Indian Interests

[abhishek_sharma]

I think he is talking about how people started believing in Gods and ghosts. His argument is that Gods and ghosts were created to explain/get rid of fear generated by dead ancestors and nature's might. For example, he talks about how Buddha used to be afraid during night.

Of course, I don't wish to waste anyone's time or this forum's bandwidth. The aim is to study Marxist/left-leaning arguments. I am not supporting/opposing them.

[brihaspati]

If we are trying to understand Leftist/Marxist viewpoint on Indian philosophy, then Rahul Sankrityana will be a confusing entity. At different stages of life he became different beings. Moreover he would be a rather bad example - because out of the more well-known Marxians in India, he is the only one to have formally converted to Buddhism. He does take up one of the organized religions, and a theology - that was thoroughly decried against by the Comintern, and both the Russian and Chinese communist parties. It is ironic that RS apparently used "feudalism" in connection with Upanishads, for Buddhism was tagged to feudalism in the assessements of "oriental despotism" framework of historical development by the Comintern in the 20-s-30's.

Seriously, RS's writings in later life are sometimes a 180 degree turn around from his earlier pennings.

Perhaps a better understanding of Indian Marxian attempted analysis of Indian philosophy should start with Deviprasad Chattapadhyay's work on so-called "materialist philosophies of India".

Next in line should be Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi.

Both were born into "Brahmin" settings. While at it, analyze the family origins, and other aspects. It is not a great surprise that most "Marxian" stalwarts and Indian-philosophy-"Brahminism" -theology bashers - in academics or politics, seem to come predominantly from a particular so-called forward caste.

[symontk]

I did not see any issue in the NDTV program on Siachen, can someone describe what was the anti national comment made in the program?

[Rudradev]

Hinduism is a colonial construct too.

Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but not only is this statement completely incorrect... it is also a dangerous canard that provides ammunition to Hinduism's worst detractors among theorists, academics and "secular historians."

This strange claim, which has gained the impression of veracity through sheer force of Goebbelsian repetition by Hinduism’s detractors, was put forward by a group of scholars styled the “constructionists”: including Robert Frykenberg, Vasudha Dalmia, Heinrich von Stietencorn and John Hawley. It is their contention that Hinduism was constructed, invented or imagined by British scholars and colonial administrators in the 19th century, and had no existence, in any meaningful sense, before this date.

Another group of scholars, such as Romila Thapar and Richard King, allow some room for the idea of an Indian agency in the alleged fabrication of a “Hindu” identity, as opposed to the constructionists, who consider “Hinduism” an entirely British invention. They, too, however, are far off the mark in considering that the identity did not exist before the 19th century.

Both sets of claims have been thoroughly debunked by such overwhelming evidence as David Lorenzen presents in his seminal 2006 essay: “Who Invented Hinduism?”

To summarize Lorenzen’s arguments, all too briefly:

1) W.C. Smith, the forerunner of the constructionists, holds that the naming of the majority religion of India by Europeans was a mistake; that there is no Hinduism either in the minds of Hindus or in empirical reality itself. Other constructionists, such as von Steitencorn and Harjot Oberoi, insist that “Hindu” itself was a purely geographical term (deriving from the Persian “Sindhu” for the Indus River) until British administrators used it as an appellation for the majority religion of the subcontinent in the 19th century.

If this were so, then why were the foreign Muslims who permanently settled in India, as well as many generations of their descendants born in India, not also referred to as “Hindus?” Von Steitencorn attempts to explain this away by characterizing the Muslims as an elite who maintained a separate foreign self-identity for generations, while native Indians just as persistently maintained a separate, indigenous identity; however, this assertion is undermined by the stark fact that the vast majority of Muslims in India were indigenous converts of low-caste Hindu origin. If “Hindu” were indeed a purely ethno-geographical term until the British made it otherwise, then the Muslim elite would have characterized this huge body of indigenous converts as “Hindus”, or “Hindu Muslims.” No such thing happened, because “Hindu” could not be used as a qualifier for a religious identity such as “Muslim”. Therefore, “Hindu” was a religious identity unto itself, empirically established, since at least the time that Muslims arrived in India.

2) The writings of Europeans on Hinduism describe a standard model of indigenous religious beliefs, exemplified by the work of Monier-Williams in 1877. Monier-Williams analyzes what allows us to speak of Hinduism as one religion rather than simply a motley collection of sects, beliefs and practices, and arrives at two principles that constitute the basis of unity: one, an origin in a “simple, pantheistic doctrine, but branching out into an endless variety of polytheistic supersitions” and, two, the fact that there is “only one sacred language and only one sacred literature, accepted and revered by all adherents of Hinduism alike.” Monier-Williams identifies the founding principle of Hinduism as “Ekam eva advitiyam: There is but one Being, without a second.” In the book’s chapters, Monier-Williams sets forth a detailed description of the various characteristics of Hinduism as evolved and practiced all over India: the theory and practice of the Vedas, Upanishads, the epics, the Puranas, the Tantras and so on.

The outline of what Monier-Williams regarded as the key characteristics of Hinduism can be read backward and compared with earlier European (Christian), Hindu, and Muslim attempts to summarize Hinduism’s more important characteristics.

Lorenzen cites a number of these earlier accounts to demonstrate that they consistently embody substantial characteristics of Monier-Williams’ standard model.

3) A most striking instance is an 1820 article by John Crawfurd, one of the earliest British sources of the term “Hinduism”… which has nothing to do with the administration of India, but in fact usess “Hinduism”, “Hindu religion” and “Hindus” in the context of BALI, Indonesia… where, clearly, the Hindus are not Indians in any racial or ethno-geographical sense! This thoroughly debunks the constructionist notion that “Hindu” was strictly an ethno-geographical term before the British made it otherwise.

4) The treatises on Hinduism (as a religion) John Zephaniah Holwell and Alexander Dow in the 1760s, are substantially consistent with Monier-Williams’ 1877 standard model, in terms of the characteristics they describe.

5) A publication in Spanish by Sebastian Manrique, from 1649, has one of the earliest uses of the word “Hindu” in a European language, and it occurs in a context that gives the word a specifically religious, NOT a geographical meaning.

Here Manrique quotes the words of a Mughal official in Bengal against a Muslim member of Manrique’s party who offended the local Hindu population by killing a peacock:

“Are you not, in appearance, a Bengali and a Muslim (which means ‘Moor’ and a follower of the true law?) How did you dare, in a district of Hindus (which means Gentiles), kill a living thing?”

Clearly the consciousness of Hindus as a distinct religious identity characterized by specific philosophical beliefs, existed even among the Mughals at a time when most Europeans in India were not administrators, but mere observers or missionaries.

