Bharat Rakshak

Will it happen anyway or does it need guidance or precipitation?

I began writing this book while puzzling about the nature of power. I was debating
the cause of the state of the world: is our present situation the result of some
mysterious conspiracy, or is it the logical result of natural processes of power? As I
looked into the nature of power, it became increasingly clear that the prominent
actors and forces in the world today are emergent phenomena, resulting from a
dominant, hierarchal pattern of power. The structure of power, it seems, is the
root cause of the problems humanity struggles to solve. The result of my
inquiry—this Theory of Power—is my attempt to understand root causes and to
present a toolkit addressing the daunting problems facing our civilization.
The first eight chapters outline my theory as it parallels the development of civilization
and humanity. The ninth chapter provides my suggested tools to solve the
problems presented. The goal of this book is to both present the world in a new
and revealing way, and to provide suggestions that inspire the reader with implementable
solutions.
I would also like to take this opportunity to grant blanket permission to reproduce
and use any portion of this text for any non-commercial purpose. I hope
that the message of this book reaches as large an audience as possible—and for
that, I request your support.
Jeff Vail
Colorado—August 22, 2004

Introduction: A Theory of Power
I have often wondered about the structure of the world. What drives our actions
and desires? Why do patterns appear to repeat themselves throughout history?
Why do the poor outnumber the rich? Can I find the blueprints for the world
laid out in some cosmic instruction manual—if not, then what forces have
defined its course of development? Simply looking at the surface of the world
around me has never provided satisfying answers. Stemming from my desire to
understand myself and my environment, I have attempted to understand the fabric
of so-called “reality,” from the microscopic to the cosmic—how and why it
works the way it does. In the process, I have come to understand the difference
between perception and truth. I have realized that truth “is” a perception, just as
much as anything “is” at all.1 The irrational assumption, the belief in the sanctity
of “is” seems to form the foundation of our mask of reality.
For thousands of years, sages and mystics of many religions have questioned this
impression of reality. They call reality “Maya”, an illusion. To Buddhists, Christian
Gnostics or Sufi Muslims, the path to enlightenment requires one to see
through this illusion.2 The scientific community rejected this uncertainty and
presented an opposing picture of reality. Following the examples of Galileo and
Newton, scientists defined the world “objectively”—look closely enough, they

said, and a concrete structure, an absolute deep-reality emerges. In the 20th century,
however, developments in the field of quantum mechanics, anthropology
and psychology began to support a consilience of science and mysticism—they
suggest that both views appear correct, even inseparable.
Consilience, the unification of varied fields of scientific inquiry, pushed aside the
veil of illusion to reveal the foundations of reality.3 Reality, it turns out, often
appears as anything but static, instead appearing as a dynamic web of transactional
entities and experiences. Strikingly, experiments continue to suggest that
everything in the universe influences every other thing, instantaneously, and at all
times.4 Reductionism—defining the smallest component particles of existence—
will not illuminate the nature of our world. Rather, the connections, the
power-relationships between entities prove illuminating, coalescing to form the
“tangible” around us.
The networks of connections, not the elements connected, appear to constitute a
more accurate map of reality. Consider this a critical paradigm shift: the connections,
not the parties connected, may best represent our world. Take the seemingly
simple nature of this very book. All of our senses confirm that it “is” a solid
object, with little mysterious about it. Another of our models of reality represents
its composition as that of a web of billions of atoms; nearly entirely empty space
speckled with clusters of sub-atomic particles. Other models exclude the concept
of a concrete “particle” entirely: quantum mechanics provides us with a model of
reality without fixed particles at all, using instead a nebulous web of constantly
changing energies and waves of probability. These energies and connections may
represent all that actually exists! The connections, the power-relationships
between perceived “entities” make up the world around us, not the illusion of
particles. This concept of the connection, and the power-relationship it represents,
extends to our genes, our culture and our technology. It wields great power
over all areas of our lives. Our thoughts, desires and self-perceptions, our very
identity, stems from this enigmatic web of connectivity. This book will explore
the concept of the connection, the power-relationship, as it underlies the fabric of
reality.
A closer examination of the dynamics, structure and evolution of patterns of connections
will provide the foundation for exploring and learning to work with
power-relationships. The complex web of connectivity animating our world did
not simply spring into existence fully formed. Rather this web results from the
ongoing processes of development and intensification. Understanding the process
of how and why we have arrived at our present state provides the insight that will
eventually give us greater control over our future. It will illuminate the fundamental
clockwork of our minds, bodies and societies, revealing principles of
power-relationships that govern all aspects of what we perceive as reality, from
the environment and economics to politics and psychology. It will unravel the
bonds that hold humanity in slavery to the patterns of history—and ultimately
provide the key to our freedom. Understanding the interconnectivity of such
diverse fields will yield a theory of power-relationships that will expand our
understanding of the world as a whole. This theory will reduce power to its discrete
nature and reassemble it into the swirling web that exists around us. Power
defines every aspect of our experience of reality. Ultimately, this knowledge, this
theory of power, will provide us with a tool chest to affect our world.

