is difficult to appreciate democratic wins if the indoctrination suggests "Eulogy of dictators".Genuine elections where hindutva leaders win are actually by the "complicity of the ruling classes and the political leadership of the mainstream bourgeois political parties".
Dictators are dictators, but islamic dictators are adorable dictators. This is a 24 "Karat" truth. They along with their favourite passtime of admiring dictators also give some tangible votes and a "Secular" certificate. ‘Anti-imperialist hero’ Saddam is Left campaign icon in Kerala - Read Indian Express, Dec 1. By using Saddam as a means to woo Muslim voters they have insulted Indian Muslims and have made a mockery of Indian Democracy. Love for Iran falls in the same category. Communist China can vote against Iran but a non-communist India should restrain. I hope you are not looking for logic. I have no surprises why they supported India's partition based on one article written by Stalin in 1912, that Hindus and Muslims are two countries.
The most recent beneficiary of their Eulogy is President Musharraf. In the recent issue of frontline - A G Noorani(knows more about Marx than Marx himself) has with his divine eyes seen through the "lies" of BJP(Hindutva remember) and "sincerity" of Musharraf(Islamic Dictator). Kargil is dismissed as an aberration. He says - "It is to General Pervez Musharraf's credit that he imparted to Pakistan's Kashmir policy a dose of stark realism." For a democratically elected Vajpayee he has other words - "When he was Prime Minister, Vajpayee promised, with characteristic flamboyance and insincerity, on New Year's Day 2001 in his Kumarakom Musings, that he would "seek a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem"."Notice the word "insincerity". Democratically elected leaders, even in case of Pakistan, are refused to be given a chance to call themselves leaders. He says - "His successor Benazir Bhutto was no leader. Nor was Nawaz Sharif". Of Course they did not represent a totalitarian regime and hence they are an object of contempt.
I don't intend to go into their stand on Kashmir Policy. That will open another Pandora's Box. But what seems inexplicable to me and definately noticeable to many is their love for the philosophy that it shouldn't take more than one person to decide for the welfare of people at large. With the condition that, that one person should either be a communist or an Islamic Dictator.

From Mitrokhin Archives II (Final)

2006-11-29T03:08:00.000-08:00

If you want to know seriously Mitrokhin Archives need to be taken, you must read Swapan Dasgupta's "What sets Mitrokhin archive apart" (The pioneer, 25/09/2005). He says - "Speaking in the Commons on October 21, 1999, Home Secretary Jack Straw announced that "Thousands of leads from Mr Mitrokhin's material have been followed up world-wide. As a result our Intelligence services, in co-operation with Allied Governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats... Our Intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr Mitrokhin's material world-wide as immense."

It is but obvious that the two parties that are unhappy with Mitrokhin are Congress and the left and hence they tried to underplay its significance. Mitrokhin rightly observes KGB's relationship with India as 'special' because according to them even pakistan was a tougher nut to crack.He says - " KGB also found authoritarian military regimes which governed Pakistan for most of the cold war more difficult to penetrate than India's ruling Congress Party".

Mitrokhin quotes Oleg Kalugin who became head of FCD Directorate K (Counter Intelligence) in 1973. He says that Oleg Kalugin remebers India as 'a model of KGB infiltration of a third world government': "We had scores of sources throughout the Indian Government - in intelligence, counter-intelligence, the Defence and Foreign Ministries, and the Police". Mitrokhin continues "Kalugin recalls one occassion which andropov personally turned down an offer from an Indian Minister to provide information return for $50,000 on the grounds that KGB was already well supplied with material from the Indian Foreign and Defence Ministries:It seemed like the entire country was for sale....". What else is needed to put down our heads in shame !

The Archives go on to describe how major events were either influenced by KGB or dictated by them. The fabled 'Foreign Hand' of Mrs Gandhi was exploited to the fullest by them. They made her believe that 'all' were against her and that CIA was behind 'all'.

Here, however, a passing reference has been made to Indian press. I think it is not that insignificant for us as it was for the purpose of the archive. Press and Media shape public opinion. To influence public opinion the best tool is to get hold of the propaganda tool. According to Mitrokhin - " According to KGB files,by 1973 it had ten Indian Newspapers on its payroll(which cannot be identified for legal reasons) as well as a press agency under its 'control'. During 1972 the KGB claimed to have planted 3,789 articles in Indian newspapers - probably more than in any other country in the non-communist world. According to its files, the number fell to 2760 in 1973 but rose to 4,486 in 1974 and 5,510 in 1975. In some major NATO countries, despite active measures campaigns, the KGB was able to plant little more than 1 per cent of the articles placed in the Indian Press." No wonder than that the press also underplayed the Archives. Thanks to the legacy the Englosh speaking media , even today, is still grappling to produce something which is not totally nonsense. The press largely remains a leftist and a pseudo-liberal mouthpiece.