6) Still earlier European accounts of Hinduism by missionaires of the 16th and 17th centuries, such as the Italian Jesuit Roberto Nobili, the Portuguese Goncalo Fernandes Trancoso, and the British Thomas Stephens in South India; the Augustinian Sebastian Manrique and Bengal; and the Anglican chaplain Henry Lord in Gujarat, generally feature the same set of beliefs, gods and practices found in the writings of later scholars and consistent with Monier-Williams’ standard model.

Were Hinduism so disperse and atomistic as to lack any coherent identity before the British are alleged to have “invented” one… would Monier-Williams’ standard model be anticipated so consistently in so many accounts, from such diverse sources working in entirely different parts of India at different periods of time?

Consider also that it would actually have served the interests of Christian missionaries to portray Indian religious beliefs as a scattered set of fundamentally disparate cults, in order to facilitate conversion of the native populace. Yet, their reports all describe what is undeniably a common spiritual belief system. This has not been the case with Christian missionary writings on the native religious practices of the Americas or Africa, or any part of the non-white world where Islam or Buddhism did not dominate at the time of their arrival. Clearly, therefore, Hinduism already existed for these visitors to observe, and their observations are consistent with one another over the centuries and across the map.

7) Still more interesting are Lorenzen’s abundance of quotes from the vernacular literature of India, prior to European colonialism but after the arrival of Muslims, in which a clear distinction on religious lines between “Hindus” (as a group) and “Muslims” is reiterated time and time again.

Not between “Shaivas/Lingayats/Jains/Krishna-bhakts/Goddess-worshippers and Muslims”… but between “Hindus and Muslims” specifically. This is telling.

Lorenzen shows how Indian vernacular literature dating from the time of the first Muslim invasions, establishes a Hindu religious identity through a process of mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim Other. In practice, there can be no “Hindu identity” unless this is defined by contrast with such an Other… prior to the Muslim arrival, practically everyone on the subcontinent was Dharmic, and there could obviously be no expression of a sharply self-conscious Hindu identity. Yet, with the arrival of the Muslims, this identity emerges into sharp focus, through the agency of the Hindus themselves… once again, from all parts of India and at a great diversity of points in time.

8 ) For example, Eknath (1533-1599) from Maharashtra has a humorous poem, the Hindu-Turka-Samvada, in which a Hindu Brahmin and a Muslim mock the absurdities they see in each others’ religious practices.

9) The Ramanandi Anantadas, writing in Sikar (Rajasthan) in the 16th century, produced the Kabir Parachai, wherein he explicitly stakes out a position for Kabir separate from both the Muslims and what he calls the “Hindus”. This is clearly reflective of the existence of two intrinsically whole and mutually conflicting identities across the subcontinent, one Muslim and one Hindu.

10) Kabir himself lived a century earlier, between ca. 1450 and 1520 in the western Gangetic valley. A song from his Kabir-bijak illustrates his often reiterated assertion that both Hinduism and Islam, as commonly practiced, had lost their grasp on spiritual truth. Again, what is noteworthy here is that he identifies a certain system of belief and praxis as “Hindu”… precisely the same system also identified by Ekanath in Maharashtra and Anantadas in Rajasthan as “Hindu”.

11) The poet Vidyapathi Thakur, living in Mithila (Bihar) from ca.1350-1440, wrote the romance “Kirtilata”. In it, Vidyapathi sets out a series of contrasts between the religious customs of Hindus and Muslims, saying “The Hindus and the Turks live close together/ Each makes fun of the other’s religion (sic: “dhamme.”)” He then goes on to describe the religious practices of these two groups, Hindu and Muslim.

This is a particularly important piece of evidence, because the word “Dharma” (vernacular, “dhamme”) has been coupled with the words Hindu and Turake, to explicitly mean “Religion of the Hindus” and “Religion of the Muslims.” This clearly shows that the word “Dharma”, used in the sense of “religion”, is not simply a modern usage for a borrowed European concept as the constructionists have suggested.

12) Moving on to Southern India: The term “Sultan among Hindu Kings” (Hindu-Raya-Suratrana), one of the earliest written usages of the term “Hindu” in an Indian language, appears in Andhra inscriptions from 1352 onwards. It is a title conferred upon the imperial founders of Vijayanagara. Clearly this is an expression of religious identity to distinguish the Vijayanagara Emperors, and their people, from the “Muslim” Bahmani principalities, which began to establish themselves in peninsular India by ca. 1323.

13) Chand Baradai’s epic “Prithviraj Raso”, composed around 1192, is replete with references to “Hindus” and “Turks.” In most cases, there is ambiguity over whether these terms are used in a religious or ethno-geographical sense; however, in one explicit reference, the text declares “both religions (dina) have drawn their curved swords.”

Clearly, the pervasive consciousness of a Hindu religious identity in far-flung reaches of the subcontinent goes back further than the first beginnings of Islam’s arrival in India as a comparator “Other” religious identity. Before the arrival of such a comparator “Other”, of course, the question of Hindus conceptualizing a united “Hindu” identity becomes moot… all belief systems in the subcontinent were Dharmic in any case, and treated one another with mutual respect.

14) Finally there are the Muslim sources. In Abdul Malik Isami’s Persian work Futuhus-Salatin, composed in the Deccan circa 1350, the author clearly uses “Hindi” to refer to ethno-geographical characteristics of India and “Hindu” to refer to the religious identity of its indigenous inhabitants. “Hindu” is used in Persian literature of the Ghaznavid period, beginning circa 990, to describe a religious concept.

15) Most remarkably of all, there is the detailed formulation of Hindu religion by Al-Biruni in the 11th century… a clear, detailed and exhaustive outsider’s account of Indian subcontinental religion as a unified concept, which is all the more remarkable in the consistency with which it anticipates the specific standard model elucidated by Monier-Williams nearly 800 years later!

Lorenzen has carefully laid out a vast trail of evidence establishing that the Hindu identity, in fact, wasn’t invented sometime after 1800… or indeed, did not magically emerge sometime after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. Rather, during the centuries of rule by Muslim Sultans and Emperors over large parts of India, Hindus developed a definitive consciousness of shared religious identity based on family resemblances between the variegated practices and belief systems that preceded the arrival of Islam– and identified consciously as Hindus, no matter what their sect, caste, chosen deity or theological school.

As for that Dharmic family of belief systems themselves… it has existed across the Indian subcontinent, and even beyond, since the very dawn of human history.

[Altair]

India needs to setup an "enforcement" organization in the lines of the "SS" which will have the mandate to uphold the "Bharatheeyam" and must have all the powers to do so.
It would have to be reviewed every year about its performance by cabinet committee consisting of people hand picked from the Armed forces, National Security agency and independent think tanks. It may be lead by a distinguished General like VKS.

