Indian Interests

[ramana]

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

[Malayappan]

Good One, Brihaspathi!

Ramanasir,

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

I volunteer -
It will happen anyway
If precipitated will be more painfiul (more conflict) but get accomplished sooner
But if guided, the process will be less painful (less conflict) and get accomplished as soon
And of course if it happens anyway it will be less painful but will take a long time. And in between there will be interregnums that distract (even derail) the process

The 'right' wing should lead and do its best to ensure guidance - vote correctly, lead thought and contribute meaningfully to the debate, and keep providing leadership options. Above all have the energy to stay the course!

[brihaspati]

To answer all the questions raised to my post, will need a lot of space. I do not want to occupy this space too much. I am here to learn and know from all the others as well. I will start briefly with two points.

(1) the "majority/minority" dichotomy is perhaps not entirely unique to republican India. Similar phenomena have taken place whenever power was tranferred to remnant elite of a country defeated and occupied militarily but with a large surviving population resistant to invader's "culture" and then released for other larger strategic reasons. The power is deliberately transferred to an elite group which has weak cultural basis and preferably psychologically disjunct from the dominant culture. Look at post-WWII Germany, and the Eastern European Bloc. The installed new regime is desperate to create an ideological framework to justify its continued enjoyment of power and desperately tries to "deconstruct" the basis of the "majority" and does succeed to a certain extent. And in any culture, we can focus on specific subfeatures to try and create distinct "identities" in an attempt to prevent formation of integrative "identities" encompassing all members of that culture. This is what the Thaparite school of Indian history has done - and of course if we look, we can find many such subfeatures that serves the Thaparite political agenda. I will try to expand on this later.

(2) there are always debates about the proportions of automatic historical drift ("the hidden hand of Hegel"), guidance or precipitation in societal transitions. My brief view here is that unless the general accumulation of historical forces take place - the drift - other two factors have little role. But this drift factor has gathered momentum in India over the last 20 years significantly. It is perhaps now the time for the other two which will determine the nature and course of this further development. To start with a clear recognition of the "obstacles" in the way has to be recognized. But this is a very complex issue and has ideological as well as strategic components.

[brihaspati]

In continuance of my earlier post-theme - here is my "obstacle 1":

Obstacle 1: Social fractures within Indic cultures not belonging to the revealed traditions.

I am rather uncomfortable with the term "Hindu". The term definitely originated in the "hatem" portion of the Indo-European languages ("satem/hatem") among those associated with the hinterland of the subcontinent in Persia/Mesopotamia/Arabia in corruption of the Sanskritic Sindhu. The Mahabharatam, which gives an early concept of the Indian nationhood, treats Sindhu as a part and not as the whole of the nation of Bharata. The Arabs also refer to "Hind-va-Sind" showing that "Al Hind" was recognized to be different from mere "Sind". Invaders always simplify diversity in the "conquered" and give them a single "identity". This happens either because of ignorance, or as deliberate policy to include as large a population as possible to exploit or dispossess. This is how the Romans formed the "German" identity (Garmani was just one of six tribes). One peculiar result of this process is of course the recognition and adoption of this identity by the subjugated, and just as the Germans the Indians adopted the word "Hindu", but much later compared to the Arabs as evident in the royal inscriptions. Therefore I prefer the term Bharatyia (Bharat was deliberately used in the epic title as a hint that it was a political treatise - since he represented an ideal of nationhood - dispossessing his natural heirs in favour of a more competent non-royal). I have reasons to believe that "caste" relations did not exist in the modern form in the pre-Islamic period and both Islam as well as British imperialism redefined, reconstructed and established "caste" divisions in the modern form. (Islamic use of "varna" can be shown, and British legal reformulation based on textual claims of the Smritis as well as transformation of dependency relations into debt-bondage and formation of the "Dalits" are beginning to appear in serious historical analysis).