Turkey supports J&K separatists

Premen Addy

The Organisation of Islamic Conference met recently in Istanbul, where its Turkish SecretaryGeneral Prof Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu voiced concern at ‘human rights violations’ in Jammu & Kashmir allegedly perpetrated by the Government of India. He was referring, among other things, to the detention of Kashmiri Islamist leaders who advocate the State’s separation from India in a conversation with local and visiting reporters.

Prof Ihsanoglu called for their immediate and unconditional release in order to improve the territory’s security situation. He supported the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. “OIC endorses a 1948 UN resolution mandating a plebiscite in Kashmir,” he declared.

The insolence that comes with political illiteracy is an endless source of wonder. The professor would have been enjoying the comforts of a Turkish prison were he to issue minimalist sympathy for the victims of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman authorities in 1915 during the Great War, when the empire fought alongside its German ally. A full 90 and more years later, modern Turkey, an avowedly secular state seeking admission into European Union with help and support from the US and the UK, cannot bear to own up to this black deed.

In 1974 when Turkish troops invaded Cyprus, dividing the island and establishing an illegal Turkish enclave in the north, they also kept faith with their time-tested atavistic traditions by breaking into Greek churches, urinating at the altars, defacing the frescoes of Christ and replacing these with a giant plaster cast image of Kemal Ataturk. A UN report has faithfully recorded these events but blow me if you can unearth it, for Turkey’s staunchest friends in Nato are the US and Britain.

{Challenge for BRF members?}

So we return to Jamu & Kashmir. Prof Ihsanoglu, suffering from the amnesia to which many Muslim divines are sadly prone, has no memory of the Hindu Pandits who have been driven from their ancestral homeland by jihadis eager to proclaim an Islamic state cleansed of idol worshippers, and now live in ignoble penury as ‘internally displaced’ refugees in squalid camps. Why would Ladakhi Buddhists wish to perjure their freedom, to surrender it to would-be rulers in scriptural denial of minority rights?

I must confess to experiencing a dream which revealed Prof Ihsanoglu to be the acclaimed Nobel laureate, our own Prof Amartya Sen, in disguise. Prof Sen has been ensconced in the bowers of American and British academe for a good many years now. He is today the occupant of a prestigious chair at Harvard University; and his selective espousal of noble causes is worthy of a mid-afternoon TV gameshow when adults prefer sleep as an escape from the fevered activity of free spirits in the household.

Human rights, gender equality, full employment, best practice education: These belong, seemingly, to the charter of divine rights promised from on high to the Indian people and to them alone, it would appear. Their brethren in Bangladesh apparently have climbed the dizzy heights and now enjoy the cultural pluralism and democracy bestowed on the elect, if Prof Sen is to be believed.

The professor, amid his lofty preoccupations, was clearly unaware of the rampaging jihadi violence in the country as its then ruler Begum Khaleda Zia and her BNP-Jamaat acolytes in Government allowed these elements untrammed latitude. A military takeover duly followed, but with civilian rule to follow an imminent general election the trusty begum will surely be back jousting with her bete noire, the Awami League’s Sheikh Hasina Wajed.

Betwixt and between Bangladesh has been arraigned by Transparency International as the most corrupt place on Earth, which takes some doing with Nigeria and other African states competing strongly for the prize. But these are matters of small moment, of little concern to the august great and good. It is, of course, possible that news of Bangladesh’s ranking hasn’t reached the hallowed halls of Harvard, or it may be resting in Prof Sen’s departmental post box as he traipses the globe proclaiming the glad tidings of selective salvation. This may be interpreted by Harvard Calvinists as blasphemy, but blasphemy has frequently been a benchmark of progress at its best, at its worst a counterfeit variant.