[devesh]

Rudradev ji,

still reading your post, but quick question. why are the muslim converts identified as "low caste hindus"? this is a commonly used assumption, with no historical source to back it up. we know, for example, that in present day Pakistan, a lot of the converts are what used to be the Brahmin and Kshatriya component of Hindus. we know that in Sindh, after long struggle, the vast majority of the Rajputs and intellectuals converted, leaving mostly the traders and business community in the Hindus. this is why we see such a preponderance for the business/finance in the left over Hindu Sindhis.

the same in Pakjab. most of the Pakjabi elite mongers today were mostly Hindu brahmins, kshtriyas, rajputs, and traders.

so this whole classification of "low caste muslim converts is disingenuous at best. entire groups of "high castes" converted en mass. so, let's not forget that. the usual narrative of "low caste" Hindus escaping the oppression of "high castes" is the prevalent notion, which once again, has no actual real sources to back it up with. there is not a single reference anywhere, not even by the Islamic "scholars", of them gaining converts b/c the "high castes" were oppressing the "low castes". there simply is no evidence to prove that point, and yet the colonial framework of Indian history as perpetrated this fraud, without actually checking to verify those claims.

[Pranav]

Hinduism is a colonial construct too.

Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but not only is this statement completely incorrect... it is also a dangerous canard that provides ammunition to Hinduism's worst detractors among theorists, academics and "secular historians."

RD ji, the "Hindu" is of foreign origin, going back at least to the ancient Greeks who used the related word "India".

There has always been a civilizational identity that encompasses not only "Hindus" but also Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists etc ... perhaps "Dharmic" is a better, indigenous word.

[harbans]

Rudradev Ji, excellently well put post as usual with lots of data points. My idea obviously is not to foist a canard and the last thing i want to provide is ammo to anti Dharmic groups. But some points here:

Monier-Williams analyzes what allows us to speak of Hinduism as one religion rather than simply a motley collection of sects, beliefs and practices, and arrives at two principles that constitute the basis of unity: one, an origin in a “simple, pantheistic doctrine, but branching out into an endless variety of polytheistic supersitions” and, two, the fact that there is “only one sacred language and only one sacred literature, accepted and revered by all adherents of Hinduism alike.” Monier-Williams identifies the founding principle of Hinduism as “Ekam eva advitiyam: There is but one Being, without a second.”

If that is the the basis of defining Hinduism, then other Dharmic faiths also are in it's purview Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism all accept this fundamental. So why develop a strand called Hinduism that is separate from the rest. The relevant thing is there are forces of a more recent nature that pressure a narrowing of the Hindu construct to beyond Ekam Eva Advitiyam. Why differentiate into a group people who believe in the Veda's, Puranas, Upanishads on one hand and those that believe in the Granth, Buddhist scriptures on the other. Why then is it not right to let those who may believe in Veda's but not in the Purana's as different from the Hindu's (Arya Samaji's for instance). If we keep doing this exercise we keep narrrowing Hinduism by prompting groups to leave it. Then those groups that don't follow the Veda's but follow the Upanishad can be classified differently at some point in the future too. Then those that follow one Upanishad and not another can again be. At each point of differentiation we put pressure points in a group to leave the 'Hindu construct' because it's basic definition is still not encompassing. So Monier Williams' standard construct may not be working as well.

Here Manrique quotes the words of a Mughal official in Bengal against a Muslim member of Manrique’s party who offended the local Hindu population by killing a peacock:

“Are you not, in appearance, a Bengali and a Muslim (which means ‘Moor’ and a follower of the true law?) How did you dare, in a district of Hindus (which means Gentiles), kill a living thing?”

Another really good example you give here. It was evident that most Hindu's/ Dharmics took sanctity of life very seriously. This was a symptom of evolved Dharma. But if you tell people on this forum that evolved Hinduism involves not killing animals, there would be many who would oppose you. Even quote Yagna's about Animal sacrifice all valid within a narrower Hindu paramaeter than the one originally stated of 'Ekam Eva Advitiyam'. That forces many groups who don't kill animals to be exclusive from the larger Hindu identity.

My main premise here is the more we try to narrow the definition of Hinduism it becomes more excluvist by moving groups away from it. If we are to retain our common past heritage we may have to start classifying ourselves on constructs not developed in contrast to Islam or Muslims or Christian dogmas, but intrinsically that define the large majority of us.

Towards that i liked your point 2 by Moniers as great unifiers and definers of our civilizational heritage :

1. "Ekam Eva Advitiyam" (There is but one Being, without a second)
2. Concept of Dharma
3. Concept of Moksha

These 3 can easily serve as a fundamental basis alone of identifying our civilization without having Buddhists claim Dharma or Jains claim Non Voilence or Arya Samaji's, Hare Krishna'ites walking out of the larger family.

My aim is to see Indian civilization is more firmly rooted in it's true civilizational heritage and no groups leave the larger family. Yes we can have subdivisions of the larger family. But this (1-3) is truly what we are as Hindu's, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Hare Krishna'ites, Arya Samaji's..etc.

By truly identifying ourselves as part of a larger family of Dharma we not only unite ourselves with the Balinese, we also will have large parts of SE Asia once again classifying their core religious identity more closely with ours, that of Dharma. The world map of the future marked with Dharmic countries will only grow bigger. And India will always be the center point and mother of Civilizational Dharma whether manifested by Vedics, Upanishadics, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Shaivas, Vishnu Bhakts, Hare Krisha'ites, Arya Samaji's etc..yes we have n number of flavors and ways to the Supreme Consciousness. India would then pride itself being the land of true spiritual freedom and diversity.

[RamaY]

India needs to setup an "enforcement" organization in the lines of the "SS" which will have the mandate to uphold the "Bharatheeyam" and must have all the powers to do so.
It would have to be reviewed every year about its performance by cabinet committee consisting of people hand picked from the Armed forces, National Security agency and independent think tanks. It may be lead by a distinguished General like VKS.

Altair ji

IEDs are extremely sekular and liberal in nature. They do not distinguish between faithfools and infeudals when they go soosaide.

[ramana]

Devesh,

still reading your post, but quick question. why are the muslim converts identified as "low caste hindus"? this is a commonly used assumption, with no historical source to back it up. we know, for example, that in present day Pakistan, a lot of the converts are what used to be the Brahmin and Kshatriya component of Hindus. we know that in Sindh, after long struggle, the vast majority of the Rajputs and intellectuals converted, leaving mostly the traders and business community in the Hindus. this is why we see such a preponderance for the business/finance in the left over Hindu Sindhis.

the same in Pakjab. most of the Pakjabi elite mongers today were mostly Hindu brahmins, kshtriyas, rajputs, and traders.

so this whole classification of "low caste muslim converts is disingenuous at best. entire groups of "high castes" converted en mass. so, let's not forget that. the usual narrative of "low caste" Hindus escaping the oppression of "high castes" is the prevalent notion, which once again, has no actual real sources to back it up with. there is not a single reference anywhere, not even by the Islamic "scholars", of them gaining converts b/c the "high castes" were oppressing the "low castes". there simply is no evidence to prove that point, and yet the colonial framework of Indian history as perpetrated this fraud, without actually checking to verify those claims.