Transformation of the "varna" into a permanent, for-life, and hereditary category with associated sense of privilege and hierarchy has created one of the primary obstacles in the way of the Bharatiya coming together as a nation. For those who need confirmation from accepted ancient sources for continuity with established traditions, there are plenty of references in source texts indicating that "varna" was never a strict life-long and inherited attribute. I would like to suggest thinking of calling upon the Bharatyia society to make all four varnas as "gunas" or qualities existing in every individual - qualities that should come out and guide actions in appropriate situations faced by the individual. Thus every child should get a sacred thread when starting their education irrespective of gender or origin (as evident in some ancient texts) as a Brahman, and anyone in educational pursuits or while engaged in educational or intellectual activities is a brahman while in that activity. This same person should be guided by principles for the Vaishya when engaged in trade or commerce and while in that activity should be considered a Vaishya. The person again should be considered a Shudra when engaged in physical labour and as a Kshatryia when fighting a war. All these qualities should be required in each individual to perform all relevant roles of a human, as and when necessary. Apart from this no other social distinctions based on apparent religious claims should be tolerated.

The pressures towards merging of "varnas" for political opportunities are already being felt in the so-called "Dalit-Brahmin" electoral alliances. If we can give a philosphical basis for this merging it will prevent the use of related fractures by the entire spectrum of such politicians ranging from the BSP to the Congress or the Left to keep the nation weak and divided which then they can use to put themselves as sole arbitors or "bridges in between" and therefore "indispensable".

The removal of this obstacle should be part of removal of several other ideological obstacles as part of overall strategic guidance and "precipitation" issue that the moderator of this forum has raised.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati,

Hats off to your posts and insights. Keep it up.

[SwamyG]

From Brihaspati's essay, I see the following action items:
1. Make all four varnas as "gunas" or qualities existing in every individual - qualities that should come out and guide actions in appropriate situations faced by the individual.
2. Thus every child should get a sacred thread when starting their education irrespective of gender or origin (as evident in some ancient texts) as a Brahman.
3. Give a philosphical basis for this merging (of 'varnas')

Now how can we materialize the ideas:

1) Vote for the right political alliance to power.
2) Influence local religious gurus to conduct sacred thread ceremony on a mass scale. A number of such events need to be conducted before it becomes a tradition.
3) Bhashyams need to be written by the "abled" so that the ideas can be disseminated to aam aadmi's consumption.

[samuel]

-d-

[brihaspati]

Continuing on the theme of ideological obstacles:

Obstacle 2: Islam

Apart from historical reasons of slaughter, exploitation, ruination of the Indian economy, and rape, Islams effects on Bharatyia culture and nation has been extremely retrogressive, with most of the negative features currently being seen in Bharatyia society directly traceable to the barbaric and completely alien desert culture of 7th century Arabia. Islam's core texts indicate its violent Jihadi agenda, and its fundamental aim of liquidating all non-Muslim cultures. Its strategy is guided by its prophet's quotes in the Quran and the Hadiths as "war is deception and deception is war", with explicit urging of Muslims to use fractures and divisions within non-Muslims to use one group against another until all non-Muslim groups get sufficiently weak to become unable to resist imposition of Islam. The west in its blind stupidity and shortsightedness used Islam as an antidote to "Communism" which the theologians of Islam used to eliminate any democratic or "leftist" movements within areas it dominated. This has gifted the world the Taleban, and Jihadi militant Islam. Islamic leadership simply waited for its chance and got it when the West withdrew after the fall of USSR when both powers capable of resisting its expansion were temporarily absent in central Asia militarily. The Chinese communists had weakness for Islam right from the days in Honan at the end of the Long March when Mao befriended local Muslim tribes bordering central Asia. Islam was a natural ally to Chinese dreams of imperialist expansion and got Chinese support in its strategic thinking of neutralizing USSR and Indian influence as well as pushing towards the Indian Ocean. The recent attempts by the Deobandi's to appear "anti-Jihad" is a ploy, probably prompted by "secular" advice. The media tries to publicize this in a big way, but this in turn gives legitimacy to significance and importance of "fatwas" and is a dangerous precedent. Islam has even failed in its propagandized "positive" sides of "eradicating social hierarchy" as it has been shown that converted Muslims have maintained their "caste" divisions, and its manipulations have sharpened non-Muslim divisions. As long as Islam remains a practised religion in India, formation of the Indian nationhood will be jeopardized.

