Indian Interests

[Rony]

Annexation Through Technicalities

The day I entered Indiraji's household I became an Indian, the rest is just technical -- that is Sonia Gandhi's latest explanation for not having acquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi.

First the facts. Surya Prakash, the Consulting Editor of The Pioneer, has documented these in detail. Sonia married Rajiv on 25 February, 1968. Under section 5(c) of the Indian Citizenship Act she became eligible to register herself as a citizen of India on 25 February, 1973. She chose to continue as a citizen of Italy. She applied for Indian citizenship only ten years later, on 7 April, 1983.

A foreigner seeking Indian citizenship has to state on oath that he or she has relinquished his or her citizenship of the original country. This requirement was all the more necessary in the case of an Italian citizen: under Italian law, an Italian taking citizenship of another country continues to retain his or her Italian citizenship. Sonia Gandhi's application did not have the requisite statement, nor did it have any official document from the appropriate authorities in Italy. The omission was made up in a curious way: the Ambassador of Italy stepped in, and wrote to the Government saying that Sonia Gandhi had indeed given up her citizenship of Italy. He did so on 27 April, 1983. Sonia got her citizenship forthwith -- on 30 April, 1983.

Another nugget Surya Prakash has unearthed is that while Sonia became a citizen on 30 April, 1983, her name made its way to the electoral rolls as of 1 January, 1980! In response to an objection, it had to be deleted in late 1982. But sure enough, it was put back on the electoral roll as of 1 January, 1983. She hadn't even applied for citizenship till then.

All technicalities! If any ordinary person were to proceed in the same way, he would be up for stern prosecution.

Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!

But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers -- even official papers -- of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.

Real estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built -- the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls -- the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores.

The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi. And enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.

But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.

This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world -- Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate -- to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.

The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia,

Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.
The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.
The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.
No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.
Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.

A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on 18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed -- the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, "The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust."

What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully -- for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.

The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:

1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
7: Bilateral and multilateral programmes of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
8: Brief report on implementation of programmes from April 1994 to March 1995.
9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.
11: Gita Govinda project.
12: IGNCA newsletter.
13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.
15: Matters relating to building project.
16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.

There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.

This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: "I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India's approval to the alterations."

The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less "unanimously approved" changes in the Trust Deed.

And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?

She became President for life.
The other trustees -- two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years -- became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out.
The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.
A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers' money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.

The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force -- on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted -- without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post "approval" was obtained from an obliging trustee.

That "approval" was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, "no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet." Other departments were manifestly concerned, concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.

The rule proceeds to provide, "Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may... (b) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant... (d) otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not..."

And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.

The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament -- Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan -- began seeking details, and raising objections.

For a full two and a half years, governments -- of the Congress(I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress(I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral -- made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.

As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over governmental assets of incalculable value -- through technicalities collusively arranged.

A latter-day Dalhousie -- annexation of Indian principalities through technicalities!

[ramana]

Bodhi of India Forum has written an appreciative critique of MF Hussein's work in new light:

MF Husain in a new light: Hindu Art Prespective

[ramana]

X-posting for more visibility:

If you look at history of England, the English spoke French from 1066 after Norman Conquest to 1453 end of Hundred Years War. We see traces of French in English in all the words used for urban situations, yet no one dares to say English is French because the words are written in English.

Similarly, Hindi can assimilate the Urdu words once the Devnagari is adopted to indigenise the former given time. Pak can keep the Urdu in Persian/Arabic script.

Heck, more than traces- 25% of the English vocabulary comes from French. Another 25% comes from Latin. Only 25-30% is "native" Germanic roots - of course these are the more common words, to be sure, and are used far more frequently- still goes to show the degree to which English has been ******** One reason why its vocabulary is so massive.

Even many of the "ordinary" words are from French- "Mountain" (fr: montagne; ger: berg), "Movement" (fr: mouvement; ger: bewegung, literally "be-way-going"), "Change" (fr: changement, ger: Änderung) and so on.

and

I hate to hear urdu words in Hindi. I refuse to use such words largely, though I do make exceptions for simple ones. Even the regular Hindi news on ZeeTV and other international channels have started using complex sounding urdu words which make no sense to me. If hindi is going to get diluted this way I see no reason to impose hindi as link language or for any other purpose. It is already burdensome for most people from the non-urdu areas of India.

My point is that there are examples of language assimilation in history and we can take lessons from that. The key is the script.