In Indian Muslims the descendents of foreigners are called Ashraf and those of natives are called ajlafs. The Ashrafs themselves have many groups:Sheikhs, Syeds, Turco-Afgghan-Persian(TAP) und so weiter. Howver if you look at the ratio of Ashrafs to Ajlafs is 10:90. Even high caste converts in Indian Muslims manage to claim Ashraf status.

The whole groups that converted at a time is due to the biradari system in North India. If they didn't they would not be able to sustain themselves as a viable social unit. They would not have marital relations among the groups as raiding can be sustained for only a couple of generations.

Hence the generalization that low castes form a bulk of Indian Muslims.

In fairness to them they had no choice to escape into greater India like some of the upper castes during the Islamic invasions.

Please read Chari "Islam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century India". Its a very detailed study from National Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla.

[brihaspati]

harbans ji,
why the "other" "dharmiks" became "other" is a complex and uncomfortable question. It has to do perhaps more with the intense desire in a founding sectarian group within the wider spectrum of a pre-existing belief system to distinguish itself from "what was" or "used to be".

At the time, the new sect tries to establish itself - it is under a fatal dilemma. The dilemma is that if it says something completely new with no interpretations possible in the pre-existing belief system, nothing in common understood by the older belief system population - then it will be rejected outright. The only way that the new sect can then spread is by coercion, and typically this means either quickly gaining military power or coming to an understanding with the prevalent state or some imperial power.

On the other hand, since the new sect wants to seek the centre of attention/faith/devotion, it is in competition with pre-existing organized aspects of the underlying faith. So it has to also disempower/delegitimize the older post-holders of the system to an extent - directly or indirectly.

Both processes are not inherently destructive or damaging - in the sense - that they probably sometimes revitalize the underlying faith. Both in reaction, as well as in providing a critique that was lacking before to correct the leadership of the pre-existing system.

The problem is that, once and if - the new sect succeeds in obtaining some power and influence, there is internal pressure on the elite of this new sect to make the sect a permanent identity distinct and separate from the preexisting identity. Once that distinct identity forms as a source of power, establishment interests will quickly form to prevent going back to the older identity even if that identity has reformed itself in competition with the sect.

One of the reasons that "Hinduism" probably was unable to formally absorb the "others", was that apart from resistance by the elite of the divergent sects, the broad commonality of "Hindu" philosophical thought found it difficult to characterize the exclusivist trends in the new sects. Buddhists in the later phase took great pains to paint themselves as "different" or distinct from the rest of "Hindus".

Within the "Hindu", different subtrends had not that great a difficulty in acknowledging each other as valid. The same did not happen always [or most of the time] with the "others".

[ramana]

X-post...
Allow me to pontificate.

Post colonial India in Westphalian terms is a State of Nations(people with different language ties). In Europe, both West and East such nations each formed a State. despite such examples, India formed a State of many nations.

If we look at Terrorist State of Pakistan, the many nations that were forced together in 1947 want to pull away. Bangla Desh was the first successful one. Early on Kalat was forcedly incorporated into Pakistan and became Baluchistan. Kashmir was also unsuccessfully tried to be incorporated.

Now we see the many nations of Pakistan trying to pull away. The reason is Islam was not a unifying basis for Pakistan, just as Christianity is not for Europe.

Its the Indian civilization that is a unifying basis for India that allows the sustaining of the state of many nations.

EU is another artificial Pakistan and will unravel.

Does this make sense?

[ramana]

Its not often we aam public get to hear the council given by high functionaries. Thanks to Hindu for publishing this.

India is not a global power
Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, was until recently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy for West Asia

India is not a global power
Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

Instead of chasing such titles, let us work harder to improve the lives of the poor

Power in inter-state relations is the capacity as well as the political will to use that capacity, of one country to make another country do something which, left to itself, it would not do or would not want to do. “Soft” power should not be considered a component of the concept of power since it is not relevant to modifying the behaviour of another country; it can and does serve as a model and indirectly — and over a period of time — to earn goodwill among sections of society of other countries for its culture. But it has no place in the discussion of power as a means to bring about a change in the attitude of another country. India has a genuine attraction for many in the Middle East because of its pluralism combined with a functioning democracy; however, it does not give any “power” to India to influence decision-making in those countries. When we talk of power, we are thinking of military, economic and diplomatic clout, not of Bollywood or yoga.

Spheres of influence

The 20th century offers many examples of the exercise of power by states mostly in neighbouring countries or countries regarded as forming a part of their spheres of influence. There were at least 10 cases of American intervention, starting with Cuba when the Platt amendment was adopted in the Senate which gave virtual control over Cuba to the U.S. as well as provided the framework for the lease of Guantánamo Bay. Other examples are Panama in 1903, Nicaragua in 1912, Haiti in 1915, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, Chile in 1973, etc. An example of the blatant exercise of power was the Anglo-French-Israeli joint attack on the Suez Canal zone in 1956. The Soviet Union used brute force to restore its domination of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. There was of course the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 which had a lot to do with the eventual collapse of the Soviet empire.

The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and the evolution of international law since then have completely changed the rules of the game of the exercise of power by the introduction of the concept of legitimacy. It is universally recognised that there are only two scenarios of the legitimate use of force: pursuant to the Security Council authorisation or in the exercise of the right of self-defence. The latter has been severely circumscribed by the Charter which lays down that the right of self-defence can be exercised only in response to an attack by another state, thus rejecting the “pre-emptive” right of self-defence. The one case of unilateral use of force in the 21st century was the American intervention in Iraq in 2003 which the international community refused to recognise as legitimate since it did not have the imprimatur of Security Council approval nor was it accepted as having been in the exercise of the right of self-defence. United States/NATO intervention in Afghanistan, on the other hand, was sanctioned by the U.N.

Of the three constituent elements of “power” — military, economic and diplomatic — the economic is crucial. This is self-evident and does not need elaboration. One important reason why the Soviet Union lost the Cold War was the mismatch between its bloated military and the inability of its economy to support and sustain it.