The professor is equally shy on Pakistan’s time of jihadi trouble, and the myriad sources of its afflictions; of the ISI and the export of terror to India over long years there hasn’t been so much as a mew from him. Hear no evil, speak no evil as the occasion demands is a creative continuation of Dale Carnegie’s much-loved title, How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Prof Sen’s book, Identity and Violence, is trite: Tedious schoolman’s casuistry that provokes a succession of yawns as ennui takes hold. The Argumentative Indian scarcely invigorates: There was free thought in classical India, and except for the brief period when Akbar’s love of opposing religious discourse held sway at the Mughal court, this wasn’t matched, at least in public, in the centuries of Islamic governance in the subcontinent, surely a subject worthy of exploration, but Prof Sen is content to leave well alone. Possible crucifixion as an Islamophobe is the stuff of a Dostoeysky nightmare.

More years ago than I care to remember, Bertrand Russell, in an article, referred to the retreat of Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. A Pakistani mullah took offence at his use of ‘retreat’ and demanded that he apologise. Russell’s reply, a British scribe commented recently, made his hair stand on end with its dignified and uncompromising rebuttal. How much we miss him today, he sighed. What couldn’t free speech do with his luminous presence today. True, a thousand times, and on both counts.

As the greatest public intellectual of his age and beyond, Russell was not merely an outstanding logician and formidably clever; he was blessed with rare moral courage and impeachable intellectual integrity, who also wrote like an angel. He lost his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, for his opposition to World War I and suffered imprisonment.

Years later, the American Government denied him a visa on the ground that he was a corrupter of youth and much else besides. He became an object of establishment calumny for his advocacy of nuclear disarmament and his denunciation of America’s Vietnam war, yet he wrote the most prophetic work on communism’s ultimate failure, in Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, after his first visit to the fledgling Soviet Republic in 1919, where he met and spoke at length with Lenin.

Russell died at the ripe age of 98, a star that shone brightly even as his strength ebbed away. He was a man for all seasons and for all time. He educated the world and made thinking a joyous undertaking. Whence comes another?

The bomb that shook an Empire

Peter Hees

Aurobindo Ghose and his band of youthful 'terrorists' stood as accused in the famous Alipore Bomb Case exactly a century ago. The issues they threw up still rankle

A hundred years ago, a trial was being heard in Calcutta that brought the issue of revolutionary terrorism before the people of modern India for the first time. There had, of course, been acts of violence against the British almost from the moment of their arrival. But when Khudiram Bose threw a bomb into a carriage that he thought was carrying a district judge on April 30, 1908, he started something new. A bhadralok youth, recruited by an organisation that was established and directed by highly educated men, used a state-of-the-art bomb in an attempt to assassinate a member of the foreign bureaucracy. Khudiram was tried and executed for his act, becoming one of India's most celebrated revolutionary martyrs.

The leaders of the organisation, notably Hemchandra Das, Upendranath Banerjee, Barindrakumar Ghose, and Barin's brother Aurobindo Ghose (later Sri Aurobindo), were also put on trial in what became known as the Alipore Bomb Case. After proceedings that lasted almost a year, the first three were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Aurobindo was acquitted but soon left the political scene, becoming a philosopher and yogi in Pondicherry.

Aurobindo had never thought that scattered acts of small-scale violence would do much to advance the movement. His original idea was the preparation of an "armed insurrection", consisting of "guerrilla warfare accompanied by general resistance and revolt". His organisation "did not include terrorism in its programme", he wrote in 1946; "this element grew up in Bengal as a result of the strong repression and the reaction to it in that province". It was Barin, Upendranath, Hemchandra and others who thought that terrorist methods would be useful. In this they were wrong.

Despite all the drama of the Indian revolutionary movement, and the undoubted valour of men like Khudiram, Surya Sen, and Bhagat Singh, Indian terrorists were not very good at accomplishing their aims, and had little practical (as opposed to psychological) effect on the movement.

Sensing this as early as 1911, Aurobindo wrote to a collaborator that terrorism was "our only enemy". He called for an end to "these theatrical assassinations, these frenzied appeals to national hatred with their watchword of Feringhi ko maro, these childish conspiracies, these idiotic schemes for facing a modern army with half a dozen guns and some hundred lathis". Yet to the end of his life Aurobindo never renounced his belief that "a nation is entitled to attain its freedom by violence".

"Terrorism" has now become such a charged word that it is hard to use it in a discussion of national heroes. Historians of the immediate post-Independence era preferred the term "militant nationalism". This was not a good choice: the revolutionaries had little military training. Later historians were not afraid to use the term "terrorism", but they defined it carefully as the use of small-scale violence by urban groups to achieve political ends. This is what Barin Ghose and his friends were doing, and there was no reason not to call them terrorists, however unpleasant the word might sound.

However, over the last two decades, the meaning of "terrorism" has become restricted in the popular mind to certain types of violent acts, notably ones in which members of the public are targeted as symbolic stand-ins for an inaccessible government. There is a world of difference between terrorists who leave bombs in public places, or detonate suicide vests in buses, and revolutionaries who assassinate carefully chosen colonial officials.

