Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Sonia Gandhi Fact-file

by Rajinder Puri


Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has been criticized by several people on account of her foreign origin. She lived in Cambridge, England, where she met Rajiv Gandhi. She eventually married into India�s most famous family. After marriage she successfully assimilated into an Indian lifestyle. Since entering politics her conduct has been dignified and gracious.

Her entry into politics was preceded by tragic incidents. Her husband had no idea of entering politics. But the plane crash that killed his younger brother, Sanjay Gandhi, compelled Rajiv to take his place. Sanjay�s death remains a mystery. It is mandatory for the government to institute a commission of inquiry into all airplane crashes. Justice ML Jain was appointed as a one-man Commission to probe the plane crash that killed Sanjay. But for inexplicable reasons in violation of mandatory law that inquiry was stopped. The cause of the plane crash remains a mystery.

After Rajiv became general secretary of the Congress to help his mother, Indira Gandhi was shot dead. Her death too was never satisfactorily explained. The Justice Thakkar Commission appointed to inquire into her death ruled that an inquiry commission into the conspiracy angle should be appointed because �the needle of suspicion pointed� at Mr RK Dhawan who had been Indira Gandhi�s personal secretary. The police arrested one Kehar Singh, a family friend of one of the assassins, Beant Singh. Without any credible evidence it charged him with conspiracy to kill Indira Gandhi. Kehar Singh was hanged. The evidence was so farcical that the Supreme Court itself reminded the President that he had the power to commute the death sentence. Later, Justice Thakkar became chairman of the Law Commission. Mr RK Dhawan was rehabilitated by Rajiv Gandhi. He rose to become a minister.

Subsequently Rajiv Gandhi was also shot. His assassination too raised several unexplained questions. Connections of several prominent Congress leaders to the suicide bomber who took Rajiv�s life were never satisfactorily explained. After Rajiv�s death, as Congress fortunes began to flounder without a dynastic leader in command, Mrs. Gandhi became the Congress president. The tragedy of three unnatural deaths in her family that propelled her entry into politics can only evoke deep sympathy for her. In light of this, criticism of her foreign origin sounds uncommonly churlish and uncouth.

However, Mrs. Gandhi now is no longer the daughter-in-law or wife of a prime minister. She is the Congress President in her own right. She must address certain issues which she has appeared to overlook up till now. These relate to circumstantial evidence pointing to corruption by her party.

It would be incorrect to infer that Mrs. Gandhi�s inexperience in business enables some colleagues to misuse the Congress name for committing corruption. Mrs. Gandhi has old links with business. On 26 February 1973 she was appointed as Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Ltd. Sanjay Gandhi was the only other Director. For five years she drew a salary of Rs 2,000 per month plus commission and perks. By the time she resigned on 21 January, 1975 she had earned over Rs 80 thousand. However, Income Tax authorities disallowed part of the remuneration �as excessive because she had no qualification to be able to render any technical service to the company".

Incidentally, since January 1, 1974 the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) forbade any foreign national � which she was at that time � from holding either shares or office of profit. Along with her husband Rajiv, and Sanjay Gandhi, she also held controlling shares in Maruti Heavy Vehicles. As chairperson of several trusts which received government aid Mrs. Sonia Gandhi used clout with dexterity. According to The Statesman of 3 September 1995 she acquired through the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation a building worth Rs 100 crores.

Mrs. Gandhi was not personally connected to the infamous Bofors deal negotiated by Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister. However, one of the accused, Mr Ottavio Quattrocchi, recently stated with pride that he was her close family friend. Earlier the London bank accounts of Mr Quattrocchi which were frozen by the Indian government had been unfrozen. Mr Quattrocchi was free to withdraw his money. The CBI stated that it had no evidence involving Mr Quattrocchi in the Bofors deal. Some time ago the Director of the CBI had visited USA and the Bahamas in search of evidence against Mr Quattrocchi. He found none. The matter should have been allowed to rest there.

Unfortunately public skepticism remains unabated. As governments and CBI directors change, so does the CBI script on Bofors. Today the UPA government is in power. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is chairperson of the National Advisory Council that guides the government. Mr Quattrocchi against whom the CBI finds no evidence today was nailed in no uncertain terms by CBI in April 1998. Mr Quattrocchi had petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking an end to the CBI investigation against him. The CBI responded with a 30-page counter-affidavit. It gave a detailed account of Mr Quattrocchi�s role as the owner of AE Services in making payoffs and using political influence to swing the award in favor of Bofors. The late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was also unequivocally indicted by CBI for engineering the corrupt deal. Most of the material had appeared earlier in the media. But for the first time CBI gave official confirmation of the involvement of Rajiv Gandhi and his confidants, including Mr Quattrocchi, in the Bofors payoffs. Mr Quattrocchi�s proud assertion about his closeness to the Gandhi family was turned against him in the CBI counter-affidavit. It recorded: �The families of the then Prime Minister of India and Mr. Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms.�

Because of that "the process of negotiations suddenly picked up."

The question arises: was CBI lying then or is it lying now? This had best be resolved by CBI officials themselves.

The Congress party role in the Volcker affair is being investigated. Both former Foreign Minister Mr Natwar Singh and the Congress party were named as beneficiaries in Iraq�s Oil-For-Food programme. Pending investigation Mr Natwar Singh has resigned. But who was responsible for money being paid to Congress? As Congress President, should not Mrs. Sonia Gandhi institute a party probe into the affair? How did President Saddam�s government conclude it was benefiting the Congress party? Important functionaries of that government are accessible in Iraq. Has Mrs. Gandhi contacted them? After conferring a favor to the Congress party did anyone from the Iraqi government or its embassy get in touch with Mrs. Gandhi? If not, the Iraqi ambassador was inexplicably derelict in duty. Mr Natwar Singh carried a letter from Mrs. Gandhi to President Saddam. Should not the contents of that letter be made public?

Now a new scandal has erupted. It involves the Congress in the Rs 16000 crores French Scorpene submarine deal. According to media allegations the deal was opposed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), Finance Minister Chidambaram, and the Prime Minister. Nevertheless it was signed. Mr. Abhishek Verma has been named as the middleman who collected the payoff. He is the son of the late Congress MP Shrikant Verma who also was the Hindi tutor of Rajiv Gandhi. According to Outlook weekly during negotiation with Mr. Verma the submarine company official wanted confirmation of the 4% payoff demand from the Congress party treasurer. The weekly reported Mr Verma writing: �I hope Thales (the submarine company) doesn�t think the Congress has a shop and they are negotiating with them. ALL negotiations would be done by ME.�

A Thales company spokesman claimed these email messages to be forgeries and threatened legal action. But reservations about the deal by CVC, FM and PM remain. Should not Mrs. Sonia Gandhi question Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee about why the deal was signed? And also question Mr Abhishek Verma?

As Congress President Mrs. Gandhi has constructive responsibility for all actions of the party. Should she not act to clear the air? And safeguard her own reputation?

China’s Newest Puppet Nation

by Rajinder Puri

Former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra has stated that information inputs from China suggest that its analysts envisage a two front attack against India by China and Pakistan within the next four to five years. Mishra urged the Prime Minister to focus not only on a 9 per cent growth rate but devote equal attention to security threats from China. Mishra could be mistaken. The government seems to have taken care of any security threat from China. It has consciously made India into a proxy of China, willing to act according to Beijing’s bidding. If New Delhi is becoming Beijing’s puppet, why should China attack India?

The Copenhagen summit clinched India’s new role as China’s proxy. Even before the summit Jairam Ramesh scampered to China to cozy up to Beijing in order to forge a joint front for climate change. What was the need to do that?

After the summit Ramesh said that differences between the developed nations led by America and the developing nations arose mainly because of the “deficit trust” that the West had with China. He claimed that no such deficit trust existed with India. He was entirely correct. India’s pollution level is many, many notches lower than China ’s. India has no real problem with international verification except of unequal and non-reciprocal arrangements that might infringe on its sovereignty. Then why on earth did India latch itself to China’s coat tails?

At Copenhagen Premier Wen Jiabao urged India to stand firm with China for a united stand against western pressure. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave assurance he would. Why? India could easily have held firm to its own position with greater acceptance by both the West and the G77 nations without incurring the displeasure caused by the opaque, non-transparent and polluting role of China. Perhaps the government was disarmed by some private assurances given by China? That seems to be the case judging from the euphoria that gripped official and media circles by Premier Wen’s assurance given just before the Copenhagen summit that China will not interfere in South Asia or in the internal affairs of India. But China has always claimed that it never interferes in the affairs of South Asia or of India. After Wen’s assurance will China stop issuing paper visas to Kashmiris from the Valley? Will China stop bullying road builders on our territory in Laddakh and force them to stop work? Will China stop encroaching at several points along the border? Will China stop arming and strengthening Pakistan against India?

Apparently not. After Copenhagen summit a Chinese Defense official justified Beijing’s sale of warships and submarines to Pakistan on the ground that India was receiving similar systems from the US and Russia. On the face of it this is unexceptionable. Why should China not have the right to arm Pakistan to ensure that it can maintain an adversarial role against India? Is this interference in South Asia? Technically, no. Actually, it confirms the hyphenation of India and Pakistan by Beijing. It confirms China’s role in beefing up Pakistan’s intransigent attitude against India. Therefore without “interfering” China is helping maintain the status quo in South Asia as India remains encircled by hostile nations aided by China. One cannot blame China for pursuing a policy that it perceives to be in its interest.

But what about India? Does it have the faintest perception of the policy that would suit its interests? That does not seem to be the case. Possibly India is emboldened to pursue its demeaning, self-destructive role because of approval by its mentors in the US. These mentors are the ones that cheer on India to achieve a 9 per cent growth rate without any attention to its national security and self-respect. These mentors are the dominant group of America’s corporate world which destroyed America’s pre-eminent global economic position, which compromised America’s security, which helped launch unjust wars in Asia, which are attracting public criticism from US citizens who are beginning to even question the system, and which made America more unpopular in the rest of the world than ever before. These mentors belong to what this scribe has always described as the real Axis of Evil comprising America’s corporate world and China.