{Also its in one's own control!}

Is there a “superpower” in the contemporary world? The answer is clearly in the negative. America has global reach, and its military is no doubt the strongest in the world. But this does not confer on it the capability to impose its will on others. To be fair to it, the U.S. does not ask others to recognise it as a superpower, though it does not protest when the rest of the world describes it as one. The Americans would rather prefer to be recognised as the “exceptional” power. The capacity of its military as well as the will of its political leadership to deploy anywhere at any time without worrying about adverse political or diplomatic reaction remains, but it is severely hobbled by its increasing economic weakness. To that extent, it is a global power. But it lacks in other attributes of power. The most embarrassing moment for American diplomacy was in March 2003 when it failed to persuade enough members of the Security Council, including some of its close allies, to support the “second resolution” on Iraq which would have legitimised its intervention in Iraq; only four countries promised support. More and more members in the U.N. vote in favour of the resolution criticising American sanctions against Cuba. The U.S. has not had much success in getting countries such as India to fall in line with its Iran policy. Getting its nominee elected president of the World Bank has less to do with its diplomatic strength and more to do with the voting advantage that it and its allies enjoy as also to the lack of unity among the challengers for the job.

America is without doubt a super “soft” power. Its movies, television series, popular music, and, most of all, its espousal of democratic values have immense resonance among the youth of the world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. But these do not translate into “power.”

About China

China is portrayed as a legitimate claimant for the title of global power. China's economy has been the principal engine of growth of the world economy but is now slowing down and facing the prospect of a reality bubble, political instability and huge corruption scandals. It is now not clear when, if ever, it will become the biggest economy in the world. Its military capability is nowhere close to America's. In R&D and labour productivity, it is way behind the U.S. China has increased its military profile, especially its navy. But the neighbours, while distrustful, are not afraid of China because of the American “pivot” or other factors. Much weaker countries, such as the Philippines, refuse to be intimidated by Chinese threats.

If the U.S. and China can be eliminated as candidates for “superpower” status, there is no need to consider any other state for the position.

India's case

Is India at least a “regional” power? The most conspicuous example of the exercise of power by India was the operation in 1971 in former East Pakistan. India's intervention was not authorised by the U.N.; India justified it on the ground of self-defence since Pakistan had earlier attacked several Indian Air Force bases as also on the one that Pakistan had in fact invaded India in the form of 10 million refugees. There is also the case of the intervention in the Seychelles in 1986, and one case of ill-advised military intervention, in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s which had disastrous consequences for India. There was talk of India sending a brigade to Iraq in 2003, but wiser counsel prevailed. As a general rule, Indian participation in military operations has been as a part of U.N.-mandated peace-keeping operations, with the exceptions mentioned.

The global powers of yesteryear became such for concrete reasons: control over sources of raw materials including oil and gas and protection of the interests of their corporations, e.g. the case of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala in the 1950s, an American company in which the then CIA director was a shareholder.

Why do some analysts in India feel enamoured of the prospect of India being called a global or a regional power? Is it because of the sense of self-importance or prestige? Will such a “title” give India a place at the high table in international diplomacy? Others sometimes use this adjective for us for one or both of these reasons: to flatter us — and we are the most flattery-prone people in the world — and/or to make us take foreign policy steps which would serve the objectives of those flattering us. Will the label of regional power help ameliorate the lives of the poor in our country, which is and should continue to be the guiding principle of our domestic as well as external policy? Further, while we have soft power of doubtful practical utility, we definitely are or have become or are becoming a super “soft state.” India's neighbours have the full measure of its will, or lack thereof, to use whatever hard power it has. One criterion of military power ought to be, not the unlimited capacity to pay for imports of hardware, but how much of it is the country able to manufacture domestically; India fares poorly in this respect. The possession of nuclear weapons does not change anything. Pakistan too has them. And, our nuclear weapons did not deter Pakistan from indulging in the Kargil adventure, but Pakistan's nuclear weapons apparently deterred us from crossing the Line of Control (LoC) at that time, and restrained us after 26/11. The boom years of India's economy seem to be over at least for the short term. Our forex reserves have ceased to grow and are likely to dwindle, with the rising energy bill and diminished exports. A reduction in interest rates might at some stage induce NRIs to start pulling out their deposits as it happened in 1990-91. A declining economy makes for a poor case for acceptance as a “power” of any kind.

In today's world, the concepts of super or global or even regional power do not make sense. We should not waste our time or energy over this non-issue. Fortunately, the Indian government does not seem to be much preoccupied about such recognition.

(Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, was until recently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy for West Asia.)

I thought he was WKK! Pretty good rebuttal of the US fanboys in Indian media and abroad on WSJ,

[abhishek_sharma]

Rahul Sankrityayan visited this Jwala devi temple near Baku during his trip to Soviet Union.

[Prem]

http://gigaom.com/2012/06/10/anonymous- ... bollywood/
Anonymous takes on Indian government, Bollywood

As promised, hactivist group Anonymous organized demonstrations on Saturday in 16 cities throughout India, protesting the government’s Internet laws and the ISPs’ blocking of popular file-sharing sites. Protesters donned Guy Fawkes masks and amassed at cricket grounds and other outdoor landmarks from Chennai to Delhi, according to BBC reports.The protests focused on the government’s broad power to monitor, intercept and block any information from the Internet as well as to force companies to remove any material it finds objectionable from their servers. Foreign Policy explains the issue in a detailed article published last week:

[Aditya_V]

So called Activists show thier Patriotic Act again, expect a debate on NDTV.

Activists want Justice Rajinder Sachar as President

Here is a list of these Uber Patriotes.

According to social activist and Magsaysay award winner Sandeep Pandey, noted personalities who have supported Justice Sachar's name include Medha Patkar, Kuldip Nayyar, Yogendra Yadav, Mahesh Bhatt, Admiral L Ramdas, Seema Mustafa, Ram Puniyani, Swami Agnivesh, Sunilam, Kavita Srivastava and advocate Ravi Kiran Jain.

[RamaY]

why the "other" "dharmiks" became "other" is a complex and uncomfortable question. It has to do perhaps more with the intense desire in a founding sectarian group within the wider spectrum of a pre-existing belief system to distinguish itself from "what was" or "used to be".

Thanks Bji.

Spiritually speaking, there were numerous God-realized souls before Gautama, Mahavira etc., Often times they followed the already existing path of Jnana marga of Upanishads. Some found news ways as we see in Vedic Shat-darshanas. All these darshanas are accepted as Vedic because they accepted the standard and of Vedas.

Then what is that Veda-pramaana, the foundation of Indic spiritual glory? AFAIK the Veda-Pramana is to accept the fact that "The individual is not separate from the Param" or "Ekameva Adviteeyam Brahma". The Avedic Indic thoughts separated from this pramaana/standard, either by saying "everything is sunyam sunyam" or by saying "there is no Brahma/Param" denying the all pervading God consciousness.