Contemporary terrorism's association with random, often anonymous, violence has fundamentally altered the meaning of the word in public discourse. Another association that colours most people's understanding of the term is the perceived link between terrorism and religion. Certainly many contemporary terrorists, whether operating in Gaza, Baghdad, Mumbai, or London, claim to be inspired by religious beliefs. But this link is not inevitable. Viewed historically, terrorist methods were first used by the Jacobins during the French Revolution in an attempt to maintain state power against perceived reactionaries. Religion never entered into the picture, except perhaps to label Catholic institutions and individuals as ‘reactionary’.

The second great era of terrorism was during the 19th and 20th centuries, when revolutionary groups used small-scale violence against the state. Some of these groups had a religious identity, such as the Irish National Army and some organisations in India, but the fundamental aim of revolutionary terrorists was the weakening of an oppressive state as a step towards its replacement by a more popular one.

Revolutionary terrorism is still with us, but the characteristic form of terrorism in the 21st century is what I call 'apocalyptic terrorism', as exemplified by groups such as AUM Shinrikyo of Japan, and the transnational group, al-Qaeda. Both of these made (and make) use of religious discourse, but it could be argued that their inspiration and aims were (and are) not religious but rather apocalyptic: the overthrowing of a whole way of life in all its forms.

Apocalyptic terrorist groups are unlikely to achieve their declared aims. How do you attack or destroy a way of life? Well-trained terrorists can hit symbolic targets such as the Tokyo subway system or the World Trade Center, but the world goes on as it always has. Viewed pragmatically, apocalyptic terrorism is more a form of theatre than a means of bringing about constructive change.

Revolutionary terrorists too were aware of the theatrical side of violence – Barin Ghose wrote that part of his aim in sponsoring terrorist attempts was capture headlines that would inspire young men to emulate him – but most revolutionaries had achievable and justifiable aims, and their acts contributed to some extent in their realisation.

Can the same be said about the terrorism – much of it ostensibly religious – which continues to plague modern India? Most attempts over the past few years have succeeded in little else but sowing terror in the populace. The perpetrators have rarely identified themselves or their enemies, and achieved nothing beyond the immediate loss of life and property. This is duly reported in the Press, giving rise to frantic public debate; but neither the demographic makeup nor administrative direction of the country is changed in the least.

Much of this recent terrorism seems to be nothing more than the simple acting out of revenge, one aggrieved community attacking another, leading to further retaliatory attacks, and so forth ad infinitum. In a democracy that offers all its citizens a chance (however slight in some cases) to air their grievances and bring about change, this terrorism of revenge looks like the pointless working out of a mechanical impulse.

On November 10, 1908, Kanailal Dutt, one of the accused in the Alipore Bomb Case, was hanged in Calcutta. Ten weeks earlier, he and his accomplice Satyendranath Bose had assassinated the government informer Narendranath Gowsami. Asked in court why he had pulled the trigger, Kanailal responded simply: "It was because he proved a traitor to his country." The funeral procession that followed his body to the Ganges was probably the largest ever seen in Kolkata. After his cremation, hundreds of people surged forward to take ash and pieces of bone as holy relics.

The Indian press hailed Kanailal as a martyr, most British papers condemned him as a coward; but an editor The Pioneer, a paper representing the interests of Empire, took issue with this: "Such a crime may be properly described as desperate action, but it is fatuous to call it a cowardly one. If the people of Bengal chose to enthrone Kanailal and Satyendranath "in popular remembrance" as the Greeks had done with the tyrannicide pair Harmodius and Aristogeiton, "it is not easy to see how anyone could justly object to the selection".

It is hard to see how such an encomium could be published for those in modern India who leave tiffin-carriers packed with RDX in suburban commuter trains or holy places.

--The writer is an American historian on modern India

100 years of righteous terror
Pioneer.com
Udayan Namboodiri
In terms of bequeathing a legacy, the Alipore Bomb case was bigger than 1857. Sadly, our 'eminent' historians never told us this

Exactly a hundred years ago today, 25-year-old Satyendranath Bose climbed the gallows at Calcutta's Alipore Jail with the cry Vande Mataram on his lips. His was the third hanging of the year. Fifteen-year-old Khudiram Bose and Kanailal Dutta (20) had preceded Satyen for bombing and shooting at representatives and agents of the British Empire. The entire country was left breathless by the competitive dare shown by middle-class, educated Bengali boys. All over Punjab, Maharashtra, Sind and, of course, Bengal, bards began spinning spectacularly panegyric yarns about boys, the milk still in their cheeks, merrily kissing the hangman’s noose before dying. Some of these songs have stood the test of time. Quite a few may have inspired a Bhagat Singh or a Subhas Chandra Bose. At any rate, India got its first batch of pure heroes.