Urdu is not the key identifier of Indian Muslims. Just like the French have French the language, the Pakis can have Urdu in Persian script.


These should get some folks stirred up!

[svinayak]

As we can see, India is making well-planned efforts to influence three of its neighbors, Sr Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh through investments, aid, and closer military to military cooperation. Reading mainstream Sri Lankan newspapers, one still finds resentment against 'big brother'. On the other hand, Sri Lankans know that their future is permanently tied to India and they cannot afford to seriously annoy India, and one can be sure that Rajapaksha and his successors will ensure that this will not happen. Bangladesh is currently on the same path, perhaps there may be hiccups on the way, but as long as India keeps growing the same thing will happen in the case of Bangladesh.
This only leaves Pakistan.

Check the review and what it talks about.
False info such as "violent confrontation between the two nuclear powers flares repeatedly".
The image is built up to create a mfg concept of the country and the region. Indian policy for the entire world is being discussed but this review wants to talk about Pakistan.

The author, until recently Canada’s high commissioner to Delhi, has a breadth of knowledge and makes his case well. He might have heeded his own advice and spent more time on India’s biggest headache next door. The section on Pakistan, just six of 425 pages, is too slight for that troubling relationship. He might have done more, too, to justify his optimism that war between Pakistan and India is now less likely “than ever”. After all, violent confrontation between the two nuclear powers flares repeatedly. The shifting relations with an increasingly radicalised and troubled Pakistan—American feeling is certainly cooling towards the powers in Islamabad—will also affect India’s foreign policy in time.

Here the review is also creating fake things. India has a long 2000 year history of infleunce in the region.

India’s long history of being invaded, and its preoccupation with holding itself together as a viable, democratic state, have left it little scope for acting overseas. Indians, like Americans, can be insular, believing that their huge country is the centre of the world. Its few leaders who bothered seriously with foreign matters, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, the brilliant and charismatic first prime minister, fell into moralising about others’ wicked deeds and tried to avoid being embroiled in the cold war, but he did little to promote national interests. India still rues his baffling early decision to reject an offer of a permanent Security Council seat.

[brihaspati]

There should be some insight into the French-German dichotomy in English - that reflects on us too. It is the usage - who uses - that matters. The English language was spoken differently according to "class", and the greater usage of "Germanic" - actually not the modern one - [old/High germanic] points to its usage among the "lower-middle" sections. So it became the language of the "people" while the Frenchified or Latinized versions were used by the "feudal" or "Romanized/Church" elite. This would reflect therefore more in preponderance of French/Latin words in formal written/literary records - which would become the "educated" language.

A similar process should be apparent in Urdu too, which is spoken differently in word-distribution dependent on the gharana. The baseline is "Hindi/Hindawi" which is predominantly nagari in origin. Why let the top-dressing of "foreign-blue-blood" words hijack its identity?

[sanjaykumar]

Eh? Norman conquest.

[chackojoseph]

Hopefully the right thread.

New Zeland party protests superannuation stake in nuclear related Indian Company

A response to a Green Party Written Question revealed that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund holds 44,595 shares in Larsen & Toubro Ltd, which had a valuation of NZ$2,082,736 on June 9, 2011.

[Aditya_V]

Hopefully the right thread.

New Zeland party protests superannuation stake in nuclear related Indian Company

A response to a Green Party Written Question revealed that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund holds 44,595 shares in Larsen & Toubro Ltd, which had a valuation of NZ$2,082,736 on June 9, 2011.

GIve me those shares as charity, I will take the guilt burden away from New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

[Pratyush]

The Kiwies have gone to cukoo land with this demand.............

[RSoami]

http://www.theindiasite.com/family-poli ... arliament/

On the state of politics in India today.

[ramana]

I have been hearing on NPR about demographics, female infanticide and social dynamics on people. I think the best option is to allow the people who have girl childs to have more than two kids till they get the male child. No need for infanticide or gender selection. Its the artifical limit imposed by govt that makes them choose.

[Prasad]

Wont work sirji. Even one female is assumed to lead to so much expense in lieu of wedding+dowry+expenses towards in laws post-marriage that for poor people, killing the girl seems to be the only option. Even if they have male children. They appear to think male children only will ensure that they can provide for him, usually by getting the child to work at a very early age. Letting them have both male and female children will not attack the base problem.