In the social and political realm, IMHO, as long as the individuals are comfortable in pursuing their individual goals and growth in the existing Vedic system there was little friction with underlying spiritual foundations. This included the "understanding and acceptance" of individual life as a phase in continual journey towards self-realization. {I understand the pain one gets when they are told that their current life is result of their past karma (good/bad). But what they miss in this pain is that Sanatana Dharma offers Moksha in a single life when the individual is ready. In this emotion the individual misses the fact that even given the same opportunities not all individuals get the same results (why not all IITians have same career paths? why only one Bill Gates or Warren Buffet exists etc., }

When an individual was impatient with the then existing system and want to achieve status/power/wealth/self-realization (pick a measure of success) in spite of his/her qualifications (whatever they may be), that is when they grow bitter about the existing system and revolt against. In the process, they come up with a system that is a reflection of their fears and prejudices. All Avedic Indic faiths are reflections of their founders, good and bad.

Why and how is SD different? It is perhaps the only path that produced numerous and continual God-realized individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, birth, species etc., (There are many Rishis who have non-human lives). There have been as many God-realized individuals in SD path as there are stars in the sky. To enjoy this beauty one need to come out of the shade of mere street lamps in to the darkness of night so they can enjoy "Tama Aaseet, Tamasaa Goodhamagre". One should contemplate why a Aadisamkara (~800AD), a Vidyaranya (~1300AD), a Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (~1800AD), A Ramana Maharshi (~1960s).... did not start their own faiths and why only a Buddha or Jaina felt the need for a new "faith".

That brings us to the current discussion. What do we want to build our Bharat on? On the foundation of a Indic-faith that has its prophet and system built upon the realities of 1800BC (using Indic history dating) or on the foundations of SD that produced and gaurantees to grow the individual as well as the society to the God-realization.

[RajeshA]

why only a Buddha or Jaina felt the need for a new "faith".

I am not sure that Buddha or Mahavira really started their own faiths. Later on their paths got sufficient support so that the administrators of their faith later on asserted their own individuality and separateness, possibly to have a better control over their body of followers.

That brings us to the current discussion. What do we want to build our Bharat on? On the foundation of a Indic-faith that has its prophet and system built upon the realities of 1800BC (using Indic history dating) or on the foundations of SD that produced and gaurantees to grow the individual as well as the society to the God-realization.

I think we will have to bring all the Dharmic traditions again under one umbrella of friendly and familial interaction and respect.

And with time we should ensure that our Constitution reflects dharmic values and the institutions are organized according to the old systems adapted to reflect modern requirements showing a path of evolution and the same basis of values and considerations.

[RamaY]

RajeshAji

I am not sure that Buddha or Mahavira really started their own faiths. Later on their paths got sufficient support so that the administrators of their faith later on asserted their own individuality and separateness, possibly to have a better control over their body of followers.

Does it matter? Don't we hear the same logic about almost every IEDeology? If that is the conventional wisdom, why do people claim to be Buddhists, Jains etc., and not return to SD path?

I can respect and accept even Abrahamic faiths, but in their own lands and own societies and not in Bharat. Similarly I respect all Indic dharmas in Indic society.

The whole discussion is about choosing the right foundation to rebuild our Bharat after all these altercations. In that I recommend that SD is the basis for it and am providing my rationale.

Earlier in point 102 I started discussing the reservations system. What would be SD solution to that issue? I have my thoughts and will share. Similarly if we specify all Indian interests and issues and start identifying the underlying root causes and then offering SD and non-SD solutions and see what is the best, that would be true SD way.

[ShauryaT]

why only a Buddha or Jaina felt the need for a new "faith".

There is enough evidence to point to the fact that first Buddha himself never set out to discover another faith. His explorations were firmly within the larger realm of SD.

There is a misunderstood aspect of Buddhism vis-a-vis hinduism for some reasons.

Buddha is largely silent on the nature of Brahma, soul and God, as expounded in the Upanishads. This was for some very practical reasons to do with the age old issue with Hinduism, where ideals and concepts are endlessly debated. For his time and context, Buddha felt that spirituality served no purpose unless it was practical. This position is not materially different from what some of the Upanishads themselves conclude to, not in unison but only in part as some of these questions in its view are impossible to answer and hence futile to explore.

There are enough interpretation of Sat Chit Ananda in the Upanishads that are indistinguishable from Nirvana of the Buddha. While the Buddha talks of Law individualized and practical, the Samkhya for example provides the same as Principles of prakriti, mahat, ahaMkara etc.

The differences with Buddhism is one of approach. Buddhism taking a practical view and is abstract and dry. Hence the concept of SaguNa Brahma or the path of Bhakti is missing in Buddhism. There is an emphasis on negativity through the miseries and transitoriness of this life, unlike the Vedanta that has a focus on Joy and Freedom. So, while life is full of misery the netherworld cannot be communicated with, this divorce between the two is a little over emphasized.

So, Buddha cannot be divorced from the Hindu tradition. One cannot understand Buddha, without the context of the Upanishads and Samkhya yoga.

Increasingly, this is being recognized. Buddha rightly deserves to be the ninth avatar and not Balrama as some expound. The Dalai Lama is on record that he is a Hindu. At a personal level, just last month we performed a Yagna at a local Buddha temple on the verses of the Gita. We have to reclaim Buddha as part of the Hindu tradition or it shall be a another self goal.

[kasthuri]

Buddha is largely silent on the nature of Brahma, soul and God, as expounded in the Upanishads. This was for some very practical reasons to do with the age old issue with Hinduism, where ideals and concepts are endlessly debated. For his time and context, Buddha felt that spirituality served no purpose unless it was practical. This position is not materially different from what some of the Upanishads themselves conclude to, not in unison but only in part as some of these questions in its view are impossible to answer and hence futile to explore.

Radhakrishnan deals with this nicely in his Indian Philosophy. Sunyavada has lots of similarities with Mayavada.

[RamaY]

Increasingly, this is being recognized. Buddha rightly deserves to be the ninth avatar and not Balrama as some expound. The Dalai Lama is on record that he is a Hindu. At a personal level, just last month we performed a Yagna at a local Buddha temple on the verses of the Gita. We have to reclaim Buddha as part of the Hindu tradition or it shall be a another self goal.

I will say one last time...

We can do all we want with Gautama Buddha (making him 9th Avataara - in fact the avataara-Buddha is different from Gautama the Buddha).

We also can do all we want with Buddhism, the ideology. I see lot of people separating Gautama Buddha from Buddhism by saying that he did not start a new religion, but they ignore the fact that Buddha indeed took many sishyas to propagate his world-view, which happened to deny Veda-pramaana. By this logic what is wrong with some one declaring Muhammed being the 10th avataara, after all Islam is codified ~200 after Muhammed and it has better historical proof (by being closer in history). Perhaps this way we can make WANA part of Bharata Varsha.