Obstacle 3: Communism

Without getting into details and prolonging this post, the basic question reduces to choosing between two types of authoritarianism - "left" or "right". Communism everywhere reduces to the most sterile and untolerable, unproductive authoritarian regimes in the long run. The difference between the "Right" version and the "left" version is in the comparative "developmental" aspect. There are specific reasons in the structure of the "Communist Party" that leads the organization to gradually get detached from its support populations and its elements replaced by the most mediocre and opportunist ones. (The Chinese CP has temporarily bypassed this problem by reliquishing control over and encouraging the "Right" in economics). This problem can also appear in a "Right" authoritarian regime if it continues beyond the generational time-span needed for societal transitions. But "Right" authoritarian regimes are usually based on individuals and therefore the entire power structure cannot continue to reproduce itself as the communist parties do. Communist ideologies create two immediate problems in India - support of fractures within the nation, and extremism. The practical fallout of this extremism is part of a different group of obstacles - the strategic ones.

[brihaspati]

SwamyG's suggestions are really thought provoking. All the textual sources supporting this practice can be collected together and quoted. I really appreciate his practical thinking on this. The sacred thread is a symbol of highest social importance in the society, and we have to accept the role of symbols in unifying social groups. It will give pride to children and their families given such a recognition while at the same time providing a cultural framework with which people will be proud to identify with. Wearing the thread requires an acceptance or striving to follow certain behavioural norms which can be used to reinstall values we urgently need for nationhood.

[svinayak]

This is a good book to read for this topic

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4724449/Theory-of-Power

Theory of Power

Jeff Veil's Theory of Power.


Chapter 1 Introduction: A Theory of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2 The Structure of Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Chapter 3 The Interplay of Genetics and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter 4 The Rise of Symbolic Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chapter 5 Agriculture: Burning the Bridge to our Past. . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 6 Economics: The Anthropology of Freedom . . . . . . . . 23
Chapter 7 Neutral Technology and the Demands of Power . . . . 29
Chapter 8 Self-Aware: Ego and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 9 Forward, to Rhizome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

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.

[ramana]

Premen Addy in Pioneer, 22 Nov 2008

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?

Bertrand Russell also wrote a descrition of Christianism as a mix of Jewish, Greek and Roman foundations.

[ramana]

An Op-ed in Pioneer, 22 Nov., 2008. If anyone recalls that Bal Thackeray was disgusted at Hindu bombmakers! Well there is a tradition that hark backs to the British colonial days.

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

and

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

Looks like the ATS is following the script of Alipore while pursusing the Malegoan case.

[brihaspati]

Very pertinent hint about Kanailal. It will not matter if the “Hindu” accused in the Malegaon blasts really were or were not involved in the blasts. Any calculation by the Centre Left of using this “case” to serve one or more of the three main possible objectives (1) in regional/provincial elections to gain Muslim votes (2) demonize the “Hindu” and make it embarrassing for the common “Hindu” to vote from community and cultural affiliations (3) to distract the general and rising anger in non-Muslim populations of India about the de-facto helplessness or lack of political will in the Centre Left whose only strong stands against Islamic Jihadi terrorism excel in the volubility of their media statements, will prove futile. The Centre Left completely fails to understand the long-term shift in the general non-Muslim Indian consciousness towards an open recognition of the extremely retrogressive and traumatic role of Islam on the subcontinent (this recognition remained deeply submerged but dormant under official educational propaganda and patronage of Islam compared to denigration and demonization of the "Hindu" starting in officially approved school textbooks which detail plenty of “evils” of “Hinduism” like the "Purusha-shukta" but none whatsoever in the revealed traditions).

By picking on a “Hindu” armyman and a “Hindu” woman religious activist, ironically the Centre Left will realize soon what cultural icons they have created for the “Hindu” - symbols that will only gain stature if the government manages to prove them “guilty”. To the common Hindu mind, if they really carried out the “blasts”, they were for the first time in decades doing something in revenge or retaliation against persistent Islamic terror that started within India through Pakistan sponsored Talebani Jihad in Kashmir - in the face of what will appear to be consistent failure by the Centre Left to protect non-Muslims of India from Jihadi Sadism. This is the same strategy of “retaliation” from the population in a situation that appears to continue to provide relentless terror and repression “tolerated” or “indirectly protected” by a national government that was followed by the Palestine “Liberation” movement against Israel and was romantically lauded by the Centre Left for decades. This has proven quite successful for the Palestinians with Israel politically cornered, and the basis for this success, the gain of political legitimacy in the the minds of populations who had felt helpless and unprotected before has every likelihood of being repeated in the arena of social consciousness in India.

It is this tremendous blunder by the Centre Left in failing to read the basic social trend that will cause them to regret this incident in the decades to come. The Right of course in the future will come to realize this as a turning point that indicates the fundamental changes taking place in Indian society that ultimately will lead in its favour.