Education among people that female children can and will succeed in life without parents having to incur the kind of expenses that they fear is of prime importance. They will be convinced only when they see examples in society and in their communities. Therefore helping poor people get married, ensuring that education is provided to all children and they are equipped well to get a job, all these will eradicate this problem. There is no silver bullet solution to this unfortunately. Therefore, only slow progress can be made and we will continue to lose unfortunate lives. Of course, all this will happen if the govt gets its head out of the hole its hiding in and make 99% economic progress.

[brihaspati]

^^^No "policy" measures? Further economic development or tactical and conditional redistribution of fruits of growth? Financial incentives, such as "girl child benefit" accruing to the parent. Staggered and incremental benefits for each year of formal education maintained by the girl. Specific entrepreneurship capital provided for the young adult woman. I had even suggested raising independent as well as replacing existing police forces, internal security forces - with all-women units. In fact phase out men from internal security positions entirely and maintain male predominance only in the defence forces. Israel style compulsory military training and service for both the girls and boys could be a good start. All of these were turned down at a certain section. I was told that these proposals would upset a lot of "interests".

[Sanku]

Give a 5% tax break for every girl child. Check the results....

[Klaus]

Also a higher interest rate on joint savings accounts held by a minor female and a parent could be started in village post-offices or banks. 11.5%-12% interest rate will be much more appealing when you consider that 9.25-9.75% is the highest available these days (save for special timed offers which offer 10.15%).

[brihaspati]

Direct payment of money - in western style "child benefits" schemes - will be more effective. Of course many parents will use it for other purposes and not spend on the girl, or if the father is worthy enough will spend it all on his drink, but at least the girl will not have be "eliminated". Additional money for each year of completed education in a government supervised school/college [with independent audit of attendance] being paid to the parents should also work miracles. Parents get a small pension if their daughter goes for higher education, or is in active employment - should also work miracles.


Sanku ji, a lot of that target audience might not be paying any taxes at all, except the blanket indirect one.

[Sanku]

Sanku ji, a lot of that target audience might not be paying any taxes at all, except the blanket indirect one.

B-ji, you might be surprised at the level the malaise goes too, but yes I agree that a large target population would not be in the cover of scheme I proposed.

It was merely to illustrate the point that policy options exist with one simple example.

[Pranav]

It looks like the Congress has its eye on gaining control of the late Sai Baba's empire. Lots of innuendos and allegations coming out in an orchestrated smear campaign in the media.

Protest over mishandling of Sathya Sai Trust funds - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story ... 42639.html

Treasure Seekers - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 990818.cms

Sathya Sai Baba’s close aide resurfaces - http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/sa ... 15161.html

[ShauryaT]

Shyam Saran: Re-imagining India's borders

It is time we made our border regions full stakeholders in the country's development:
Shyam Saran.

The conventional view of national territorial boundaries is that these are, or ought to be, strong and durable fences, safeguarding the country from hostile external forces. Passage across these fences must, therefore, be through tightly controlled, carefully regulated and narrow gateways. This is an outdated notion in the modern world and the time has come for us to begin to look at our borders as “connectors” or “transmission belts”, which bring us closer to our neighbours in a mutually beneficial embrace rather than as impenetrable walls behind which we insulate ourselves.

This is the first mindset change we need to foster.

As corollary to this, we must also stop treating our border areas as belonging to the periphery or serving as “buffer zones”, preventing ingress into the heartland. We must rid ourselves of this “outpost” mentality and acknowledge that our border states and regions are as much part of our national territory as are the so-called heartland states. The notion that these areas should be left underdeveloped and remote, as is reflected in the outdated colonial instrument of inner-line permits, must be abandoned. An empire ruled by a foreign power may have had some logic in creating buffer zones. This, however, has no place in an independent, sovereign country, where citizens living in any part of the national territory are equally entitled to the fruits of development and economic integration.

If borders are connectors then border states become important platforms for mutual interaction with our neighbours. They can serve as bridges linking India with its neighbours. Such interaction could become the catalyst for economic development of border regions both in India and in neighbouring countries.

Pursuing such interaction requires convenient and hassle-free cross-border movement and, therefore, efficient cross-border connectivity. We have neglected the development of our land border areas and our outlying islands precisely because of an outdated mindset. This is beginning to change but far too slowly. In the Indian subcontinent, cross-border connectivity today is far less than in pre-partition India. The vision of an economically integrated south Asia leveraging its obvious complementarities cannot become reality without efficient transport, communication and, now, digital connectivity.