Will the government ever de-link itself from this evil axis and from the coat tails of China? Fat chance! Beijing has invited Foreign Minister SM Krishna to China in the first week of April 2010. The Ministry of External Affairs has gratefully accepted the invitation. China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said that Copenhagen marked a “new beginning” in the bilateral relations between China and India. How right he was. Now India, like Pakistan, is part of China’s camp. China will now be much better placed to bring about accord between its two squabbling proxy nations of South Asia, India and Pakistan. Unless of course this servile government miraculously develops a spine

Monday, December 28, 2009

Kashmir wives hand men freedom, to beat

MUZAFFAR RAINA

Srinagar, Dec. 27: Kashmiri men might grumble about their diminished civil liberties, but they are more “free” than most other countrymen when it comes to beating their wives.

An exceedingly high 64 per cent of women in Jammu and Kashmir believe it is justified for a husband to beat his wife, according to a study conducted by the National Family Health Survey. The figure is 10 percentage points higher than the national average of 54 per cent.

The countrywide findings of the survey were released in 2007, but the Union ministry of health and family welfare, which is behind the research, followed it up with state-specific results. The findings for Jammu and Kashmir were released this year.

The survey reveals that 51 per cent of Kashmir’s women say wife beating is justified if she shows disrespect to in-laws; 50 per cent approve of it if the wife neglects the house or children and 48 per cent have no problem with domestic violence in case the husband suspects the wife’s character.

Sociologists say women’s acceptance of wife beating in India is associated with socio-economic characteristics, such as low literacy, an indication of her acceptance of “lower status” vis-à-vis her spouse and the perceived notion that husbands are the master of the households.

Educationist AG Madhosh said several factors may have contributed to the findings. “You can only generalise in the absence of any knowledge about the sample chosen by the researchers. The most important factor could be insecurity among Muslim women in Kashmir, which is probably higher. In the West you have a concept of career girls who can live as singles, but even a highly professional girl has no option but to marry in a society like ours,” said Madhosh.

“Illiteracy and poverty too are factors and equally important is the cultural conditioning of our women who think wife beating could be a corrective measure. There may be some success stories and they draw lessons from that,” he added.

Jammu and Kashmir had a literacy of 55.5 per cent according to the 2001 census, with men leading with 66 per cent and women following with 42 per cent. The national rate in the census year was 65.38 per cent — 75 per cent among men and 54 per cent among women.

The overall literacy has jumped to 65.67 per cent in 2009 with female literacy rate at 57 per cent, as per a survey of the state government’s economic and statistics department.

The family health survey had taken a sample size of 2,415 households across Jammu and Kashmir. A total of 3,281 women in the age group of 15 to 49 years and 1,076 men in the age group of 15-54 were interviewed for the study.

The report has thrown up some startling facts on domestic violence, women’s empowerment and gender role attitudes. Men in Jammu and Kashmir, says the report, are more likely than women to agree with wife beating.

“Two thirds of men justify wife beating in some circumstances. About half of them say that a husband is justified in beating his wife if she disrespects her in-laws and if he suspects she is unfaithful,” says the study.

Fifty one per cent men justify wife beating at the national level.

At the same time though, more men (71 per cent) than women (54 per cent) believe a woman is justified in refusing to have sex with her husband if she knows that he has sexually transmitted diseases, if he has had intercourse with other women or if she is tired or not in a proper mood.

Kashmir can draw solace in that the percentage of men actually beating women is among the lowest in the country.

Just 13 per cent of women have experienced physical or sexual violence, including 15 per cent of those married.

The only state where spousal violence is lower than Jammu and Kashmir is Himachal Pradesh at eight per cent. The countrywide figures of spousal violence is a staggering 37 per cent.

beware of the love jihad terror!

By Dr Purushothama Bharathi, MA, Ph.D

The large number of ‘Love Jihad’ cases in the High Court of Kerala filed by broken girls and their families forced the Court to look into the matter very deeply and Justice KT Sankaran observed that even though the DGP reported that there was no evidence of love jihad, confidential reports of other senior Police officers are very clearly establishing the organised and well funded love jihad operations thriving in high schools and colleges of Muslim managements.

During the last one and a half years, the society of Kerala was noticing a new phenomenon that a large number of poor Hindu teen aged girls were falling in love with Muslim youths and getting converted to Islam. The girls who married Muslims and refused conversion were tortured and thrown out after sexual exploitations by the respective Muslims. Initially it was considered the consequences of blind love. But later it was observed that all Muslim boys in love with Hindu girls were having two mobile phones, one of which was given to the girl with a valid sim card. Muslim boys from poor family background were found to be spending money on their Hindu girlfriends and taking them around on the pillion of the bikes of other Muslim boys. At times, it was noticed that when a girl was taken to the house of a Muslim boy in an autorickshaw, the girl was forced to change her dress to a purdah inside the autorickshaw. Activists of the banned SIMI, Campus Front, Popular Front (all are Muslim outfits) are in the forefront to defend and protect the love affairs of the Muslim boys.

In the meanwhile, few girls who managed to run back home and those thrown out in the streets by the Muslim lovers, filed cases against forced conversion and alimony. The number of cases increased and reports frequently appeared in the newspapers. Then various Hindu communal organisations like Nair Service Society, Ezhava outfits shouted that more than 4,000 Hindu girls were taken away through the love jihad operations of devilish Muslims.

Syrian Christian Bishops issued circulars and were read in churches, to fight against love jihad and warned parents about the dangers hidden in the fake love of Muslims.

As soon as the reports about the love jihad appeared in the Media, all Muslim organisations in the State viz; various factions of Muslim League, Muslim Student Organisations, Muslim Human Rights Organisations - both allied with Congress Front and Marxist Front reacted unitedly that there is no such organised move. But it is well known now that poor Muslim boys were given mobile phones, two-wheelers, pocket money for entertaining the Hindu girls are well organised and properly funded.

The High Court of Kerala called for the remarks of Kerala Government and the DGP of Kerala gave a report that ‘The Police is unaware of an organised Love Jihad Movement’. The present Director General of Police (DGP) of Kerala, Shri Jacob Punnose is a follower of Marxist party and he got that official position by overlooking the seniority of a worthy officer. The Marxists are in alliance with Shri Abdul Nasser Madani, the notorious criminal of Coimbatore bomb blast case and who brought up Tadiyanta Vida Nazir, the South Indian commander of Lashkar-e-Toiba, arrested in Bangladesh and handed over to India.

The large number of love jihad cases in the High Court of Kerala filed by broken girls and their families forced the Court to look into the matter very deeply and Justice KT Sankaran observed that ‘Even though the DGP reported that there was no evidence of love jihad, confidential reports of other senior Police officers are very clearly establishing the organised and well funded love jihad operations thriving in high schools and colleges of Muslim managements. This move is vivid in Kasargod, Kannur, Kozhikode and Malappuram districts - all these districts have a high percentage of Muslim population in Kerala. Smart Front is a Muslim organisation working in the Muslim educational institutions to promote love affairs with Hindu girls. The High Court observed that the Smart Front is focusing on forward caste Hindu girls and forward Christian girls especially those studying in professional colleges and working in the IT sector. Muslim Youth Forums, Popular Front, NDF, Campus Front and Muslim Women Organisations like Tashreen Millat and Shaheen Force are also active in love jihad, court observed.

High Court also hinted that the above organisations are funded by the local Muslim businessmen and Muslim countries abroad. High Court said that inter caste marriages are not bad; but if conversion to Islam is a must then it is clear that Islam is more valuable than love. It is totally bad. Finally the High Court of Kerala directed the State Government saying that it is well established that an organised and strongly funded love jihad movement is working in the State; hence the Kerala Government must enact laws to prevent forced conversions. The comments of the Court appeared in the print media on December 10, 2009. On the same day, there was a hunger protest by Shri PK Krishnadas, State President of BJP in front of Government Secratariat to protest against the increased price rise of essential food items and vegetables. All members of the Pandit Colony RSS Sakha (Kesav Nagar), participated in the dharna. The swayamsevaks requested Shri CK Padmanabhan (Member of National Executive BJP) who came to inaugurate the dharna to organise a ‘Vehicle Jatha’ from the northern tip of Kerala to the southern end to awaken the consciousness of society about the wicked love jihad (Romeo Jihad) and to warn the parents about the treason deep rooted in this.

RSS national leadership should give adequate attention to these treacherous ‘Love Jihad Operations’.

Rangnath Misra Report

Reacting strongly on Justice Rangnath Misra Committee report that proposed 10 per cent reservation to Muslims and 5 per cent to other minority communities, VHP general secretary Dr Pravin Togadia described it ‘anti constitution and nation-destructing jehadi conspiracy by those who refuse to control population quoting Islam. He said the Hindu Scheduled Castes and others who accept the national family planning scheme are being cheated through this report.

Dr Togadia warned if this anti-constitutional, anti-national and anti-Hindu move for Muslim and Christian votes, is accepted by the government or any effort of constitutional amendment is made for this, there would be a nationwide agitation by the VHP.

He also criticised the suggestion of providing reservation to Muslims and Christians who were earlier Scheduled Castes and then adopted Christianity or Islam. "Islam and Christianity do worldwide publicity-stunts criticising the Hinduism for casteism. They brag that they don’t have caste system. But now they are stealing from the pockets of Hindu SCs, OBCs and Vanvasis. This will not only promote conversions but will also leave Hindu SCs, OBCs and Vanvasis without jobs, education, loans etc. We follow the family planning for national interest, but the Muslims and Christians don’t follow it. All Hindu SCs, OBCs and Vanvasis should stand up against this government sponsored decoity and jehad. If the government passes this bill then surely Hindu SCs, OBCs and Vanvasis including their children will have no option but to die without food, job, medical treatment and housing. Those who do not follow national growth norms of development like population control have no right on Bharats’ resources," he said in a statement issued from Ahmedabad.