[ramana]

Is it possible that their (C+L) idea of Islam in India is at varaince with the actual radcialized segement of Islam in India that is carryin gout terrorist strikes? And the C+L helplessness in dealing with this segment due to analysis-paralysis or cognitive dissonance that is fueliing the anger and anguish?

[brihaspati]

I would rather see a great deal of shortsightedness on the part of sections of "Hindu" elite (or aiming for elite status), but not necessarily nonawareness of the danger of Islam. The the last "Hindu" rulers of Gujarat like Siddharaj Jayasimha are notorious for their protection and patronage or allowing religious cultural expansion of Islam probably for trade related reasons. Similarly, some of the North Indian kings like Jayachand did not join Chahman king Prithviraja III in his last battle, or consider the case of the Brahman minister of Prithviraj who managed to keep him away in joining a strategic alliance with the Chalukyas earlier in his reign to trap Ghori and liquidate him. Persian chronicles indicate that Hindu royalty were quite aware of the dangers involved (we have no records surviving from the "Hindu" side).

Their calculations perhaps were similar to what goes on within C+L now :

(1) their awareness of alienation from their own "underclass" or rival factions whose support they are not sure of. Therefore they hope to survive in political dominance by playing a double game - using the numerical strength and potential consolidation of their rivals or the underclass to pressurize "foreign/invading/aliens" with military/political power to come to an alliance or agreement (the same way potential "consolidation" of the Hindu Right is used to gain support of minority or foreign support) and on the other - using the "foreign/invading/alien" threat to gain "underclass/rival faction" support.

(2) their shortsightedness in understanding the true agenda and strength of Islam and hence the false confidence that they would be able to contain Islam and "tame" it to serve their own agenda. The real agenda of Islam becomes transparent only if the core texts of Islam including the Quran, the Hadiths, and the Sharia/Hidaya is studied in the original or in authentic or unsympathetic translations. The strength of Islam lies in a shrewd understanding of the psychology of mass movements and how to cleverly use and justify basic biological greed and "natural" power relationships that tend to form in primitive, technologically backward, less complex societies to maintain an "intellectual" class in power and dominance. Islam is rule based and has less demands on the intellects of its followers, providing a lot of surety and definiteness reducing cognitive/decision loads on the brain.

The C+L definitely recognizes the "dangers" of Islam, at least in their recognition and desperate attempts in gaining "Muslim" support or keeping "Islam" on its side. From a tactical viewpoint, it probably pays to construct distinct identities in "Muslims" as divided between "moderate/modern" and "extremist" in the hope that some among the Muslims can be lulled into sleep this way. This will not work in the case of Islam for specific historical and social reasons (another long long post needed!). The chance was lost during the buildup to and the immediate aftermath of the partition - it was still then possible to combine military and ideological erasure of Islam as a practised religion of significant political impact. Now, I am afraid, complete elimination and ensuring that such retrogressive ideologies never have a chance of gaining state power in the future depends on a military solution only accompanied by a social "ideological removal" process.

[Prem]

I highly doubt they dont know the real nature of Islam. Most of them are from the generation which has always lacked confidence. Good thing is they too shall pass and new generation not interested in PS shenanigans will take charge thus making paradigm shift in indian conscience and thinking . Bakre i maa kab tak khair manayge.

[svinayak]

Ambani brothers shake hands at Advani's residence

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.
....

[SwamyG]

brihaspati: Several obstacles can be removed by having an effective law and order in the country. Say a man with small vision wants to become an independent MLA, the chances of him being harassed by the goons of other established parties is very high. The chances of him getting hurt by them are high. Justice does a poor job of protecting him. So if we do not have the right person up there, we can not think of right policies being implemented. Implementation of laws and maintaining order and protection for the aam aadmi who wants to change the system is essential.

[brihaspati]

SwamyG,
I agree with you about the law and order situation. What you mean is the criminalization of politics in general. There are perhaps many reasons for this - but the main one being the lucrative side to politics, and people who have no other qualifications to earn finding this an option. If people decide to reject candidates who have not proven themselves to have been successful in earning on their own qualifications, things can improve. My main discomfort with the general tone I find in India, is that people expect "someone" to come at the "top" and set all things right. Maybe we have been prepared for generations to expect "avatars". 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.