We need to follow certain principles in undertaking cross-border infrastructure projects.

One, while putting in place such projects, it is important that this goes in parallel with the establishment of appropriate backward linkages. The progress in cross-border infrastructure must never outpace the all-round integration of our frontier regions with the rest of the country. If this happens, it will be a recipe for alienation in these sensitive frontier regions, endangering our security. One sees this phenomenon in northern Myanmar, which is today more closely integrated with southern China than the rest of the country.

Two, we must abandon the concept of border trade and replace it with trade through border points. Border trade in an agreed list of designated local commodities, limited to a designated zone on either side of the border, is thoroughly outdated at most places. Several points on the India-Myanmar or India-Nepal borders are well connected with the rest of the country on either side. Trade in local items is far outstripped in volume and value by a great variety of goods which are officially “contraband”. On my visits to the Tamu-Moreh border point on the India-Myanmar border, I have witnessed how truckloads of Chinese goods, all contraband, find their way into our north-east and beyond. The only way to address this is to open border trade points to regular most-favoured nation trade. It should not really matter what goods are coming in from which country of origin as long as requisite duties are paid. The government earns revenue while minimising the opportunities for corruption.

This does not mean that in truly remote areas we should stop the holding of traditional border “haats” or local trade fairs. However, we should make certain that these areas do not become channels for illegal trade.

The criminalisation of much of our border trade, the involvement of local mafias in such trade and the corruption this engenders among precisely those of our authorities that are assigned the job of looking after our sensitive borders, are threatening our national security much more than the opening up of our borders to regular trade and economic activities. The lesson to be learnt is that the economic development and prosperity of our border regions will greatly enhance, not diminish, our national security.

It is time we re-imagined our country’s borders and made our border regions full stakeholders in India’s development. This is also a prerequisite for realising our vision of a south Asia, where borders have ceased to matter and there is a free flow of goods, peoples and ideas across our frontiers.

[SaiK]

which thread is discussing NSD?

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji, a lot of that target audience might not be paying any taxes at all, except the blanket indirect one.

B-ji, you might be surprised at the level the malaise goes too, but yes I agree that a large target population would not be in the cover of scheme I proposed.

It was merely to illustrate the point that policy options exist with one simple example.

I know. One of the few things that infuriates me at the so-called "gharana" or "tradition" excuse. Lynching seems to be the first reaction that I feel should be applied. But no "violence" now - given up on that. So incentives. At least two generations of danda+mithai - to break the chain. Thats all I want. Those are the few things, that makes me even more pissed off at the Islamists effects on medieval society and on those occasions makes me grudgingly sympathetic to some of the logic given by the laal-faujis that wants to liquidate some of the entrenched interests.

[devesh]

http://www.rajivmalhotra.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=34

The Cartel's Politics

RAJIV MALHOTRA

For the on-going debate, please see the RHS bar under Also See

The companion article, The Cartel’s 'Theories', gave my response to one set of issues raised by Vijay. Additionally, this article explains how institutional ideologies and capital empower the scholars’ cartel politically, and how Indian scholars perform in compromising positions for the cartel.

It covers the following topics:

1) The US has replaced the British as the main funding source for India-related studies worldwide. This is natural and to be expected of any superpower, given the following needs: (i) to understand various areas of the world for the development of policy and (ii) to have a standing army of scholars-activists ready for deployment in a variety of ways. (See my columns: America must re-discover India and Preventing America’s Nightmare

2) The Pew Trust’s power in academe is described; but Pew is merely one of many multi-billion dollar private foundations that control the funding and pulling of strings to popularize certain themes and theories, as well as to influence the advancement of scholars indirectly through their proxies inside the system. Ford Foundation deserves a study by itself as to how it has influenced certain agendas over others in India. I invite Vijay to collaborate for a study on who funds what, and also to develop a process for scholars/activists to make transparent disclosures of all their grants and other affiliations.

3) These items then pave the way to address my main point here: that "resistance", "camps", and criticism of various kinds amongst scholars are merely managed and controlled forms of opposition, and are ultimately not real but virtual.

4) Contrary to their claims, the South Asian Studies NRI scholars are not India’s intellectual home team, as they are neither qualified (in the siddhantas and categories of Indian thought) nor truly free.

5) Using the very recent concrete example of FOIL’s mobilization against me, I illustrate that many of these scholars are part of the Sepoy Army to defend the fortress.