He said that after considered discussion in Constitutional Assembly religious reservation was rejected. Even minority members had agreed that there should not be reservation based on religion because religious reservation would ultimately end up in Partition of the country. Mohd Ali Jinnah initially demanded different types of reservation based on religion for Muslims, but now the Rangnath Misra and the Congress have become modern Jinnah to Divide India for selfish Muslim vote bank, Dr Togadia added.

Friday, December 25, 2009

state of Bengal

http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288:destiny-of-west-bengal-hindus-the-coming-days-of-slavery-to-islam&catid=73:brahmachari&Itemid=58

A forgotten chapter of ancient India

Aryan tribes and Dramila societies coexisted and interacted for mutual benefit
By MR Mallya

As Tamil developed, combined with the Indo-Aryan it produced a literary tradition in Maharashtrian Prakrit of which the Sattasai is the most famous example. This southern literature was so rich that its ideas and conventions were probably taken by such great Sanskrit poets as Kalidasa and made into an integral part of the new Sanskrit tradition.

Ancient India has often been pictured as Dravidians occupying the Indus civilisation, while the Aryans were supposed to have come later, displacing them southwards. The history of North India was given prominence, with the Rig Veda, Mahabharata, the Buddha, Alexander and the Mauryan empire.

There was some reference to Cankam literature in the far South (Pandya) but none was sure of the ancient dates. Tamil land i.e. South India was rarely mentioned in the history textbooks until the Pallavas and the Kadambas formed their kingdoms. The Mahabharata refers to Pandya kings. So also Ashoka’s inscriptions refer to Chera, Pandya and Cholas as border kingdoms that must have existed about 300 BC.

The South with Dravidian culture was interacting with the North even from early times of the Rig Veda and Panini. It produced the old Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam. Some Dravidian loanwords figure in Rig Vedic time, that must have happened as early as 1500BC. This early interaction is hardly touched upon by historians in the north who do not known old Tamil. But scholars who known Tamil and Sanskrit mention valuable data for writing our ancient history, enriching both civilisations.

Unfortunately these studies have been isolated as literary studies to be compared with Sanskrit, Prakrit, etc. One ought to regard it as part of ancient history in its sociopolitical narration, as now suggested.

An interesting book Passages: Relationships between Tamil and Sanskrit edited by Kannan M and Jennifer Claire, Pondicherry, that outlines the profound and intimate relationship of Sanskrit and Tamil from very early times till the age of the Cholas, has been published by the ‘Institute Francais de Pondicherry’ in collaboration with the Dept. of Tamil Chair, South East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, the USA 2009. It contains valuable articles by scholars in the field Indian or foreign.

It will be rather narrow to regard it as merely dealing with the interaction of two languages, instead of a fruitful interaction of two civilisations from the time of the Vedas to the present.

We have been unfortunately brought up on the notion of Aryan conquerors versus Dravidian civilisation and even to this day there is an academic debate whether the Indus script is Dravidian or Aryan. If the two communities coexisted and interacted with each other and they were slowly evolving scripts like Tamil Brahmi and Prakrit/ Sanskrit Brahmi in different areas of the vast Indus Saraswati civilisation, there should be no difficulty in understanding the variation in scripts that adds to the richness of ancient Bharat. This is the unconscious message that the various articles in the book give the reader. That it is emanating from Tamil scholars who often know Sanskrit, confirms it.

In the above book the articles including the foreword and introduction by the Editors and essays of I Mahadevan, George Hart, Leslie Orr, etc. convinces us of the coexistence and interaction of the two cultures from an early era. I have attempted to summarise the salient features of their remarks as aiding in a proper reconstruction of ancient Indian history.

(One need not get entangled in certain claims from both sides of having contributed considerably to the other culture. We can leave it to literary pundits and concentrate on the essentials of Tamil Sanskrit interaction and History)

Early stage of Tamilakam
Mahadevan: The earliest contact between Dravidian Indo-Aryan is evidenced by a few Dravidian loanwords in the Rig Veda. (1500 BC).

Correspondingly, Indo-Aryan loanwords form Prakrit and Sanskrit occur in Tamil Cankam literature (200 BC-200 AD).

Recently large number of coins, seals and rings have been unearthed at river beds of Amaravati near Karur, and South Pennar and Vaigai. The legends are mostly in Tamil and some are in Prakrit. They pertain to 3/2nd century BC and later. At that time the Tamil script was modified from the Brahmi to suit the phonetic pattern of Tamil.

Jean Filliozat: Tamil of course is an ancient language, parallel to Sanskrit from whom loanwords have been borrowed now and then, as also from Prakrit but its literature was autonomous. That does not mean absence of fruitful contacts with Prakrit, and Sanskrit.

The Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam does indicate some knowledge of Vedic Pratisakhyas and of the Nirukta. These were utilised with a fine feeling of the genius of the Tamil language different from Sanskrit.

Another parallel adoption was an ideal akin to Dharma of Ashoka. It was the general and universal good order typified in Buddhist forms, but also in Brahmanical ideas of cosmic, social and ethical norms like Rta. This was the composite creed of Ashoka.

Parallel to it was the Tirukkural, an admirable book on the practice of virtue, where Aram is mentioned without any sectarian bias, an ideal of good order of universal interest.

Tamil had developed autonomously, with its own poetry. But on other matters of knowledge books in Sanskrit were of use in the South.

George L Hart: In a large measure, the history of South Asia is the story of the interaction of the Dravidian and Aryan languages and their cultures, from as early as the Rig Veda. Though Tamil was autonomous and developed independently they borrowed from each other and it is impossible to determine which the source is.

By the time of Cankam literature around the first century, the Indio Aryan languages had started to impinge on the Southern Dravidian languages.

In certain areas Tamil folk literature was enriched by sophisticated musical and performative elements that has been later refined as Carnatic music, Bharatnatayam, etc.

As Tamil developed, combined with the Indo-Aryan it produced a literary tradition in Maharashtrian Prakrit of which the Sattasai is the most famous example. This southern literature was so rich that its ideas and conventions were probably taken by such great Sanskrit poets as Kalidasa and made into an integral part of the new Sanskrit tradition.

The Sanskrit, Tamil and North Indian tradition made deep inroads to produce the great poems of Alwars and Nayanaars. This awakening of religion that flourished in the South was, exported back to the North were it produced many saints and poets who enriched modern Hinduism.

The situation in Chera (Kerala)
MR Raghava Varrier: In Chera the social impact was somewhat different though both were Dravidian. Sanskrit influenced Chera in a major way. When an early Chera king eulogised for having performed a yajna ritual for progeny, it means that his ideal changed into that of a chief of the Vedic time. As the custodians of the Vedic ritual forms that were taken seriously by the kings, the Brahmins became a principal group in the society.

In Chera the brahmanical agama temple worship became common and also the natysastra which slowly evolved to Kathakali.

Following the above changes, Manipravalam, a hybid literary style of Sanskrit and Malayalam made its appearance on the Kerala literary scene and marked a separate stage in the literary history of Malayalam. The use of Manipravalam was as a medium for traditional scientific knowledge of ancient India such as Rastratantra, (political science) Ayur Veda, (health science), Jyotirganita (astronomy), Vastuvidiya (architecture), etc.

In short, the cultural contact of the South with the North in general and Kerala in particular was wider than what is generally believed..

It is from the Grantha characters that the Malayalam alphabet developed.

We have made a brief survey of the sociopolitical happenings in the South of Ancient India before the Southern kingdoms came to be formed and when Brahmanical and Sanskrit influences became more prominent.

This early impact needs to be given importance in ancient Indian history as reflecting aspects of a composite culture from very early times, regardless of whether Aryans were indigenous or were migrants from outside India.

Union Minister of State E Ahmed’s anti-Hindu tirade

By S Chandrasekhar

Union Minister of State for Railways E Ahmed is the Muslim League MP from Ponnani, Kerala. Muslim League, which is a partner in Congress led UDF, has a history of communal bias. Muslim League ministers refuse to light lamps in official functions, despite the fact that, traditional Hindu oil lamp, is being lighted every day at the Cheraman Mosque, Kodungallur (the first mosque in India). Ahmed and former Minister PK Kunhalikutty were the kingpins of the “Marad Massacre’ of eight Hindu fishermen in May 2003. Ahmed forced the police to open the sealed Marad Mosque (where blood drenched murder weapons were hidden) and offered namaz.

Now after becoming Railways Minister of State, Ahmed continues his anti-Hindu agendas. He has given instructions to the Railways not to do Ganesha puja, havan, breaking of coconut, etc. before starting of new trains, inauguration of tracks, bridges, etc. He has banned lighting of traditional oil lamps during inaugurations. Garlanding of trains, annointing them with sandal paste, sindoor, etc. has been banned.

Railway stations have been discouraged against doing puja to electronic panels etc. during ‘Vijayadasami’ and ‘Durga puja’. He has also ordered closure of temples in Railway compounds and is planning their demolition.

This anti-Hindu move of the communal Muslim Leaguer E Ahmed has caused deep resentment and anger among the 25 lakh strong railway staff and Hindus at large.

While crores are being spent on ‘Haj’ even basic amenities are not being provided to the eight crore plus Sabarimala pilgrims, by the Indian Railways.

VHP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan has described this attitude as threat and challenge to Hinduism. He charged Ahmed of communalising a national asset like Railways. He called for immediate restoration of the withdrawn customs and traditions, failing which RSS and VHP will launch nationwide massive agitations.

What more can be expected from Ahmed whose close relative is a jehadi suspect in the Bengaluru blasts and who is hiding in Gulf, courtesy Ahmed and UPA!

Monday, December 14, 2009

British school makes Sanskrit compulsory

In the heart of London, a British school has made Sanskrit compulsory subject for its junior division because it helps students grasp math, science and other languages better.

"This is the most perfect and logical language in the world, the only one that is not named after the people who speak it. Indeed the word itself means ‘perfected language," said Warwick Jessup, Head, Sanskrit department.

"The Devnagri script and spoken Sanskrit are two of the best ways for a child to overcome stiffness of fingers and the tongue," says Moss. "Today’s European languages do not use many parts of the tongue and mouth while speaking or many finger movements while writing, whereas Sanskrit helps immensely to develop cerebral dexterity through its phonetics."