I do agree that organization is necessary to accelerate changes. But I think technology is now providing new and independent means of communication not under the control of established political groups in power, and this will give rise to newer forms of political organizations and coordination in practical politics. I would prefer to concentrate on a few significant key obstacles and get broad agreement by an "effective" group that these obstacles need to be removed. Then will come brainstorming in practicalities of removing such obstacles and implementation depending on local context and situation - which is the work of a team of people intent on achieving their objectives.

We cannot deal with all problems at all possible scales at the same time - some of them are actually interrelated. I would say that a small number of key problems should be the primary targets. The main point is first accepting that things need to be done, and that they can be done, and that we will do them.

[SwamyG]

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.

I agree. In democracy "Yatha Praja, thatha Raja". But across civilizations, changes have been initiated by an individual under the right circumstances, and others following that individual. Be it Buddha or Hitler.

I do not fully agree that Islam or Communism is an obstacle. They are more of a drag than obstacle. The inability to elect the right leaders is am impediment. Without the right leaders we can not hope to accomplish much. It is not that there are not enough quality individuals, but we are not getting them where thought to be. Since 1947, we have managed to peacefully transfer power from one term to the other; from one party to the other. It is indeed an accomplishment in itself. But we have not managed to create a mature system that will continue to think of "Indian Interests". There are pockets of groups everywhere. One pocket would be the Indian Military which looks for India's interests. But it is focus is narrow and hence it is able to do what it sets out to do - protect India.

I remember a quote from General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. ""Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy."

BTW, for some reason you remind me of a postor called "raji"

[ramana]

LKA's mtg has nothing to do with BO. He has to get the Ambani bros to stop the feud for that is allowing outsider into Indian power circles.

[brihaspati]

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?!!

[SwamyG]

It is my understanding that the "American dream" was fed nutritiously by Hollywood. The brand of America and what it represents has been reinforced ample number of times. Our own Bollywood has not done it. The makers have been happy with the hero and heroine running around trees in the desh and europe. It appears as if desi have lost the habit to make good stories. Our ancients who created the puranas would be sad to see the state of affairs. I suggested in one of the others threads about how we need an "idea" to hold the people together. There was one disagreement.

Sankara had it right when he created the four mathas across the land, as he had a sense of geography and understanding of his surroundings. Just like IITs across the regions, we need think-tanks anchored in different regions of the country. They can have differences, and can fight it out among themselves to assert their points. It is like having multiple Kautaliyas for the nation.

[brihaspati]

I agree to and strongly endorse the "idea" to hold all together. This needs a basic set of ideals, principles, social laws, and at least one common language known to everyone.

I have read some of the divergences between the views of the modern Shankaracharyas. I can speak three Indian languages, but during my travels in the north and the west I have seen intensity of language/regional xenophobia and intolerance. I had once to manage to convince males in our mountaineering team travelling in a rail coach to take out our ice-axes to defend the entire mixed gender team facing stone throwing crowd that had turned violent simply because one of our women had blurted out in a non-local-language a request for water. The locals insisted on the non-Sanskritic word for water adopted widely into this now very "Indian" language almost completely replacing use of the pre-Islamic words. I had then and there decided, that one day, this curse of regionalism had to be broken. A regional multiplicity of Kautilyas could turn out to be a nightmare! We need one common language in addition to regional ones, and I am prepared to be accused of being subversive and pseudo-patriotic to insist on considering a "foreign" language of the Indo-European stock - English as used and developed by Indians - English not as the language of the imperialist but itself a patchwork language of loanwords primarily from the Germanic and Latin/French seen as more a general Indo-European language. The English made compulsory solves some of the unification problems - (1) the still persistent avoidance of languages of each other by the "North" and the "South" (2) a third language in which all can communicate (3) the lucrative prospect and dream in parents' eyes of their progeny settling "abroad" in prosperity after getting "engineering/medical/management" grilling can lead to a c considerable removal of opposition to such a scheme. What one day more than 1 billion Indians speak will define English and not the paltry millions in the native speaking countries.

No, let there be more than one heads, acting as one from one centre, let them fight it out to a consensus - but once that is reached act as one head and one iron will.

[SwamyG]

English as the central language, Regionalism ? Ah, reminds me more of "that" Raji Hence I do not want to talk further on the language subject.