I also explain that it is not enough for Vijay to claim to have dealt with an issue that I raise, simply by giving some bibliographic reference to show that he already knew about it. This is not a TV game-show on who knows more. As long as the issue remains in the real world, it is still an issue no matter how much might have been written on it. This and some relatively atypical counter-examples seem to be Vijay’s common way of addressing many issues.

Academic whistle-blower

In the fall of 2002, a young, outspoken academic scholar in South Asian Studies - a whistleblower of sorts - posted the following on the internet list of the politically powerful academic group known as RISA (Religions In South Asia). He is Christian Wedemeyer, Department of Asian Studies, University of Copenhagen, and he also moderates the Indology list on Yahoo. He dropped the following bombshell:

a) Many (perhaps most) of the leading lights of South Asian Studies in the US today were funded at least in part by "National Defense Fellowships" (now FLAS) - money earmarked by the US Government in the frenzy of post-Sputnik paranoia, in order to train Americans to know the Others’ languages and so keep pace with the Soviet drive to world domination;

b) the American university system is now in practice (if not in theory) a branch of the governmental intelligence services (cf. Sigmund Diamond's important work "Compromised Campus", New York, 1992). As Diamond notes (p. 53): "When former national security advisor McGeorge Bundy said that all university area studies programs were ‘manned, directed, or stimulated by graduates of the OSS [Office of Strategic Services],’ he was writing more than history; he was giving a prognosis of the future and making policy. There always had been and always would be ‘a high measure of interpenetration between universities with area programs and the information-gathering agencies of the government of the United States. ’"

c) related to b), leading lights of US South Asian Studies (and mentors to many current members of RISA) like Norman Brown were (and, likely, are) up to their ya-yas in CIA and State Department contacts and (presumably) funding ; and

d) (As I noted in my MA thesis), "at the same time as all of the books and conferences such as Introducing India in Liberal Education, whose rhetoric speaks of integrating Eastern contributions into the great liberal educative tradition of 'the World' (i.e. the West), the political ramifications of 'area studies' were being encouraged and exploited . Interestingly, at this very conference, held in Chicago in 1957, at which these issues were being addressed, we see as attendees the names of 'Chadbourne Gilpatric, The Rockefeller Foundation ,' 'William Marvel, Executive Associate, Carnegie Corporation of New York,' and 'Cloen O. Swayzee, The Ford Foundation ' - all foundations implicated in connection with contemporaneous covert F.B.I. collaboration in Diamond's recent study of the collaboration between the government intelligence agencies and American universities. " (cf. "Orientalism is a Humanism: Materials and Methods for an History and Auto-critique of Buddhist Studies", Columbia, 1994).

Wedemeyer then challenged his academic colleagues to introspect honestly about whether they were, in fact, paid mercenaries:

"What does this mean for South Asian Studies (and "Religion In South Asia")? Are we merely to conclude that all these people (our colleagues and mentors, not to mention "we") are simply "bought and paid for"? Are we all guilty of a kind of ‘trahison des clercs’? Should we caution ourselves against accepting such money and thus giving "academic respectability" to the nefarious plans of the State Department, FBI, and CIA? I think (and I assume most would agree) that the situation is more complex than this. We seem to trust that our colleagues and mentors can accept money from such sources, perhaps telling them what they want to hear (and sending their lesser-quality students to work as translators and code-breakers), yet continuing with their critical, objective scholarship (or something approximating the same)."

The above post by Wedemeyer, was triggered by RISA’s attack against a conference in 2002 organized by The Infinity Foundation, co-convened by Prof. Robert Thurman of Columbia University and me, which Wedemeyer and many other academic scholars participated in.

In the same internet debate, another academic scholar named Judson Trapnell (who, unfortunately, has passed away) wrote an honest admission of the academic scholars’ vulnerabilities in bringing personal biases to their work:

"Given our training in contemporary hermeneutical theory, why do we have difficulty in accepting that we, and those institutions who fund us, bring assumptions to our work--assumptions that may seem suspect to others? I am puzzled both by the claims to higher objectivity in Western academic research and by the criticisms of others for not meeting up to our standards - i.e., in bringing political agendas to bear upon such research. Who among us does not bring them? To be human is to have such agendas, to operate under certain beliefs. Inevitably we become defensive when someone dares to try to expose our assumptions. But once the emotions have cooled, it is our responsibility as scholars to consider carefully, even prayerfully, whether there is some truth in what the other says. Then we may engage in a mutual revelation of assumptions with our critic, rather than a heated and defensive attempt to condemn the other for having an agenda that differs from ours."