This week, Saturday Special recalls the multi-layered impact of the Alipore Bomb Case that manifests in a variety of ways even today. We have just got over the 150th anniversary of the 1857 revolt. But, hype apart, how many scholars would disagree that its contribution to the future course of the freedom struggle was almost zero? Few actually. It's one thing to politely agree that it was the "first war of independence", but quite another to accept that its cause commanded widespread sympathy or that its actors were the stuff of folklore. Alipore, on the other hand, was both.

We feature alongside (main story), the noted American historian, Peter Heehs, whose authoritative work, The Bomb in Bengal: The rise of revolutionary terrorism, is respected as the first narrative history of the event even as it stops short of being uncritically laudatory.

The Alipore Bomb Case got its name from the district court of Alipore in which a clutch of cases concerning the same group of accused persons was tried. But no bomb actually went off there. On April 30, 1908 two members of Barindranath Ghose's wider circle, Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki, threw the famous Muzaffarpur bomb, whose target was Douglas Kingsford, an unpopular Judge, but actually killed two innocent Englishwomen. Chaki committed suicide but Khudiram entered folklore for the calmness he exuded when mounting the gallows on August 11. Just as soon as the news of the blast reached the authorities in Calcutta, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Andrew Fraser, himself an object of three assassination attempts for being the real author of the Partition decision, decided to crack down on a garden house that was engaging the attention of police detectives for quite some time.

This garden house was located in Manicktola, an eastern suburb of Calcutta and was an ancestral property of the Ghose brothers. Barindranath wished to operate an Ananda Math-like group from there. His followers lived a spartan life on the garden. They stocked a great deal of guns, ammunition and explosive chemicals. They read the Gita, meditated and trained themselves in martial skills. The police had been watching the property for quite some time. After the Muzaffarpur incident, they decided to move in. Early on May 2, a large posse of CID officers and men swooped down on the garden house and arrested everybody they could find. They also raided the office of Nabashakti, a paper run by Aurobindo from downtown Calcutta and rounded him up. The owners of shops and houses suspected to assist the operation were also hauled away.

Wide publicity followed the mystical leader and his band of boy revolutionaries after the arrests. For the first time we see the latitude enjoyed by the native Press, even in the heyday of Empire, to defend the revolutionaries. Moral support often came from unexpected quarters. For example, Kier Hardie, a Scottish socialist who was the first independent MP in Britain, said, "the outbreak of terrorism is the natural outcome of the policy now being pursued in India." Therefore you had not only 'terrorism', but also an early 'root cause' theory. In retribution, bombs began to go off at regular intervals all over India. Terror gripped the European and Anglo-Indian communities. A unit of the British Army posted in Calcutta wrote to Viceroy Lord Minto that its members would not hesitate to slaughter every available Bengali if a even one European was hurt. On November 8, a young boy called Jatin Roy Choudhury, who was connected to Barindra Ghose's group via two members, shot at Lieutenant Governor Fraser at Calcutta's Overtoun Hall. He missed, but went on record saying, "If we kill one LG, other LGs will listen to our grievances."

The case was heard in two stages. The first, against 30 of the 35 arrested, began within a month. Alongside, there were two other cases called the Harrison Road Arms Act case and the Alipore Jail Murder case. The latter was over the murder of Narendra Nath Goswami, a follower of Barin Ghose since the early days, who was killed by Dutt and Bose inside the Jail Hospital because he decided to spill the beans as an approver. This was achieved on August 31 and, after a speedy trial, they were sentenced to death. Dutt was hanged on November 10. His body was taken in procession to the Kalighat burning ghat by thousands of people. This unnerved the government and when it was Satyen's turn to hang 12 days later, his body was cremated within the jail premises.

Aurbindo Ghose's stood trial as part of the second batch, the Judge presiding being Charles Porten Beachcroft, his contemporary at Cambridge University . Chittaranjan Das, the famous barrister and Congress leader, defended him for a nominal fee. The eventual verdict and its place in history are still intensely debated. The Judgment itself is part of the curriculum of many law schools. It was an excellent opportunity for the British to showcase the liberal core of their jurisprudence and Judge Beachcroft exploited it to the hilt. Though there was a mountain of evidence implicating Aurobindo Ghose, he was acquitted. Barindra and Ulaskhkar were sentenced to death (commuted on appeal). Seven others were jailed for varying lengths of time and the rest were acquitted.