I do not think having multiple Kautilyas would be nightmare. It would be like having multiple think-tank groups, just spread across the country that will be able to get input from each region. Process the inputs for the national agenda. Indian interests means sum of regional interests.

[brihaspati]

There will be fights about who "processes" and "sums" the regional inputs! The Indian parliament was supposed to have done this job impartially and look at what they have done for 60 years. The processing and summing implies some kind of super-assembly and agreement to abide by a decision arrived at by this super-assembly. I guess in practical terms it will turn out to be still one centre of many heads.

[brihaspati]

Just a clarification - I am not saying that regional interests and views should be ignored - but regional interests should be confined to regional contexts, I meant on a small number of fundamental issues affecting the entire nation, there has to be consensus over all regions, subgroups, for a consistent uniform policy implementation.

[negi]

Pradhan Mantri Napunsak singh and his ilk are at it again



India may share Samjhauta probe details with Pakistan

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.

Btw isn't this the same GOI who was being praised by one and all on this forum for Nuclear deal (which in any case was inevitable) .

[chetak]

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?!!

Brihaspati ji
How do you see this docile and fatalistic outlook of the Hindu?
How come we never united and continue to be so susceptible to the machinations of every charlatan who seeks to further divide us?
Why are we so trusting and accepting, so much so, that we actually appear weak.
To be set upon by every cassock and beard who want to show us the one true way when we already have a patent on the general idea.
To be swayed by every vp singh?

[brihaspati]

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". )

[Manny]

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 251231.htm

The absurdity of Indian "secular" government! Are we going to take this sitting down?

First batch of Christian pilgrims from AP leave for Jerusalem

Hyderabad (IANS): The first batch of 51Christian pilgrims from Andhra Pradesh left for Jerusalem on Tuesday under the state government's scheme to help Christians visit places connected with the life of Jesus Christ.

The pilgrims left for Bahrain by Gulf Air flight on early Tuesday for their onward journey to Jordan.

The state government is providing a subsidy of Rs.20,000 to each pilgrim for the seven-day tour, which covers Jordan and Israel. The pilgrimage including food, accommodation and transport costs Rs.56,000 but with the government providing the subsidy, each pilgrim will have to pay Rs.36,000 for the tour-package.

The pilgrimage includes visit to Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Jordan River, Dead Sea and Sea of Galilee and other important places connected with the life of Jesus Christ.

The state government, which announced the scheme last year, plans to send 900 to 1,000 pilgrims this year and has allocated Rs.20 million for the purpose in 2008-09 budget.

Addressing a function on Monday to mark the departure of the first batch, Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy said the pilgrims would be sent in batches till the budget for this year is exhausted.

Hoping that the pilgrims would return from Jerusalem with the blessings of Christ, the chief minister said the plan to extend the subsidised tour next year would depend on this year's experience.

He said the government introduced the scheme as it recognised the right of people to freedom of religion.

"The Christians had been requesting the government to sponsor their visit to Jerusalem for last 10 years but their wish has been fulfilled only now," Archbishop of Hyderabad Marampudi Joji said.

The state minorities finance corporation, which is organising the packaged tour, said preference was given to physically fit pilgrims of over 50 years of age and couples who can support each other during the tour.

According to 2001 census, there are about 1.2 million Christians in the state, representing 1.55 percent of the state's population.

The state government has already decided to create a separate department in the minorities welfare ministry for Christians and also constitute a separate minority finance corporation for them.
=============================================================


Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree called liberty needs to be nourished with the blood from the conflict between tyrants and patriots".

[Manny]

http://www.ucanews.com/2008/11/17/churc ... ian-moves/

INDIA Church Welcomes Andhra Pradesh Government's Pro-Christian Moves

[Arjun]

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.

Brihaspati, terriffic posts from you over the last few days. Very insightful stuff.

I notice you don't classify the EJ threat as an obstacle towards the evential move towards a Hindu right. Would like your thoughts on that. Especially in light of recent events, does it not seem more likely that we will increasingly see EJs and Islamists making common cause?

[Eshwar]

Brihaspatiji,

Do you a single place where your ideas and theses are compiled? If not, it will be great if you can create one. Your ideas deserve to be widely disseminated. A single source will be of great help to be copy-pasted in different forums and blogs.