But amidst the saga of great Indian sell-off I find some solace in post Emergency results. It showed the power of democracy in India and much more the dominance of Indian electorate over the fate of India. India ,it was conclusively proved, was not Indira as the KGB had thought. People of India will ultimately reign supreme. Whatever happens the holy land will find its way forward. Mitrokhin bears testimony to the shock and embrassement both Indian and KGB establishment had got when the results of 1977 general election were out. He says much to my delight - "The complexities of Indian Politics could not provide a credible explanation for the failure by the KGB(and other observers) to comprehend the collapse of support for Mrs Gandhi in the entire Hindi belt, the traditional congress stronghold, where it won only two seats, and its reduction to a regional party of South India, where it remained in control."
What made governments bend ultimately acknowledges its failure to the People of India !

From Mitrokhin Archives I

2006-11-26T08:16:00.001-08:00

Mitrokhin is a former KGB officer. What I have tried to do here is bring in small pieces of information in his book called "The Mitrokhin Archive II : The KGB and the world". This is the first part of the series.

The whole book is centered around the extent of KGB penetration in various countries in the infamous Cold war days. However, the case of India is what concerns us ditrectly and what should concern us more is that they not only bought people, made them work for them but also twisted India's Political, Economic and defence policies and dictated the functioning of some of the political parties. After all, if you take money you also need to work for them. The principle is simple. It must not, however, cross our minds that what KGB did was unethical. What did we do is the big question.

Nehrus awe for the Soviets knew no ends and this is no secret for us. "The temples of Modern India" were definately inspired from the Russian Mircle. That he was one of the most sincere disciples of Mahatma puzzles me because seldom have I found any similarity in the two, except of course their love for India. Russia had no regards for the our Mahatma and Mitrokhin does not conceal it. He writes - " The Great Soviet Encyclopedia dismissed Mohandas 'Mahatma' Gandhi, who led India to independence in 1947, as a 'reactionary.. who betrayed the people and helped the imperialists against them; aped the ascetics; pretended in a demagogic way to be a supporter of Indian independence and enemy of the British; and widely exploited religious prejudice."

But Nehru was not responsible for what Stalin thought and hence he is perfectly entitled to appreciate Russian method of doing (read killing) business. But this I think should build a premise for what is to come. The awe which made him go close was also responsible for a complete sell-off of our establishment to KGB.

The redoubtable Communist Party of India (CPI) had already established links with Soviets before any kind of awe could have struck anyone. To quote Mitrokhin - "During the early years of Indian Independence, secret correspondence from Moscow to the Communist Party of India(CPI) was frequestly intercepted by the intelligence branch". This does not come to me as a surprise because Russia has been a "Fatherland" to them. (Although "Motherland" depiction of Bankim Chandra is communal). Such was their affinity towards the Kremlin that they sided with the British in Quit India Movement, once there was a Russian-British alliance in World War II. One needs to go through only todays newspaper and who can question "The Hindu" to pe completely confused as to why there should not be a resolution on declaring Arunachal Pradesh an Integral part of India.

Mitrokhin continues, "KGB operation in India expanded in 1950s and 1960s, centre seem to have the extent of IB's previous penetration of the CPI. According to the KGB report, an investigation into Promode Das Gupta, who became the secretary of Bengal Communist Party in 1959, concluded that he had been recruited by the IB in 1947."
What strikes me is the word "recruited" and what does not surprise me is the complete denial of facts by the Communist party as soon as this book was published. As far as I remember they said that Mitrokhin has not mentioned CPIs name. A classic "lie and run" case, with a confidence that "people don't read". Mitrokhin then goes on in the book quoting numerous other incidents of "financial" help offered by the Fatherland to the communists."Soviet news agency Novosti provided further subsidies by routinely paying the CPI publishing house at the rate 50 per cent above its normal charges"

The influence of KGB was not limited to communists and it was not only Nehru who was awed by the Russian Miracle. Krishna Menon, who became the defence minister of India in 1957 had a powerful backing of the KGB. Menon obliged the Russians with the purchase of Mig-21s against the British Lightnings, which was obviously inferior product of a capitalist state. His ambitions came to an abrupt end as he was the scapegoat of Chinese Invasion in 1962. After nehru and Menon, KGB was looking for their successors who would be as loyal to the Soviet Bloc. They were particularly against the "hindu traditionalist" Morarji Desai.

Mitrokhin describes the brief period of confusion in the post-Nehru era."Moscow's strategy during 1966 for the Indian elections in the following year was based on encouraging the CPI and the break away Communist Party of India,Marxist(CPM) to join together in a left-wing alliance to oppose Mrs Gandhi and the Congress Government". If this is not objectionable then continue - " As well as subsidizing the CPI and some other left wing groups during the 1967 election campaign, the KGB also funded the campaigns of several agents and confidential contacts within Congress". CPI, Marxist or otherwise we already know, but the revelation is that Soviet funds were also used by the "agents" within congress. But then the "syndicate" needed to be countered. Mitrokhin says "Encouraged by Moscow CPI swung its support behind the congress". Why did all this coincide with the removal of Morarji Desai (same hindu traditionalist) and nationalization of Banks is anybodys guess.

(To be Continued)