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Can Corrupt Politicians Preserve Freedom ?

by Rajinder Puri
August 15, 2006

Today independent India enters its sixtieth year. How free is it? The crisis involving Mr. Natwar Singh raises disquiet. Mr. Natwar Singh�s twists and turns as he defended himself invited ridicule. The role of the opposition parties was no better. The NDA had sought Mr. Natwar Singh�s arrest after the Oil for Food scandal surfaced. Later it supported him to attack the government. Some intriguing aspects of this crisis merit special attention.

The Pathak Report most conveniently dovetailed with the political objectives of the Congress. Mr. Natwar Singh �misused� his position but took no money. Therefore he deserved cabinet expulsion but no legal conviction. The Congress itself was exonerated. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi wrote a letter to President Saddam introducing Mr. Natwar Singh. At the same time Mr. Natwar Singh wrote letters introducing Mr. Andaleeb Sehgal. The Pathak Authority considered Mr. Natwar Singh a facilitator. Why not Mrs. Sonia Gandhi too? Mr. Natwar Singh told media he fully briefed Mrs. Gandhi after his Iraq visit. He said: �I have not done anything in Iraq without the knowledge of Sonia Gandhi....Not even a leaf moves in the Congress without Mrs. Gandhi�s knowledge.�

If this is true, whether or not she saw his three letters becomes irrelevant. The amount allegedly pocketed by Mr. Andaleeb Sehgal and Mr. Aditya Khanna is a small fraction of the money realized from the vouchers. Where did the rest go? If Congress was the beneficiary it would distance itself from Mr. Sehgal and Mr. Khanna. Mr. Natwar Singh�s letters left a trail. Was that what angered the Congress?

The key question is whether or not Mrs. Sonia Gandhi knew of the oil vouchers enterprise. Until all the money earned from the oil vouchers is traced a final conclusion would be hasty. Even though the Pathak Report exonerated Mr. Natwar Singh from taking money he could not spill the beans. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) leaked to media information about the money trail leading to Mr. Natwar Singh�s son, Jagat. The government therefore can arrest Mr. Jagat Singh at will. Was that why Mr. Natwar Singh first rubbished the PM and later apologized?

The conduct of the opposition parties was odd on two counts. Earlier they described the PM as Mrs. Sonia Gandhi�s pawn. Yet, along with Mr. Natwar Singh, their attack targeted Dr. Manmohan Singh instead of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Why? The PM is associated most with the Indo-US nuclear deal. Is that why he was targeted? The second odd aspect was that three former foreign ministers � Mr. Natwar Singh, Mr. Yashwant Sinha and Mr. Jaswant Singh � targeted the Indo-US nuclear deal with uncharacteristic vehemence. All three, while in office, pursued a nuclear policy that led up to the nuclear deal. The deviation from past nuclear policy pointed out by them amounts to nitpicking. It does not explain their somersaults.

The question arises: Does their conduct reflect political opportunism or something more sinister? Could they be vulnerable to external pressure? Targeting Dr. Manmohan Singh meant targeting the Indo-US nuclear deal. One example should suffice to indicate possibility of political vulnerability at the highest level. While media reports succeeded in exposing major scandals, a far more damaging allegation continues to be ignored. It is contained in the published writings of Dr. Yevgenia Albats.

Dr. Albats is a Soviet journalist who officially investigated the KGB when the communist regime was still in control. She was appointed as a member of the official KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in 1991. She had full access to secret files of the KGB. She authored a book, The State within a State: KGB and Its Hold on Russia. In 1989, she had received the Golden Pen Award, the highest journalism honor in the then-Soviet Union. She was a fellow of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University in 1993 and earned a graduate degree and doctorate from Harvard.

After translating official KGB documents Dr. Albats disclosed in her book that KGB chief Victor Chebrikov in December 1985 had sought in writing from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi." CPSU payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.�

In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for �Soviet ideological interest�. The Hindu of July 4, 1992 carried this report. Mr. AG Noorani included this information in an article published in The Statesman of January 31, 1998. In December 2001, Dr. Subrmaniam Swamy filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with relevant KGB photocopies and sought a CBI investigation. In May 2002 the Court ordered CBI to ascertain from Russia the truth of these charges. The CBI stalled for two years and eventually told the Court that without a registered FIR the Russians would not entertain any such query. But why was not an FIR registered? Dr Swamy�s failure to follow this up more vigorously is puzzling.

In November 1991 the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate, published a report alleging that Rajiv Gandhi had 2.5 billion Swiss francs, equivalent roughly to two billion US dollars, in numbered Swiss bank accounts. The Internet is swamped with allegations against Mrs. Sonia Gandhi detailing cities, foreign banks, account numbers and even names of persons allegedly handling her accounts. Such allegations would easily have been dismissible as scurrilous had there not been the Albats disclosure. Surely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi owes herself and the nation an emphatic and effective rebuttal of the Albats charges? On June 14, 2005 Mrs. Sonia Gandhi visited Russia on a personal invitation by President Putin. There was no need for any minister to accompany her. Yet Mrs. Gandhi sought and got foreign minister Natwar Singh to accompany her. One wonders if Mr. Natwar Singh can shed any light on that visit.

Given the inexplicable conduct of India�s politicians, the public would tend to believe that most are compromised and subject to dictation by one foreign power or another. In the light of this, on this Independence Day, thinking Indians should soberly ask themselves a simple question: Can the people of India be free if their rulers are not?

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

never knew all this..

http://ikashmir.net/atrocities/1.html

what Ram Jethmalani said

According to Sify.com and other Indian media outlets, Ram Jethmalani, the former Indian Union Law Minister and a self-confessed maverick legal hawk, ignited a controversy at an International Conference of Jurists on Terrorism in New Delhi, by inferring that Islam's jihadi doctrine may render Islamic God a "brothel keeper".

While addressing the conference, Jethmalani wondered whether the Islamic doctrine of jihad—as preached by the Saudi Wahabi sect of Islam, that Muslims attaining martyrdom while fighting non-Muslims will “get a place in heaven and the company of the opposite sex there”—amounts to inferring “god is a brothel keeper”.

Emphasizing the need to fight terrorism also at the ideological level, Jethmalani advised the Indian government and the international community against putting faith in God while fighting terrorism, adding: “He will not help as he is suffering with Alzheimer's disease.”

Jethlamani challenged the Indian government on its foreign policy, urging it to be courageous to shun any relationship with the country’s “enemies”. He particularly attacked India’s meaningless obsession with the “irrelevant non-aligned movement”, adding: “India should align with forces of good to combat the forces of evil. India and its foreign ministers must learn to reassess doctrines of the past.”

Inaugurated by President Pratibha Patil, the meeting is attended among others by current Union Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily, Singapore Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice Awn S. al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice, and envoys of several countries.

Offended by Jethmalani’s remarks, the Saudi Ambassador to India, Faisal al-Trad, walked out of the conference.

Law Minister Moily, embarrassed by Jethmalani’s remarks, was swift to distance the Indian government from his controversial remarks, adding that terrorism cannot be attributed to any particular religion.

The Saudi Ambassador returned to the meeting after Moily’s apologetic speech.

Justice al-Khasawneh contradicted certain facts on the doctrine of jihad, referred to by Jethmalani, and asked him not "to make sweeping statements".

Nonetheless, Jethmalani was also in a political correctness mode. He said, he read the Quran many times and found no preaching of hatred and violence in it. “I find that the Prophet is a man of peace”, he added.

He blamed the current outbreak of worldwide Jihadi terrorism on the 17th-century (sic) Wahabi doctrine, based on misinterpretation of one chapter of the Quran, in which Jethmalani found nothing wrong even after reading it a thousand times. “But, according to Wahab, all other people, including Christians, Jews and Hindus, and even Shias, have forfeited their rights to live”, Jethmalani added.

He felt that, unfortunately because of Wahab, the entire religion of Islam was being blamed for terrorism, adding that “there are also Hindu terrorists and Buddhist terrorists

Friday, November 27, 2009

Dubai debt crisis raises financial turmoil fears

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ

AP Business Writer


HONG KONG — The fallout from Dubai's debt crisis rippled across the globe Friday, raising concerns of another wave of financial turmoil and showing how vulnerable the world economy remains despite signs of recovery.

As global stock, commodity and currency markets went into a tailspin, the possible spillover effects from Dubai surfaced from London to South Korea, with banks big and small drawing concern for any losses they could suffer as a result of their exposure to the massively debt-laden emirate.

A year after the global slump derailed Dubai's explosive growth, the city-state's main investment arm, Dubai World, revealed this week it was asking for at least a six-month delay on paying back its $60 billion debt. Major credit agencies responded by slashing debt ratings on Dubai's state companies, saying they might consider the plan a default.

In recent years, Dubai has expanded with ambitious, eye-catching projects like the Gulf's palm-shaped islands and the world's tallest skyscraper in hopes of becoming a tourist friendly and cosmopolitan Middle Eastern metropolis. In the process, however, the state-backed networks nicknamed Dubai Inc. have racked up $80 billion in red ink, and the emirate may now need another bailout from its oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

Following a rout in Europe, Asia's stock markets tumbled Friday while the dollar hit a fresh 14-year low against the yen as investors piled into currencies perceived as safer. Crude oil at one point fell more than 6 percent.

With Dubai World hard pressed to pay its bills, banks could take the biggest hit, analysts said.

Heavyweight London-based lenders HSBC Holdings and Standard Chartered could face losses of $611 million and $177 million respectively, according to early estimates from analysts at Goldman Sachs. Both have substantial Middle East operations.

In Asia, Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, the country's No. 3 bank, could be exposed to Dubai World's indebted property arm to the tune of several hundred million dollars, according to a person familiar with the matter.

South Korea estimated the country's financial institutions have just $88 million exposure. Construction firms from Japan, Australia and South Korea behind Dubai's recent development boom also might be on the hook.

While most have the wherewithal to absorb any losses, Dubai's troubles could lead banks to reevaluate and scale back their lending.