Thanks

[brihaspati]

Yes, it was a lapse on my part. But I look at the EJ problem as subsidiary to the problem of Islam and Communism. We have to keep in mind that EJ's have an advantage in being part of the overall face of Christianity with regards to Bharatyia society - in complete contradiction to the Muslims, Christianity had three distinct "apparently positive" appeal for the Indian - (1) involvement in modern (agreed - European! and colonial ) education (2) promotion of and involvement in healthcare (3) the rather problematic but still sometimes tactically taken as helpful association with a colonial power that definitely crushed traditional Muslim state power in India. The task of separating the EJ's from this general long-term favourable attitude towards the Christian (always the "benevolent father" of Bollywood) has not been taken up in earnestness for the benefit of the Indian - partly because of the tremendous presence of the media and academics nexus.

Given the general influence and prestige of "Missionary fathers" in education and the fact that most of our "prestigious institutions" do appear to be under "missionary guidance" we will have very strong and very effective opposition to any removal of the EJ threat. Yes it is quite possible that intelligence operatives of western powers work undercover through the EJ's (a good deniability source is to use ex-service personnel as freelance) and supply tactical and material support to a wide network of Jihadis, ethnic separatists and the Communists. Some of the EJ's are definitely driven by financial motivations as more "converts" mean more "extraction of funds" from the American "faithful". Others see India as potentially geo-politically important for Asian dominance, and want to have a finger on future political forces in India. I am not belittling their danger, but I will just stop with this - Islam's prophet openly declares his strategy of using alliances or tactical tolerance of one group of "unbelievers" against another group, to minimize the support this other group can get, and liquidate that group. Repeat this algorithm for remaining "unbelievers", until they can never fight back even if they all unite - their total number reduced to political-military ineffectiveness. This was successful. Maybe we can use it too!

We can hardly separate Islam and the Left in India - extremist or not, so we will have to eliminate these two together - maybe it is better to see to it that they do not get any more support from people who think they will be eliminated too.

[Prem]

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?
)

This was the spirit our leaders were suppose to infuse after 47 and not only they failed but they injected cancer in our social politico body . Good to see many are waking up and ready to toil so Tuth shall Prevail ,Falsness Perish , Hypocracy run away and PSs quietened. India needs Indo-centric Indians no less no more.

[brihaspati]

Eshwarji,
I do not have a complete thesis yet, but I have written up on a general theme of (1) why I feel India now needs to shift to the Right (2) a revisit to what we call the "Hindu", the society and the linked critical question of forming the nation (3) the need to erase ideologies (not necessarily the common followers) that stand in the way (4) strategic expansion of sphere objectives India should have in regional to global range (5) some basic objectives of development for Indian society itself. They are scattered over in various blogs - but I have contributed to "dikgaj"'s wordpress blog more, so you can probably get the general tenor of my thinking so far, in the historical and purely Indian contexts of that blog. I discovered these forums only recently, and I find that I have a lot to learn from these forums - and you should really consider me a "student" in that respect. I will try to put my thoughts together in more coherent form as it also helps me to think. I thank the forum contributors for triggering a lot of thought processes in me, and questions I never visited before.

[chetak]

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". )

Brihaspati ji,
Are you anywhere in the south of India?
With all due respect, may be you could give a talk?

[R Vaidya]

Obama as President—we have seen it all--

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=249


Rvaidya

[brihaspati]

Chetakji,
you do me more honour than I deserve! I am still in the process of coming to conclusions. I will write to you about this. However, because of the current incident going on in Mumbai - I feel deeply anguished. And commenting about this in the other thread, it struck me that, it is time perhaps to think of non-Muslim security by non-Muslims. It is important perhaps now to consider building up an organizational structure and network of information exchange, social surveillance, and any necessary preemptive measure within legal framework - completely independent of existing state machinery (which could possibly have been infiltrated under Islamophile regimes leading to persistent failures in spite supreme sacrifices by the members). The word "Hindu" should not be tagged to this, as it will be used by the Islamophiles to represent the majority and real Bharatyias as just one community among many. The Islamophiles will try to penetrate this structure to sabotage it and extreme caution will be necessary. The Bharatyia should perhaps now think of becoming the state and nation itself, with its cultural heritage from pre-Islamic India, and reject any state that fails to be Bharatyia. The "mass mobilizer" Gandhiji, ironically has shown us one way - just as he advocated derecognizing the British state, it is time to consider derecognizing this Islamophile state and start building the Bharatyia nation and all its structures independent of Islamophiles.