The legacy: The Alipore Bomb case marked a personal watershed for Aurobindo. It also changed the course of the freedom movement. He was left disillusioned by terrorist tactics and underwent a paradigm shift in his attitude, chosing thenceforth to become a great spiritual savant. But the spirit of righteous war did not leave successive generations of freedom fighters. Hundreds of so-called terrorist groups mushroomed all over India and even abroad. Though Nehruvian and Marxist scholars gave predominance to Mahatma Gandhi and non-violence in school history texts -- about the only ‘history’ most Indians ever get to read -- it cannot be denied that the British felt more exercised by those who followed Aurobindo's principle. Academician Rakesh Sinha (The Other Voice) recounts some of the latter-day teachings of Aurobindo while Dr Heehs reflects on the conceptual divide between terrorism of the form we know today and what was celebrated by the early Bengal patriots. ry of the Indian freedom movement.

-- The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer

NEW DELHI: It was a rare moment. Estranged Ambani brothers Anil and Mukesh shook hands at a meeting of leading industrialists with Leader of Opposition L K Advani at which BJP firmly pitched itself as the government in waiting and promised to restore confidence in India's growth story if voted to office.

The presence of both the Ambani brothers was significant and perhaps in sync with the turnout of industry bigwigs who came to hear Advani and offer their views and prescriptions on the financial crisis. The industry presence lent credence to BJP's bid to present itself as the shadow government ready to set right the economy.

.....
Ambanis's empire and is seen as possibly the only person who can get the brothers to bury the hatchet.
Advani's invites included Sunil Mittal, Rahul Bajaj, Venu Srinivsan, Shashi Ruia, Subhash Chandra, G M Rao, Baba Kalyani, J P Gaur, Sajjan Jindal Ficci's Rajeev Chandrasekhar. Noticeable absentees Ratan Tata and N R Narayana Murthy were said to be travelling.

Advani in his outreach to industry seems to have taken a leaf out of the Barack Obama campaign .

The Democrat contender gathered academics and business figures like Warren Buffet, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker to help frame his policy response on issues including the financial crisis -- unlike rival John McCain, he did not commit himself to an early position on the economic situation.

Advani main message to the gathering was that BJP was "willing and able" to tackle the economic challenge . "The question asked of me is what will our first priority be. I say it will be restore confidence in India's growth story as it was when NDA was in power at the Centre," he said.

He made no direct comment on the Manmohan Singh government, but stressed that "indigenous factors" in the slowdown could not be ignored.

The impressive turnout at Advani's meeting came after two successful meetings Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi had with industry in Mumbai and Delhi, and can be cited by the saffron faithfuls as reflective of business's assessment of BJP prospects.

BJP's effort to position itself as front-runner will see the party convene similar interactions with trade unions and agricultural business as well as farm representatives in the coming weeks. The party feels that it can drive home the message that the government's response to the slowdown has been halting and piecemeal.

BJP said it would move swiftly to dispel an atmosphere of insecurity and pessimism. There was a deepening sense of fear, uncertainty and a lack of confidence amongst the poor as well as middle classes which the BJP wanted to address and was keen to listen to what industry had to say, said party insiders. "This is part of a learning experience for the party and we found many points of convergence," said a senior BJP leader.

Advani was assisted by former ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Jaswant Singh alongwith RSS ideologue S Gurumurthy and former Delhi Lt Gov Vijai Kapoor at the interaction where the consensus seemed to be that there could no one-size-fits-all solution to the financial crisis which needed a sector-wise approach. The BJP offered that if there were specific projects in states ruled by it that needed to be speedened up, it would do so.
....

But I would rather mischievously draw upon "advaita" philosophy to induce people to feel that the initiation of action lies within themeselves, with each individual Indian.

ISLAMABAD: India may share with Pakistan, at talks between the Home Secretaries on Tuesday, the latest developments in its investigations into the February 2007 Samjhauta Express fire bombing.

Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta arrived here on Monday for the talks that are part of the eight-subject composite dialogue process. The Home Secretaries deal with security issues including terrorism, drug trafficking and fake currency notes, issues relating to prisoners from the two countries in each other’s jails, and visa regulations.

The Pakistani side will be led by Interior Secretary Kamal Shah. In a goodwill gesture ahead of the talks, the Interior Ministry announced that it would release 101 Indian prisoners, 99 of whom are fishermen caught for straying into Pakistani waters.