That could make it more difficult for companies to borrow money and hold down a world economy still emerging from the throes of its deepest recession in decades, analysts said.

Equally unsettling for investors was the uncertainty over which companies were exposed and how much money they might actually lose. European banks alone have $87 billion at risk in the U.A.E.

"It touched investors' sensitive nerves," said Cai Junyi, an analyst for Shanghai Securities. "The world is watching whether that will have any substantial impact ... Dubai World is just like a small window that might reflect another financial tsunami."

Emerging markets in the Middle East and elsewhere have attracted massive amounts of capital in recent years amid investor enthusiasm for regions with rapid economic growth. This year, financial markets in Asia and Latin America have vastly outperformed ones in the U.S. and Europe. But Dubai's woes could bring a temporary end to the promiscuous buying behind the boom, analysts said.

"I think it will make investors realize they need to be more discriminating about emerging markets," said Arjuna Mahendran, head of Asian investment strategy at HSBC Private Bank in Singapore. "In the longer term we have no doubt that things are going to recover."

HSBC declined to comment. Calls to Standard Chartered representatives were not returned.

Among other companies with Dubai ties, South Korean construction firms have about 40 projects there whose remaining work is valued at as much as $3 billion. South Korea's government expected the problems to have minimal impact.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Rana, Headley travelled to Kerala

Rana, Headley travelled to Kerala to develop sleeper cells of 313 Brigade
The terror link
By Arun Lakshman in Thiruvananthapuram

Sources in the central agencies confirmed that more than a recce of these vital installations, the deadly duo had clear targets in Kochi and wanted to create sleeper cells, which are actively involved in social projects and which can be immersed in the Kerala society. Popular Front, a new version of the deadly Islamist organisation NDF, has of late been seen actively involved in the social projects conducted by the state government and sources told this correspondent that the central IB knows of the activities conducted by this organisation.

David Coleman Headley or Dawood Gilani and Tahawwur Hussain Rana would have reached Kochi to activate sleeper cells and to create new recruits in the deadly 313 Brigade led by Iliyas Kashmiri, a Pakistan army officer-turned mercenary. Sources in the central intelligence told Organiser that both had been in Kochi with Rana staying in Taj Residency while Headley, aka Gilani, choosing a private accommodation.

Interestingly, the state police and the central agencies like the IB and the NIA are on the heels to get the whereabouts of the dreaded criminal and Islamist CMA Basheer, who is considered to have played a major role in the Mumbai blasts in collusion with gangster Dawood Ibrahim.

Basheer, the former national president of the outlawed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), is on the run since the Mumbai blasts. Unfortunately, state police or other agencies do not have a photograph of the dreaded terrorist and sources in the central Intelligence Bureau told this reporter that he would have been in Kochi in disguise during Rana and Headley’s visit. While the Union Home Secretary Gopalkrishna Pillai has categorically denied the presence of Headley in Kochi, highly-placed sources in the IB told this correspondent that Headley was present in Kerala, Kochi included.

The NIA team, which is in Kochi on the trail of Rana, has found out that he conducted boating in the Arabian Sea along the Kochi coast for thirty minutes and took photographs of vital installations of the country including Cochin Port Trust, Cochin Shipyard and Vallarpadom Container Terminal. NIA in its investigation has found out that Rana did not use the boat of the five-star hotel but went for a private boat. Sources in the central IB told this correspondent that they are now on the trail of boat-providers in Kochi. It may be recalled that there were several cases registered against certain boat-makers of Munambam in Kochi for providing boats to LTTE during their hey days.

It may be recalled that Organiser recently carried out a story on the recent bonhomie between the Maoists and SIMI at the behest of the Chinese and that a secret meeting of top-level leaders of the two outfits was held in Bengaluru and a former Naxalite leader from Kerala was given the charge of the joint operations. Interestingly, the intelligence had much earlier confirmed over the close rapport between the Indian Maoists and SIMI and following the theory of one’s friend is the other’s friend, SIMI became-friends with LTTE and the boat used by Rana could have been provided by an LTTE contact.

Sources in the central agencies also confirmed that more than a recce of these vital installations, the deadly duo had clear targets in Kochi and wanted to create sleeper, cells, which are actively involved in social projects and which can be immersed in the Kerala society. Popular Front, the new version of the deadly Islamist organisation NDF, has of late been seen actively involved in the social projects conducted by the state government and sources told this correspondent that the central IB knows of the activities conducted by this organisation.

The facts that internationally-known terrorists are operating from the state and the state police is in a sleepy mood with the state DGP not clear as to what has happened in the intelligence arena bring the state police in poor light.

However, the police is also probing into the roles played by certain real estate lobbies in Kochi and the surrounding areas and whether they are using the money laundered by terror operatives in the state’s real estate market.

The politics of crorepatis and the media

Who runs this country? Who runs the states? If anybody believes that the Congress or the UPA runs them, they are deluding themselves. There is no Congress. There is no NCP either. They are mirages. In Maharashtra, for instance, the state is run by millionaires. We are told that each MLA in Maharashtra is worth on an average Rs. 40 million. Mind the words each MLA and that, too, if we treat their own affidavit declarations as genuine. And who says this? P. Sainath, a leading journalist with unchallengeable credentials. He is a senior member of the editorial staff of The Hindu. And his edit page article in the paper ( October 26) is worth its weigth in gold. In politics today, there is no space for aam aadmi. The number of crorepatis in the Maharashtra State Assembly has gone up by 70 per cent in the just-concluded election. There were 108 crorepati MLAs in 2004. Now there are 184. Nearly two thirds of the MLAs just elected in Maharashtra and close to three fourths of those in Haryana, are crorepatis. And don’t ask how they became rich. Or how did they get elected. Says Sainath: "Your chances of winning an election to the Maharashtra Assembly if you are worth over Rs. 100 million are 48 times greater than if you are worth just Rs one million, or less".

No doubt, they are all great patriots. Rich people always are. But in business-and elections are Big Business-it is money that counts. Your knowledge of government, of legislation, of social conditions prevailing in your state or your commitment to social service are all irrelevant. You may be a distinguished economist, an expert on a whole range of subjects concerning governance, but no matter. The only way to success is to have the right bank balance. Success automatically follows. That, however, is not the only thing to worry about. If you have the money, these days you can ‘buy’ news. Literally. And almost in any media, print, electronic, whatever. Writes Sainath: "Not all sections of the media were in this mould, but quite a few. New just small local outlets, but powerful newspapers and television channels, too".

A knowledgeable source is quoted as saying: "The media have been the biggest winners of the polls". Apparently their poll- period intake is estimated to be in hundreds of millions of rupees. In the past it used to be hinted that some journalists were available for purchase. That for a certain sum they could be persuaded to write a story, a positive story or stories, about a politician, extolling his virtues or damning his opponent. Now those days are over. The media management has taken over the business. As Sainath put it: "The game has moved from the petty personal corruption of a handful of journalists to the structured extraction of huge sums of money by media outfits". The smart, if corrupt journalist, does not matter any longer. It is the boss himself who rakes in the moolah. The journalist has just to obey orders. The management lays down how much to charge for publishing a profile of a candidate, or an interview with him, or even a trashing of his rival. For a mere four lakhs of rupees that a paper could charge the candidate, he could get not only his profile but "four news items" of his choice. Throw in a little extra, and the paper will even help the candidate to draft his news items. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called Freedom of the Press.

Some of our newspaper barons are not accountable to anybody-let alone the readers. China, as one does not have to remind anyone, has been in the news. And the Chinese media has been expectedly very critical of India. But just consider what China’s state-run People’s Daily Online has been writing, as reported by The Indian Express ( October 16). It reflects an interesting mindset that Indians must know, if they want to understand how the Chinese mind works. To quote from the Online: "Nobody can deny that today’s India is a power. In recent years, Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalist sentiment arises, with some of them even turning to hegemony. It can be proved by India’s recent provocation on border issues with China. Given the country’s history, hegemony is a hundred per cent result of British colonialism. Dating back to the era of British India, the country covered a vast territory including present day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal. India took it for granted that it could continue to rule the large area when Britain ended its colonialism in South Asia. A previous victim of colonialism and hegemony, started to dream about developing its own hegemony. Obssessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan... Although the pursuit of being a superpower is justifiable, the dream of being a superpower held by Indians appears impetuous.... Throughout the history, India has constantly been under foreign rule. The essence for the rise of India lies in how to be an independent country, to learn to solve the complicated ethnic and religious issues... For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower...."

Where international affairs are concerned. It is often-one might say, always important to know what the other party thinks. India, especially, should know what China thinks of us. It is amusing to learn from People’s Daily Online that India is hegemonic and is trying to ape the British! One would have thought that it was China, with its newfound wealth, that is trying to be hegemonic. It is not true that in India’s long history that it has been "constantly" under foreign rule. But never mind that. India has no desire whatsoever to rule any other country. It had never wanted to do that in the past and one doesn’t know anybody who has such a dream for the future. All that India wants is to be left alone to develop its own economy and work for the general prosperity of all people that is reflected in the statement: sarve janaha sukhino bhavanatu. It is clear that China has a poor understanding of India. But one thing that Online says is relevant. "At present" it ends its comment, "China is pro-actively engaging in negotiations with India for the early settlement of border dispute and India should give a positive response". So, may we suggest, should China? It takes two to play a game.

Ominous portents of Deoband politics

By Prafull Goradia

The 25 resolutions passed in Deoband add up to a fundamentalist manifesto for Muslims in India. They express a determination of the Ulema to mark time on values which were declared when Islam was founded 14 centuries ago.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind’s 25 resolutions passed on November 3 at Deoband are ominous for the country. The reason behind the portent is popularly unknown. The Jamiat does not recognise the Constitution of India as a national document to guide the governance of the country. Instead, in its own words, the Constitution represents a contract entered into by Muslims with the non-Muslims since Independence to establish a secular state. In Urdu language, such an agreement is called muahadah which, the Ulema contend, is similar to the one entered into during Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime between Muslims and the Jews of Medina.