There is a lot of difference (hastimaSakAntara bhEdam = like an elephant and mosquito) between accepting Buddhism as Indic-dharma and making it the foundation of Bharat as BR/JLN duo did with Constitution of Independent India in 1947. That hasn't helped Bharat in the past 60 years and will not in the future. If and when Bharat will develop its next constitution, it is in the interests of Bharat and the world that the new constitution is based on Sanatana Dharmic principles and not some Indic-faith, however Indic it may be.

Thanks

[RamaY]

Buddha is largely silent on the nature of Brahma, soul and God, as expounded in the Upanishads. This was for some very practical reasons to do with the age old issue with Hinduism, where ideals and concepts are endlessly debated. For his time and context, Buddha felt that spirituality served no purpose unless it was practical. This position is not materially different from what some of the Upanishads themselves conclude to, not in unison but only in part as some of these questions in its view are impossible to answer and hence futile to explore.

Radhakrishnan deals with this nicely in his Indian Philosophy. Sunyavada has lots of similarities with Mayavada.

There is lot of difference between Sunyavada and Mayavada.

Sunya means nothing (Buddhas says everything is illusion. Then who is the one that is realizing that everything is illusion? Is that buddhi/soul/buddha real or illusion? Can illusion "know/realize" illusion?). Maya means I don't know or unexplained (The process using which the Nirguna Param creates the Saguna Brahma/Chaturmukha=4dim Brahma/Visible universe is unknown = Maya). There is a lot of differnce between these two, otherwise there is no need for two vaadas/schools-of-thoughts.

Our Tamas is so dark that we can't even distinguish Shat-Darshanas with Nastika-Darshanas, then how can we understand the difference between Sunya/Mayavadas?

[member_22872]

We can do all we want with Gautama Buddha (making him 9th Avataara - in fact the avataara-Buddha is different from Gautama the Buddha).

RamaY garu, I too feel the same, in fact there is lot of debate over this. Gautama is nastika, he couldn't have been made one of the reincarnation of MahaVishnu, a completely astika
tradition.

It is my opinion that he set out to understand the truth, before he got enlightened, he was a disciple of many astika rishis and teachers. He didn't get satisfied with the answers they provided, doesn't mean he negated their teachings, it's just that he he was not satisfied which put on his own course. It was later that he found that rituals could be done away with if his life story has to be believed. Yes even to this day including Nagarjuna don't take vedas to be pramana. This is what was countered by Kumarila Bhatta. He bluntly states that Buddhism is nothing new, in fact he is very critical of them and says that Buddhists in fact repackaged vedas in a new bottle, but in fact the teaching of Buddha himself are based on Vedic instructions. Just my 2 cents.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

let me try to put it this way:

I would welcome if the foundation is on the basis of Sanatan Dharma. I would however favor that a real effort is made to convince all Dharmic faiths, that their input is valuable and is considered.

If there are strengths in other dharmic traditions, then those too need to be included.

Let me say, that trying to bring about Moksha margs into the preview of the state is useless, but the memes of various traditions can be incorporated. Basically their focus is sometimes different, but there can be a multitude of different situations where different foci can be helpful.

[kasthuri]

Our Tamas is so dark that we can't even distinguish Shat-Darshanas with Nastika-Darshanas, then how can we understand the difference between Sunya/Mayavadas?

RamaY Ji,

With due respect, similarity doesn't mean they are the same. Of course they belong to two different streams of thought (astika and nastika). Doesn't mean there can't be an isomorphism between the ideas...

[RamaY]

My sincere apologies if the tone of my posts is terse and/or disrespectful. I mean nothing of that sort and I am not an authority on any of these subjects, I am just sharing my thoughts.

Unfortunately my english skills are rustic. If I could speak in my mother tongue, Telugu, it would be different.

[Rahul M]

this discussion should now move to the epics and texts thread.
thank you for the co-operation.
Rahul.

[Rony]

X posted from Book review thread

Book review: India - A Sacred Geography

By Sudheendra Kulkarni, India Today

When Marxist and other Hindu-bashing scholars, at least some of them sponsored by the well-funded evangelists' conversion industry, debate the 'Idea of India', they will be discomfited by the profound meaning of the following passage, on page 443, in Diana L. Eck's latest gem of a book INDIA: A Sacred Geography: "Ela Bhatt, founder of the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA) in Ahmedabad, once described to me the first-ever yatra that women of SEWA took, as soon as they were able to save just enough money to take the first trip of their hardworking lives. It was not a trip to Mumbai or any glossy tourist destination, but a tirthayatra by bus through Rajasthan to Krishna's Vrindavan, and its participants included both Hindu and Muslim women."

What has made countless people in India, down the ages, trek to shrines near and far in fulfilment of their sense of duty-not externally imposed but internally willed duty? What has made India the world's most multi-religiously vibrant nation? Why are pilgrimages so important in our national life that, as this book by Harvard's star professor (author, earlier, of the much-acclaimed Banaras, the City of Light) reveals, it is "through these sacred pilgrimages that India's very sense of nation has emerged "? What is it about India that the Hindus in a village ceremoniously welcomed their Muslim neighbours when the latter returned from Haj pilgrimage?

"The pilgrim's India," Eck writes, "reaches back many hundreds of years and brings to us an astonishing picture of land linked not by the power of kings and governments, but by the footsteps of pilgrims." India's unification was accomplished by the wanderings of pilgrims-from Hinglaj Mata Temple (now in Baluchistan) to Dhakeshwari Temple (now in Bangladesh), from Sharika Devi's shrine near Srinagar in Kashmir to Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu.

Eck's book conclusively shows that India is shaped not by the modern notion of a nation-state, "but by the extensive and intricate interrelation of geography and mythology (around rivers, shores, mountains, forests) that has produced this vast landscape of tirthas". Jawaharlal Nehru said this even more authoritatively-Rahul Gandhi, please note-in his historic address at AICC's Madurai session in October 1961 (not quoted, surprisingly, by Eck): "India has, for ages past, been a country of pilgrimages. All over the country, you find these ancient places, from Badrinath, Kedarnath and Amarnath, high up in the snowy Himalayas down to Kanyakumari in the south. What has drawn our people from the south to the north and from the north to the south in these great pilgrimages? It is the feeling of one country and one culture."