Rehman Malik, who heads the Ministry, said India must reciprocate, freeing Pakistanis languishing in its prisons. The Indian government recently sent home 29 Pakistani prisoners.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Pakistani officials are expected to reiterate that India share with them the progress in the Samjhauta Express blast, in which 67 people, most of them Pakistanis returning home after visits to relatives in India, were killed.

The recent findings of investigators that the Samjhauta bombing may have been the handiwork of a Hindutva terror group have been received with satisfaction in Pakistan, with the media commenting that it only showed India’s haste in pointing a finger across the border when such incidents happen.

Indian officials associated with the talks told The Hindu in New Delhi that they were ready to share the findings. The uncovering of the possible link between Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, an accused in the Malegaon blast case, and the Samjhauta bombing only proved that the Indian investigations were “open-minded” and took into consideration all kinds of evidence, irrespective of who was involved.

The officials said they would press for similar investigations by Pakistan in cases in which India has provided evidence, most recently in the Kabul Indian embassy bombing.

Also likely to figure in the talks is the Indian cricket team’s tour to Pakistan, which appears uncertain due to reasons of security. The two Secretaries may discuss security arrangements that Pakistan is considering for the January 2009 tour, and also the setting up of an evaluation by Indian security experts closer to the date.

The two officials are also likely to discuss changes in visa rules for the highly restrictive travel between the two countries. The Indian side will reiterate its demand for the extradition of Dawood Ibrahim. New Delhi believes that the underworld don and others wanted for their involvement in terrorist incidents in India live in Pakistan but this is strongly denied by Islamabad.

Well,
I guess the "mature system" has not developed because everyone has their own idea of what the concept of "India" means and should mean. This means there is no large-scale consensus about what India should mean as a nation. It is time perhaps to hammer out this consensus at least in a patient but determined "spearhead". In another thread, writing about the "Reds", I have tried to suggest that the very ancient, but perfectly legal and highly effective peaceful method of social boycott could be applied for a start to those in the media, in politics, in academics who try to derail the process. Do not watch those TV channels, buy those newspapers or magazines, buy those authors or academics' publications, do not interact with those politicians or political groups that are part of this derailing process. At the same time honestly face the dirt and floss accumulated and have the courage to wash them off, deny the "negatives" imposed on us and the definitions/characterizations of our culture - all barriers that prevent consolidation of the Indian nation.

Given the literary cultural hold on the majority, I think we can start looking at and presenting the two evergreen epics as rather an expression of the political ideals of the ancient Bharatyia nation - with an underlying message as to what the ancient Indians had thought their nation should be. The first key point to emerge will be that of Mahabharatam - and the stress in characterizing the subcontinent as asssociated with the name of the "mythical king" Bharata was simply that he defined the nation as a separate entity from kings or reigns - this king disinherited his biological heirs and gave rulership to someone born outside of royalty because the latter would be more competent and "better" for the nation. This epic also runs through continuously with the overall objective of defining the nation, on the relationship between members of that nation, the nature and interrelationship of populations and the state - Krishna "states" this many times and very very clearly. Same goes for the "popularity" of Ramayana, as the political story of a concept of rulership which gives overall priority to the nation/people over that of personal feelings. Unification, assimilation, cultural homogenization, justice and fairplay, and consolidation of territorial integrity - all modern themes but with the most modern additional controversial thread of "righteousness" as the basis of the "state". A curious passage from the mouth of Yudhisthira, explains that "Brahmins should get more penalties for the same crime compared to the shudras for their status is connected to their expected higher moral standards" - can we imagine the implication for modern judiciary, or academics?

The army has played its role to the best possible limits. But I am not sure that it has been completely able to come out of the shadow of its "colonial" nurturing - somehow, the tight-lipped poker face reaction even now to three signal issues of the treatment of the INA soldiers, the naval revolt participants, and the returned Allied force participants (let alone allegations of "discrimination" against recruitment from "suspect" social groups and "states" - a suspicion practically traceable to what the British considered as "suspect" or "betrayer/unreliable" or simply anti-British behaviour) leaves a nagging sense of doubt in me. The successive psychologically dependent Anglophile regimes may have helped in maintaining appropriate "foreign" handles as part of their general sense of insecurity and sense of alienation from their own cultural subbase. Sooner or later a "purge" could become necessary! But I think to be fair, the army has not been "fed" properly, and not given a chance to prove itself. The future strategic expansion of the Indian state (to complete what has been lost to the nation) would crucially depend on this capability in the army.

I meant Islam and communism as obstacles because we have strong and powerful opposition from within ruling elite against their liquidation - and they have substantial direct or indirect social support.