It was specifically a ‘civic’ covenant, implying that it was unconnected with the political life of the city. The Muslims were free to rule without having to share power. Sure enough, before long the muahadah was violated and the Jews were either driven out or killed. Sir William Muir in The Life of Mahomet records: how a breach first occurred between the Quraish and the Jewish tribes who did not acknowledge Mohammad as Prophet. Since then no kafir or non-believer has been allowed to set foot in Medina or, for that matter, Mecca.

Another example of a muahadah was the 720 AD compact between Caliph Umer II and the Christian and Jewish leaders of Hejaz or inner Arabia whereby the latter had to agree to be zimmis or dhimmis. By virtue of the agreement, they became protected citizens, not required to fight for the state. In exchange, zimmis had to pay jaziya; they could carry no arms nor ride a horse in the presence of a Muslim nor live in a house taller than a Muslim neighbour’s and so on. A Christian had to have a blue label on his dress while a Jew a yellow one. This was the example with which the Taliban in Afghanistan compelled the Hindus and Sikhs to wear a yellow mark on their shirts!

The Jamiat’s perception is : The Constitution of India, which the Muslim community’s elected representatives unanimously supported and to which they swore allegiance, represents this muahadah. The specially Islamic duty of the community within India now, in their eyes, is to keep loyalty to the Constitution and to work out within the national life, as an acknowledged minority within the larger society, such personal and social aspects of the total Islamic requirements. The question of political power and social organisation, so central to Islam, has in the past always been considered in yes-or-no terms. Muslims have either had political power or they have not. Never before have they shared it with others. To the question, "Can Muslims be fully Muslims without a state of their own?" both Indian and Pakistani Muslims said "No"-with resounding assurance, according to Wilfred Cantwell Smith in his Islam in Modern History. The Muslims of India in fact face what is a radically new and profound problem; namely, how to live with others as equals. This is unprecedented; it has never arisen before in the whole history of Islam. An Indian Muslim is both an Indian and a Muslim. The desperate attempt to deny or reject this duality has failed. An attempt to integrate the two has hardly yet been seriously put forward.

The 25 resolutions passed in Deoband add up to a fundamentalist manifesto for Muslims in India. They express a determination of the ulema to mark time on values which were declared when Islam was founded 14 centuries ago. They categorically wish to have no truck with modernity. They want to shun modern dress and today’s media including television and all. The question of the ulema allowing Muslims to join the Indian mainstream does not arise. They are prepared to coexist with non-Muslims provided their community remains separate and exclusive. In short, they plan to construct a darul Islam within a darul-Harb which some polite scholars call darul-Amn.

The Jamiat was established in 1919 by Dar ul-Uloom as a channel for its political ambitions. In deference to British goodwill Deoband had to repudiate rebel Mahmood ul-Hasan, the Uloom’s Arabian associate who had been politically active. Sayyid Abulala Mawdudi was then a young activist of the Jamiat. It was only after the Pakistan resolution of 1940 at Lahore did Mawdudi separate to form the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind in August 1941. Although the sentiments at Deoband were exclusivist, the organisation did not favour Partition for that would split the Indian ummah. Together, its leaders could manipulate, if not also influence, an undivided India. The Ulema were also put off by MA Jinnah being a Shia, a modern man and his speech to the Pakistan constituent assembly at Karachi on August 11, 1947 confirmed that he was also too secularistic to be a good Muslim. On the other hand, the Jamiat continued to be orthodox and promoted as many madarsas as possible. According to the Pakistani Minister of Religious Affairs, quoted by Charles Allen (in his God’s Terrorists, Little, Brown, Great Britain, 2006), there were 7000 Deobandi madarsas which taught 12 and a half million students. The training given to students in India is additional.

Ambedkar had the vision to foresee today’s times 69 years ago when he wrote his Thoughts of Pakistan on the morrow of the Muslim League passing the fateful resolution at Lahore in March 1940 : "Which is then better for the Hindus? Should the Musalmans be without and against or should they be within and against? If the question is asked of any prudent man, there will be only one answer, namely, that if the Musalmans are to be against the Hindus, it is better that they should be without and against, rather than within and against."

Many shades of Hindu-bashing

By Dr Pravin Togadia

A few years back a wonderful movie had made a great splash. Many flocked to watch it and almost all liked it. It depicted an upright police officer in charge of busting jehadi terror modules in Bharat. While doing his duty he comes across a popular ghazal singer. The officer also happens to be very fond of ghazals and adores the singer who tells the officer that he was originally from Bharat but at the time of Partition he had to flee India. The singer also invites the officer to see his ancestors’ haveli on Bharat-Pakistan border near Jaisalmer. It so happens that the officer, in the process of investigating one of many terror attacks, reaches Jaisalmer. His deep investigations direct the trail to a spot where arms, ammunition and people to be supplied for such attacks are hidden. And this spot happens to be the same haveli of that popular ghazal singer. Shocked and saddened, the officer requests the singer to surrender. He not only refuses but creates a huge media campaign posing himself as a victim. The officer had to face a lot of social flak and governmental pressure, but does not give up the truth. Ultimately, the officer catches the singer and before the officer arrests him, the singer kills himself in front of many policemen confessing to the crime while blaming Bharat and glorifying Pakistan. The movie was Sarfarosh.

Yes, I know, this is a serious type of a column and not a movie story-telling forum.

But a somewhat similar situation is being enacted in Bharat these days and that too by film personalities who never wasted a single opportunity to hysterically yell and condemn all that is Hindu, who blamed entire Gujarat for 2002 riots and who blamed entire Bharat for Malegaon. They even blamed Bharat for jehadi attacks on Mumbai! The comment of a veteran film man then was that instead of blaming people like Kasab we should find out why these poor innocent youth get into such acts-if at all they have done it! He did not have the similar logic for Gujarat. The same man was seen on almost all TV channels demanding all to be put behind bars and immediately hanged whose names had figured in the phone calls list in Gujarat-then be it even a driver who might be daily confirming the time to report! But the same filmy man and his family forgot their logic of that time. Now when his son’s phone records, meeting records, pub-going records are all splashed with jehadi David Headley alias Dawood Gilani from Pakistan, he suddenly remembers the principle that unless proven otherwise everyone is innocent! He and the family are even throwing filmy dialogues and playing ‘me victim’, ‘me hero’ etc games. It is time that Bharat stands up and tells this filmy family that command over language and proficiency in acting are not proofs of innocence. This family even has the audacity to tell Bharat that its son is a hero because he himself went to police!

This is not being written to blame anyone in particular. But the point is celebrity syndrome of media and the society at large and the celebrity itch of a few celebrities to put themselves on a higher pedestal and keep on speaking on each and every issue on the same media. It is a hurdle in true justice. Highly-opinionated shrill voices, a very typical attitude siding a particular community and pronouncing judgments treating oneself as not only above judiciary but also above God are the characteristics of such a few celebrity groups. They are not like the common poor people on the streets who express their honest opinions on some TV shows. This group of the so-called celebrities has a specific agenda and that is to tom-tom greatly about only a particular community. This group vanishes when millions of Tamil Hindus get brutally attacked in Sri Lanka or in Malaysia or even in Assam! This means they are biased; they not only blah-blah on media all the time but also have an agenda against the majority of this nation. Their celebrity status gives them access to media. They even try to influence the judiciary through their blah-blah and their behind-the-screen activities- anyway most of them are expert in scripting and acting!

All famous people do not do this. All celebrities do not indulge in such gross misuse of their celebrity status. But those who do so are dangerous to the nation. Sometime back, a senior celebrity-cum-political leader went on the platform of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind and said, "Hamare aur Jamiat ke usul ek hai." After some time when Jamiat came out with frivolous fatwas, the same leader wasn’t even available for comments. This is the point. Preaching is okay when it does not touch them, but the moment what goes around comes around, the same celebrities start speaking of principles of justice or showing off glycerin tears!

The serious part of it is that a section of media gives in to their tactics, which affects the very basis of justice and influences the investigations. Some years back, a channel ran a story "Rapist Uncle" based on an FIR by a niece. Police kept on requesting the channel not to say so until investigations are done. But the channel continued. Socially and mentally hurt, that man and his wife committed suicide. A day after this, the police came to conclusion that he was innocent and even that niece confessed to a fake FIR. Many social celebrity activists said all sorts of things about that man on that channel. The celebrity itch and some media enamoured by them got a family killed in the process! One hopes the judiciary would take a suo moto note of such proxy killings by the celebrity itch and biased media trials. Most media in Bharat are balanced and try to give views of both sides. But a few with a specific agenda or revenue compulsions go beyond the social duty and that’s the fodder of such celebrities.

Investigating agencies, the judiciary and the common man have a socio-legal responsibility to stay balanced, not to get influenced by such celebrity itches or media trials and keep on doing impartial investigations and justice. Lately, there has been a fashion that some investigation agencies leak selective information to their media ‘friends’. Going beyond that some celebrities use this information to express their biased opinions and even pronounce the judgments even before the investigation begins! This not only jeopardizes the cases in question but also many people in the society have to undergo the worst type of social stigma and even sometimes undue police wrath.

Two days back an international political celebrity US Prez Barack Hussein Obama pronounced that Tibet is a part of China. Maybe. But while saying so, Prez Obama’s celebrity itch forgot to even verify as to what Indo-China accord between China and Pandit Nehru says. China ignored that accord and only expected Bharat to follow it! But international celebrity-hood of Prez Obama has over-ridden his balancing responsibility (or so to say even he has a specific agenda.). Such celebrities ill-affect even international relations while a few national celebrities ill-affect national social relations.

Bharat does not live on Page-3 of some English glossies. Bharat also does not live in the arm-chaired AC net magazines. Bharat enjoys watching movies, listening to good music, seeing great paintings and appreciating creativity. But when some celebrities in such fields, using their social status, hurt the very logic of justice, it is time that Bharat, its investigating agencies and the judiciary stand up and tell such people to focus on their fields and not to interfere and disturb social systems of Bharat. It has almost become a notion these days that freedom of expression is available only to such celebrities and so-called pseudo-social commentators. Before the celebrity itch virus spreads further, let’s start common man’s justice council to check such a menace, work towards preventing such ‘holier than thou’ attitudes and ensure that no partial favours are done by the governments to such celebrities and to their families or neither is there a hard view only because one is a celebrity. Let us ensure that there is a true justice for all.