The Spirit of India is, in fact, the Idea of India. You cannot even begin to understand India without acknowledging, experiencing and comprehending its sacredness-that is, without becoming a pilgrim yourself. Whether you go to Amritsar or to Ajmer Sharif, whether you bathe in the Holy Ganga or in the "tirthas of the heart" ,to reach the shores of after-life, is up to you. Speaking for myself, I "found myself, and turned decisively away from Marxism, when I first went on a pilgrimage to the Himalayas in 1990. Reading Eck's book, I found deeper layers of the meaning of pilgrimage.

[ramana]

Thanks. The idea that pilgrimages tie the Idea of India was also articulated by Atri in the GDF. This could be the reason that alien ideologies always attacked the pilgrimage centers like Multan and so on. One has seen pictures of Katasraj temple in TSP despite promises by their govt.

And the reason the INC took over temple management in the varoius states soon after Independence. Eg. Hindu Religious Endowments and Charities(HR&C) Act in various states.

[svinayak]

X posted from Book review thread

Book review: India - A Sacred Geography

The Spirit of India is, in fact, the Idea of India. You cannot even begin to understand India without acknowledging, experiencing and comprehending its sacredness-that is, without becoming a pilgrim yourself. Whether you go to Amritsar or to Ajmer Sharif, whether you bathe in the Holy Ganga or in the "tirthas of the heart" ,to reach the shores of after-life, is up to you. Speaking for myself, I "found myself, and turned decisively away from Marxism, when I first went on a pilgrimage to the Himalayas in 1990. Reading Eck's book, I found deeper layers of the meaning of pilgrimage.

When the temples which are being designed for places in current Pakistan comes up it will see atleast 100 million thirth yatras by Hindus and they will reclaim the land of their Dharma.

[ShauryaT]

Has B Raman lost it? He is calling for Priyanka Gandhi to take over the country!!

[Sanku]

Has B Raman lost it? He is calling for Priyanka Gandhi to take over the country!!

ShauryaT, now you know what we feel in the Siachen thread. (peace peace kidding wonlee)

[Varoon Shekhar]

What a poster recently said, in the context of spelling bees, about 'friction'( resentment?) leading to increased commentary on 'women and caste' in India, looks quite accurate. In the space of two days, in two different Canadian national newspapers, there have been really sour, surly articles about women in India, one in the Globe and Mail about barriers to women in the work force, the other, in the Toronto Star, about how among the G-20 countries, India is the worst place for women overall.

More and more, I'm seeing BR is either extremely clairvoyant, or simply ahead of the curve on most topics!

[ramana]

Varoon, Please give examples. Its good for feedback on the model of how Anglo-Saxon Western mind works with regard to India.

It goes like this: If there is any sign of advance ment in or by India, then ask
- Have you stopped oppressing, women, child labor, daleets, Muslims and now Christians?
- Have you taken care of insanitary conditions? How many toilets have you built?
- Go to some exotic tribe of rat eaters in remote villages and highlight their delicacy! How different is this from eating frog legs!

[brihaspati]

Has B Raman lost it? He is calling for Priyanka Gandhi to take over the country!!

ShauryaT, now you know what we feel in the Siachen thread. (peace peace kidding wonlee)

In this I agree with BR. He is talking sense for the first time in a long long time. I am all for PG. That will jump ahead one step closer to the finals. Otherwise two more duds. Why not go for the final dud quickly!

[abhishek_sharma]

Views from the Right

Treasonous report

TERMING the interlocutors’ report on Kashmir as an “anti-India and retrograde report replete with illegitimate recommendations”, the RSS journal, Organiser, in a front-page article, has demanded the report “be rejected in toto”.

“It is also treacherous to dilute India’s claim on Pak-occupied Kashmir by deliberate use of the words ‘Pak-Administered Kashmir (PAK)’ by these interlocutors, instead of ‘Pak-occupied Kashmir (PoK)’ being used officially by India... ‘Pak-Administered Kashmir’ adds legitimacy to Pakistan’s continued occupation of areas of Kashmir,” the article says.

The article titled, ‘A treasonous, insidious document. Throw it in the dustbin’, criticises the authors of the report saying that it has been “authored by the members being alleged to have enjoyed parties hosted by Pakistan-ISI lobbysts”. “The report of the interlocutors should be confined to the dustbin because the motive and commitment of at least two of its members are suspect,” says the Organiser editorial titled ‘Dustbin is the place for Kashmir interlocutors’ report’.

Iranian oil

AN ARTICLE in the RSS’s Hindi publication, Panchjanya, has faulted “economist Prime Minister” Manmohan Singh’s failure to revive the economy. The article has pointed towards rising commodity prices, particularly crude oil and high interest rates as the two major factors hurting India’s economic growth. It suggests India should enhance crude oil imports from Iran to ease the pressure on its currency and import bills.

“Increasingly, more crude oil imports from Iran could be a potential way to reduce our dollar bill of crude oil imports. The government must come out from the influence of America and increase the imports of crude oil from Iran,” the article insists. It advises the government to use “phyto-sanitary” and “anti-dumping” measures against Chinese goods among others to curb imports from China to get a favourable balance of trade. It also suggests a three-year lock-in period mandatory for foreign institutional investors.

Non-partisan EC

THE Organiser has also come out in support of L.K. Advani’s suggestion of the non-partisan selection of heads of constitutional bodies like the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

An article titled ‘Make Constitutional posts truely non-partisan’ talks only about the CEC and does not spell out its position on the CAG. The article pins its objections to the CEC’s position emerging to be the “preserve of the bureaucrats”. In the process, the article has singled out former CEC T.N. Seshan to highlight its concerns regarding bureaucrats dominating the position. “At times, a CEC, in his zeal to prove different, took arbitrary decisions and even behaved in the most awry manner. That is how the tenure of T.N. Seshan would be remembered,” says the article, adding: “His methodology was arbitrary. He did not care for the confabulations as is the requirement in a democratic tradition... Needless to say, Seshan introduced arbitrariness and rules which are to be found nowhere except in the whims and fancies of the officials’ mind... The high constitutional position and other EC members should now be chosen from those who understand the political psyche and functioning. They can be from political functionaries, journalists and other... citizens,” says the article arguing that “bureaucrat-turned-constitutional functionaries are not masters.” As for the selection process, the article says that “political parties should be tasked for the selection. The selection process should not be vested with the ruling combine. A process of a committee should be set up to ensure the selection of (the) CEC and other EC members. This is a mature nation. Political parties have acquitted themselves well. They should be given the task of selecting the right person to conduct the process,” says the article.

Compiled by Ravish Tiwari

[Pranav]

I am all for PG.

Being the wife of the fastest billionaire in the world should count for something.

[RoyG]

Bji,

How will the appointment of PG get us one step closer to the finals?

[RamaY]

^ by skipping SG and RGjr eras we jump directly to PG era. After that we will enter Vadra-yuga