I saw a comment on "raji" - hopefully I am not stirring up too much trouble. I thought I had left my "hot-headed" straight-speaking student days a little behind, and I understand the reaction that "raji" received. I write or speak now probably with only a thousandth of the passion I feel and deliberately hold myself in. Is it still showing?!!

I meant Islam and communism as obstacles because we have strong and powerful opposition from within ruling elite against their liquidation - and they have substantial direct or indirect social support.

Chetakji,

I don't want to see a Brahmin, or a Kshatryia, or a Shudra, or a Vaishya, I want to see a Bharatyia who as and when needed becomes a student or a teacher and therefore a Brahmin, takes up arms when needed to defend us and therefore a Kshatryia while he is doing that, engages and maintains trade and commerce and therefore a Vaishya, and when needed takes up the digger to do the hard physical labour and is therefore the shudra for that time - all qualities needed in every Bharatyia individual for the nation. I do not want to see a "Hindu" a name given by the Arabs and the Persians or an adivasi or jati - I only want to see Bharatyia having allegiance to Bharatyia society and people - I want to look at them and call them all as "my people". We can start with that, can't we?
)

Chetakji,

Its not that we don't have the core of unity and the capacity to become one nation. I do think that excessive philosophical development towards "non-material" spiritual paths have "distracted" us a bit! Probably every highly developed civilization comes to this stage when it has "nothing more to know" "nothing more to quest for" (See Al'Beruni's lament about this sort of attitude in Indian scholars he met c. 1000 C.E.), and all things material has been enjoyed to complete satisfaction - this is the time the philosophy turns "renunciate" and the population turns to hedonism (Prabhas parva in the Mahabharatam when Dwarka breaks into orgies). Buddhism (according to some commentators the Buddha was the last known in a long line of 120 Buddhas) was probably a reaction to excessive materialism but it damaged our national fabric (together with the early Jaina strands) in that (1) everything connected with the physical body and its needs and functions was somehow "dirty/bad" (2) avoid "violence" at all costs (even to the point of getting annihilated) (3) even if the "physical" gets damaged/destroyed no problem...good riddance - you attain the "divine" (4) attain salvation for the individual "soul" and not necesarily for the entire group.

These philosophical strands, and others not only from Buddhism or Jainism justified (1) negligence of the political aspect of society and especially its defence and the military (2) excuses not to maintain, prepare, and carry on military activity aimed at continuance of the society that will hold that very philosophy (3) allow all sorts of compromises, simply for the survival of the individual - or some "kind" of survival!

It is perhaps important to stress out those fundamental aspects of Bharatyia philosophy that teaches fundamental unity, and a sense of oneness with the collective. I think (Shankaracharyas could be angry with me) the Adi Shankara went out with a very laudable political agenda - uniting the "Indian" with the concept of "Advaita" - if I accept his later date of advent in the 8th century, we can also see a reason for his thrust - exactly the period Northern India is falling before Islam. In fact we do see a temporary reversal of Islamic fortune after Qasim was recalled from Sind in 714-715, lasting till the 1000's.

There are aspects of our culture now which has to be changed - we have to restore biology to its natural position as in ancient India, where sex and reproduction was not a taboo thing - as Bharatyia portion of the Indian population has to grow compared to those affiliated to cultures and philosophies having their centres outside the subcontinent. We have to drop off the charade of "renunciation" and non-violence - we have to turn our attention back to society and our people, prepare it for the violence that is going to be rained upon it from outside and betrayers inside, prepare to work hard and wage a bitter determined struggle to lift it from poverty and injustice - for it is the biological survival of the free people of India that will ensure continuation of the "culture" and spirit of India.

I don't want to see a Brahmin, or a Kshatryia, or a Shudra, or a Vaishya, I want to see a Bharatyia who as and when needed becomes a student or a teacher and therefore a Brahmin, takes up arms when needed to defend us and therefore a Kshatryia while he is doing that, engages and maintains trade and commerce and therefore a Vaishya, and when needed takes up the digger to do the hard physical labour and is therefore the shudra for that time - all qualities needed in every Bharatyia individual for the nation. I do not want to see a "Hindu" a name given by the Arabs and the Persians or an adivasi or jati - I only want to see Bharatyia having allegiance to Bharatyia society and people - I want to look at them and call them all as "my people". We can start with that, can't we?

(apologies to all those who think I am perhaps a more intense reincarnation of "Raji"! But I have never compromised in my beliefs and logic - I voluntarily left student politics at exactly the stage where my mouth was going to be shut by making me a "representative" in some "house". )