(The writer is a renowned cancer surgeon and secretary general of VHP. He can be contacted at drtogadia@gmail.com)

Barack Obama, us and the US

India will have to fight its own battles. It cannot expect the US to help us fight them, argues Tarun Vijay.

Two kinds of people are complaining about Barack Obama's Asia tour. One, those Americans who have been seeing America in the George W Bush mould for too long. They get depressed about a placid president and hence describing his Asia visit as 'timid' or too yielding to China.

They would have loved an Obama chiding the Chinese and demanding a human rights commission on Tibet. Obama didn't oblige them. He needed a facelift for the US and tried his best.

In the second category of people, we stand out brightly. We like others to do our unfinished jobs. It is not amazing to see Indian cry babies complaining too much that Obama didn't do enough for us. We forget he is the president of the United States and his first and foremost duty is to serve her interest and not ours.

And he did well for the US in his first Asia tour that took him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea in nine days -- with the maximum time being spent in China, the Asian superpower who spoke to the White House with an erect spine and received a warm hug.

In fact, Obama is the first US president after a long time who presented the image of an amiable, friendly and accessible head of a superpower that had otherwise become synonymous with crude diplomacy laced with military adventurism during the Bush era.

In Japan Obama won a standing ovation when he presented his Pacific connection story -- a very personal and a touching one indeed. And in China his descent from Air Force One alone holding an umbrella amidst Shanghai's first rains won him instant fans.

If Obama has won another friend for Washington, why should we complain if our leaders are on a spree to lose all and bend backwards for an audience with a queen or an alien benefactor?

Americans are a patriotic people who elect leaders with a spine, never compromising national security and always honouring their security forces.

If we don't do that, should we be complaining about it to the White House? Or should we set our own house right?

Here is a nation that doesn't honour its soldiers and keeps negotiating with traitors. We are a State that doesn't care about its farmers till they block Delhi's [ Images ] roads. We get enmeshed in hot money pursuits stashed in places like Laos and Liberia, and no one believes the culprit will ever get punished.

Who knows if a Koda or a Reddy will get 20 plus MPs in the next election and be inducted as the Cabinet minister in charge of internal security?

We kow-tow disoriented before the most horrendous of jihad sponsors and keep inviting murderers for talks and talks and then again talks for decades without resolving the main issues of contention.

Then, one fine morning, when we see the leader of a strong nation discussing our problems with his counterpart, we feel oh, why has he not helped us solve our problems with China? And with Pakistan? And while we have signed a nuke deal, why should it put pressure on us to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty too?

The US did what it did because that is what it thought was good for it. Obama is not ruling the US to ensure India benefits. Is that clear?

And look how our leaders, the great, patriotic, democratic representatives of this land behave. Here is a 'certificate, which I quote from a national daily: 'Vice-chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal P K Barbora, said, "Politicians cutting across party lines are upsetting armed forces modernisation and procurement programmes." He further added, "The fact remains that the IAF's fleet of fighter aircraft is getting depleted. The navy's submarine strength is dwindling and the army has not added a new gun to its heavy artillery in more than 20 years. The weapons, ammunition and systems with the armed forces are getting outdated faster than the government is able to replace them. Irresponsible politics over the years, sometimes when a party is in government or sometimes when it is in the Opposition -- it has all along been seen that whenever the government of the day clears something, the Opposition says no. This badly impinges (on the preparedness) of the defence (forces)," he said.'

Do we need more to complain to Obama?

Now that our prime minister is in the US, guess what the 'biggest' secret that the wizards of the PM's media advisors doled out just before Dr Singh left for the US was. Some gems from a news agency report: 'As the silence fuelled speculation, the White House finally broke the silence to let out the closely guarded secret saying that the dinner would be held under the massive tent instead of the ornate state dining room. The tent option has been picked up as the guest list mushroomed and instead of 120 which the ornate room can accommodate, the Obamas are inviting close to 400 people for their first state dinner on November 24.'

That's all we need. Khana peena aur ghoomna (food, drink and travel). Be happy that Obama is giving a lavish dinner to not just 120, but to 400 of all the important, leading Indian lights of American life. Is that a mean achievement?

The US and China know what they want. China made the US accept its significant role in Asia, turned India into an area to be watched, controlled and helped to stay calm while remaining friendliest with Pakistan.

Both the US and China do not recognise Kashmir as a part of India. They look at the area as an unsettled matter, help Pakistan with dollars and military help, turn a blind eye towards Pakistan using their arms and grants against us, have done nothing to help India post 26/11, have refrained to tell Islamabad to stop its patronage to anti-India elements.

One of them attacked India in 1962; the other had remained a silent spectator then. Even so our analysts and Washington watchers feel at least now the US should help us. Wow!

When we are left to our own, we do better.

Obama postponed his meeting with the Dalai Lama before his China visit. We stood firm and allowed the Dalai Lama to go to Arunachal Pradesh. We trusted the US, inked a controversial nuke deal and hence invited China's bitter reaction expressed through its Arunachal raga, almost reminding of a cold war. The US did not even smile as if this doesn't concern it. And naturally so. Why should our spondylitis make the US lie low?

We have got to deal with the US on our own strength and de-link relations with China from Washington and the Dalai Lama. If we have to save Arunachal, it would be done on the shoulders of leaders in Delhi who have a spine and a will to raise the military strength to a winnable level. Not that we have to increase the numbers of fighter jets and submarines and nuke bombs to what Beijing possess.

Wars are not won by exchanging lists, but by the fierce resolve to destroy the enemy with a first strike mental make-up.

As one American commentator put it succinctly, 'Overall, Obama's Asia policy has been largely driven by events and domestic priorities rather than by an over-arching strategic vision. The Obama team had to closely coordinate with China on financial matters in response to the financial crisis.'

Hence, Obama won't care about India's case on Kashmir or rescuing Aung San Suu Kyi, leave aside helping the Dalai Lama to get back to Tibet honourably. His priorities are different.

Feeling euphoric seeing Obama hiring a few Americans with Indian faces on his team make no sense. They would be overburdened to ensure nobody blames them emotionally helping India crossing lines of American interest.

After all, Washington didn't allow Indian intelligence officers to question David Coleman Headley arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of plotting terror attacks in India though India had allowed the FBI to interrogate Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist held in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

The US hasn't yet taken Indian companies, including the Indian Space and Research Organisation, off the blacklist prohibiting US agencies dealing with them. It is pressurising India to sign the CTBT without considering that we are surrounded by two nuke powers hostile to us.

The US didn't help us in 1962, bullied us in 1971, put hurdles in our way to punish Pakistan post Kargil, thus helping Islamabad's dictator, didn't take up our case post 26/11.

Washington -- or for that matter any superpower -- respects those who have strength and show an unyielding attitude.

Till we have such rulers who choose a date like 26/11 to be in Washington, rather than being in Mumbai comforting the nation, we can't stop greater powers meddling in our region and affairs.

Tarun Vijay is Director, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Dr Singh's State visit to Washington, DC may be disastrous.

Rajeev Srinivasan on why he fears Dr Singh's State visit to Washington, DC may be disastrous.


In the old black-and-white Frank Capra film Mr Smith Goes to Washington an idealistic small-town man played by James Stewart is elected to the US Congress, where he is appalled by corrupt politics; but in the end his innocence wins over the blase denizens of the capital.

In a sense, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] trip to the US in the near future is being portrayed in the same way, but the Indian is neither as idealistic nor as naive as the Jimmy Stuart character, nor is there likely to be a happy ending.

US President Barack Hussein Obama [ Images ] has just returned from a tour of Asia. And exactly where did he go? China and Japan [ Images ], and also Singapore and South Korea, but not India [ Images ]. This one fact speaks volumes about the mind-share India occupies in the American establishment: India is not important. (Nor is it part of Asia according to them, but we will not digress. However we can be quite sure that a future Obama trip to India, if any, will be bracketed with one to Pakistan. Welcome to re-hyphenation.)

Obama's joint statement with Chinese strongman Hu Jintao could well have been written by the Chinese, when it comes to its perspective of India: It referred to the India-Pakistan problem and suggested that China should intervene in it. The implication is that China is the master of Asia, and that lesser powers such as India and Pakistan (yes, hyphenation again) must listen to China.

Then there was the recent appointment of Robin Raphel to the Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] team dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Raphel is well-known as one of the most virulent and vitriolic critics of India in the entire US Democratic set-up. She was, until August, a registered and paid lobbyist for Pakistan. She is infamous for insisting that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] to India is not final, and for asserting that Pakistan is the very epitome of a 'model, modern, and moderate Muslim nation'.

On top of this, rediff.com reported last week that Christine Fair, who had rubbed Indian officials the wrong way recently regarding Baluchistan, was offered a job as the 'South Asia' expert in the Obama administration, which apparently she turned down.

The indications, therefore, are that the Obama administration does not take India seriously. All of the latter's hollow pretensions to great-power-hood have been seen through by the Democrats, one might think.

But if they are so smart, why do Democrats persist in kow-towing to China and pouring money into Pakistan? It must be because it is standard Democratic Party policy. Despite the illusions many Indians harbour, Democratic administrations have been nastier towards India in general, notwithstanding the sterling counter-example of the Republican Nixon-Kissinger duo sending the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to intimidate India.

Liberal-left types in the West, despite protestations to the contrary, are fascinated by totalitarians and fascists. They are impressed by Vietnamese who defeated them, and Chinese who fought them to a standstill in Korea.

On the other hand, they despise a weak and moralising nation like India (some of them have not yet forgotten V K Krishna Menon's marathon speech at the United Nations, nor all the hot air about non-alignment.

Obama is the only US president in recent years to have refused to meet the Dalai Lama [ Images ], as appeasing China is high on his agenda; similarly the Democratic fascination with Mohammedan tyrants as well.

Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Obama may well be following in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. Carter, of MEOW fame (moral equivalent of war), who groveled to Middle-Easterners, bringing upon himself the Iran hostage crisis that destroyed his presidency.

Obama is going down this path with his Af-Pak policy, which consists primarily of outsourcing the Afghan problem to Pakistan's Inter Services intelligence, to be followed by the United States declaring victory and leaving. He is ignoring the instructive example of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler [ Images ].

Meanwhile the ISI cannot believe its good luck: Obama is showering billions on it on top of the $11 billion that Bush has already given them, with nothing to show.

On top of this, there is an entire generation of Cold-War-era non-proliferation ayatollahs, many of them Democrats with ties to Obama, who believe India has no business maintaining a nuclear arsenal. These people are on the ascendant, and strangely they have no problem with proliferation by China or Pakistan: The The Washington Post reported how the CIA merely stood by and watched when China delivered two full-fledged nuclear bombs to Pakistan in 1982.

Shortly thereafter, Pakistan, as part of the A Q Khan nuclear Wal-Mart, happily proliferated these to third parties.

Quite clearly, the non-proliferation ayatollahs have a rather interesting twist on semantics: for them, 'proliferation' is defined as India creating a minimum deterrent to defend itself from two nearby rogue States. Of course, these are the same people who created treaty after treaty -- Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- whose prime intent was to contain the Indian nuclear deterrent.

The respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported recently that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is bigger than India's, and that they are growing it rapidly. India has no more than 60 to 80 warheads, Pakistan at least 70 to 90, and China 240.

Of course, India is also handicapped by not having a proven delivery vehicle like an intermediate-range ballistic missile that can reach Beijing [ Images ] (and also by having voluntarily declared a moratorium on nuclear testing). This should be enormous cause for concern for India, because it leaves India vulnerable to the blackmail of a first strike by Pakistan or China, neither of which has ever said they will not indulge in a first strike. India cannot deter them because the threat of a second strike is meaningless if the others's arsenals and delivery systems are bigger and more reliable.

On the political side, here is another fear -- about what Manmohan Singh may concede in Washington. His recent trips have left a trail of wreckage as far as India's foreign policy is concerned. This leads one to wonder whether the foreign ministry lacks the resources to brief the prime minister.

Look at what the PM has said on previous trips abroad:

In Britain in 2005, while receiving an honorary degree from Oxford, Singh said that colonialism had done India good. He claimed that India benefited from 'meeting the dominant empire of the day'. He omitted to mention that the dominant empire had stolen roughly $10 trillion, and left hitherto prosperous India poverty-stricken.

In Havana at the Non-Aligned Meet in 2006, Singh informed a delighted General Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] that Pakistan was also a victim of terrorism, just like India, and absolved the Pakistani State of involvement in acts of terrorism. This, almost immediately after the Mumbai [ Images ] blasts in July of that year.

In the US in 2008, with George Bush [ Images ] a lame duck and the Democrats rampant, Singh assured Bush: 'The people of India deeply love you'. Exactly how did Singh arrive at this conclusion? And how exactly did he think this would be received by the severely anti-Bush Democrats, who were likely to win?

In Sharm-al-Sheikh, Egypt [ Images ], in July 2009, Singh gratuitously introduced Balochistan into the Indo-Pakistan dialog and promised a delinking of talks from terrorism. The grateful Pakistanis are now using Balochistan as a major card in their propaganda claiming Indian malfeasance there. They have also concluded that the 26/11 Mumbai siege has now been forgotten by India -- that is, Pakistan can proceed with further acts of terrorism with no untoward consequences.

Aren't there people who know how to craft diplomatic verbiage that serves the usual purpose -- to obfuscate and mystify while sounding pious -- instead of having the PM say things that then require substantial damage control?

What might the PM agree to in Washington this time? One grim possibility looms. There is a lot of talk about the G-2 from people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Cold Warrior and eminence grise extraordinaire (who can forget he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden [ Images ] in the old days?). The G-2, that is, the US and China, is to divide the world up among them: the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific to the US, while the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean Rim belong to China.

China is delighted to go with this prescription, which is reminiscent of Spain and Portugal dividing up the world between them with the Vatican's blessings some centuries ago. A few months ago, a Chinese admiral suggested precisely such an outcome: They would look after the Western Pacific, he kindly offered the Americans the eastern part of the Pacific.

It is entirely possible that, given the trial balloon of the Sino-US statement on China's role in South Asia, the Americans will convince Manmohan Singh to endorse the idea of the G-2. There will be the usual round of 'clarifications' and 'retractions' and howls about 'misquotes', but at the end of the day, it would be plain as daylight that India had publicly accepted banana-republic-dom in the Asian Century.

We have to be prepared for such an eventuality. And that is why the US does not respect India as a potential ally. India is only a source of raw materials and a market, just as the imperialists saw it. India does not deserve any respect, either. A wimpy India -- which cannot deter even a failed state like Pakistan -- is merely an extra in the big scheme of things.

A nation that has no long-term strategic intent, and whose leaders can be easily manipulated through flattery, is a banana republic. Unlike China, which intends to rule the world, India, which can only imagine itself as a second-rate power, will remain one. Welcome to realpolitik.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The unpardonable mistakes of Indira Gandhi

By Dr Jay Dubashi

Smt Indira Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress?

"Had she lived on, she would have been 92 years old this year," wrote an old colleague of Indira Gandhi on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her violent death. He was wrong. Had she not been killed by her bodyguards, she would have been killed by someone else. She was destined for violent death, like Charles I of Britain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan.

Mrs Gandhi was not a nice person to know or work for. I doubt if she had any friends. There was a twist in her temperament that kept her away from the rest of the society. I once watched her at a public ceremony over which she presided. A man, a foreigner, wanted to speak to her; so he sent her a note. Mrs Gandhi nodded and the man approached her and was with her for three or four minutes. But not once did Mrs Gandhi look at him, let alone shake hands with him. He left a note on the chair next to her and walked away.

Mrs Gandhi was at odds with every one, or almost every one, in her circle-her husband, her aunts, her cousins and almost her entire cabinet. She was not on speaking terms with any of them. She walked out on her husband, or maybe her husband walked out on her, within five years of getting married. She hated her aunt, Vijayalakshmi Pandit so much that she would have sent her to jail to keep company with two other women she disliked, Rajmata of Gwalior and Maharani of Jaipur, had some friends not intervened. These two ladies were sent to Tihar Jail out of personal pique. If they were maharanis, Mrs Gandhi was an empress in her own right. And the only way to show them their place was to put them behind bars.

She had no friends, only hangers-on, and she made sure they knew their place. One of the toadies was Khushwant Singh, who went out of his way to defend the Emergency-he was not the only one; there were other toadies too-hoping to earn her favours, but he fell foul of her when he started boosting her daughter-in-law, a Sardarni.

Another toady was PN Haksar, a communist, who had managed to get into the foreign service with postings around the world, but not in the US. Haksar was related to the Kauls of old Delhi, whose daughter had married Jawaharlal Nehru. The Kauls and the Haksars were also neighbours. Haksar later became Mrs Gandhi's principal secretary-so did another Kashmiri, PN Dhar-and as a good communist, did whatever the commies wanted him to do, including abolishing private purses and nationalising banks.

But as happens to toadies everywhere, Haksar fell foul of the empress and was shifted to the Planning Commission, a useless posting meant for pensioners. One day, I went to see him at his house on Race Course Road, Haksar sat alone in his vast dark drawing room with curtains drawn at the height of winter, wondering what he had done to draw Mrs Gandhi's ire.

Haksar's uncle had a big showroom in Connaught Place, known to every shopper as Pandit Brothers. It is, I think, still there. There was also another showroom in Chandni Chowk. One day, Mrs Gandhi's police or may be Sanjay Gandhi's goons descended on the two showrooms and sealed them. For good effect, they hauled Haksar's uncle to jail to keep company with other traders. Haksar had nowhere to turn to, for all his relations-which means Mrs Gandhi's relations-were either in jail or had decamped to places far from Delhi to escape the clutches of Mrs Gandhi's favourite son. I do not know what Haksar did to escape the net, but he died a broken man.

There was also a strong streak of violence in Mrs Gandhi's character. In fact, I should say that she injected violence into the Indian political system. We shall always remember her for the dismemberment of East Pakistan-her and India's finest hour-for I doubt if any other Prime Minister would have done what she did. She never believed in the nonsense about non-violence--and also about truth-and absolutely had no compunction about using force where force was necessary. Nehru would have dilly-dallied and talked about Hindi-Paki bhai bhai. For Mrs Gandhi, there were no bhais. Violence had to be answered by violence, gun by gun, for at stake was the very existence of a nation under her charge.

It was perhaps her exaggerated faith in violence that undid her. She asked the army to enter the Golden Temple and that very day signed her own death warrant. But she did it with her eyes open.

What I do not forgive her are the ranks of riff-raff she gathered around her, men and women of no substance, whose only job was to feather their own nests and draw a veil over the dark goings-on at the heart of the administration. Mrs Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both.

The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? The Emergency too was supposed to have been imposed in the name of progress and growth. Didn't the Emergency-wallas claim that the trains ran on time? So, what is wrong in using force in clearing your lands and your homes of marauders who are arriving from thousands of miles away in search of your minerals, your water, in fact, your very life itself? And it was Mrs Gandhi who started the rot in the name of the Emergency, with her friends in the media egging her on, the same friends who are asking to put down the Naxalites and the others, also in the name of law and order-and, of course, discipline with capital 'D'.

Why did she do it? As I said, there was a kink in her character which ultimately took hold of her and those around her and perverted the very foundation of the republic. This is why we shall never forgive her. For all that she did in Bangladesh, there is a big black mark in her copybook, which time cannot erase. The legacy of violence, which is her special gift to the nation, has wiped out all the good she did or tried to do. This is a pity, but the riff-raff she surrounded herself with are partly responsible for it. Some of them are still active, now singing a new tune of secularism under a new conductor, who now speaks with a foreign accent!