Compromised Campus

The excellent book by Diamond, "Compromised Campuses," (referenced by Wedemeyer above) uses recently declassified government documents to show how Ivy Leagues (he focuses on Harvard and Yale) were bastions of CIA/FBI surveillance of scholars who were branded as trouble-makers, and, in particular, the author shows the role of Henry Kissinger as a government agent when he was at Harvard. It documents how the government agencies and bureaus influenced academic selections by many covert means. This, according to the book, was a widespread infiltration, and was with the full knowledge and cooperation of the universities’ highest level authorities, including university presidents. The author also remarks that there is no reason to believe that things have changed today, because similar institutional strings, funding, agendas, and covert means remain intact.

In this regard, I quote (anonymously per request) from a private email that I received after The Peer-Review Cartel article appeared, from an academic scholar in another Western country:

"The problem of the abuse of institutional academic power is not restricted to Indology. It is present in much of the social sciences, since academic debate has political implications and is explicitly influenced by the dominant institutions of society. As a scholar in the fields of international relations and international political economy, it is clear to me that six US-based journals control intellectual output in the field worldwide. They directly or indirectly promote ideas that support US foreign policy interests - once you cut through the crap! Any 'dissent' itself is in fact self-legitimating because the real secret of wielding effective power and successful domination is to sponsor and control a 'critique of the self' ; a Gramscian phenomenon, in effect. Much 'critique' of Hinduism and India is to show that Hinduism is mumbo-jumbo and backward, and India a potential danger to the world because of its reprehensible Brahmin-dominated caste culture. Indian scholars, wishing to taste the joys of Western material comforts, cannot contest this, and once compromised, they cannot obviously admit that they are a whore while seeking to embrace purity and truth!

"A small number of white scholars have intimate ties with government agencies and conformity radiates from this core, via funding and positions in high status institutions, though obviously they don't control everything. Two of the world's leading anthropologists, working on India, report to the intelligence services in their own country and have intimate ties with the Church. They also have strong personal ties with some of India's leading leftist scholars. Unfortunately, I can't be more specific..."

Another email was from a medical researcher complaining about her field. It shows how widespread and deep-rooted these institutionalized prejudices run:

"The peer-review process is for academicians to keep their jobs and to keep truly innovative ideas out. It allows mediocrity to survive. This is not just in liberal arts but in Medicine as well. The hostility displayed by the peer-reviewers of Western journals for any innovative idea coming from a Third World country borders on savagery. The idea is run to the ground, and only after a certain ‘negotiation’ and compromise is it allowed through. The small coterie of controlling academicians (more correctly administrators) support each other, and are generally totally convinced that only people of European ancestry are capable of producing anything original. Their favorite method of rejecting new ideas from the Third World researchers include attacking the language or finding some technical ground to ridicule the whole effort. Some Third World papers are let through because they are somewhat stupid, so that they can condescendingly patronize."

In a future article on this cartel issue, I shall describe my model to interpret the above e-mail’s reference to the way the system deliberately selects "stupid" items from the third-worlders, in order to "condescendingly patronize." I refer to this as the Ganga-Din Syndrome. There are many scripts available in the Western Grand Narrative (WGN) for Indians to perform as deliberate-morons. The British actor, Peter Sellers, depicted such characters in some of his roles. Unfortunately, many Indians have become programmed to subliminally behave like morons in front of whites, as if they were enacting a script that was being expected of them. I will claim in my future article that many Indian postcolonialist scholars are, in fact, performing like Ganga-Dins in the Western Grand Narrative, because such roles come with carrots.

This is why I disagree with Homi Bhabha and others who characterize this behavior as "resistance," and I see it as a sellout. Much of what Bhabha calls "hybridity" is to glorify the sellout, by including a script for it within the WGN that makes it seem "progressive".

Who funds what?

I am glad that Vijay acknowledges that private mega-buck funding often compromises academic independence.

For example, Pew Trust is controlling the academic ("secular") Religious Studies discipline at not just one Davos, but many. Its Protestant evangelical mission is very publicly stated as follows (Religion and the Public Square: Religious Grant Making at The Pew Charitable Trusts, by Luis E. Lugo):

"During the first 30 years of religious grant making, certain patterns were established that continue to this day. Perhaps the most pronounced of these is the Trusts' distinct and continuous interest in the evangelical movement within American Protestantism. This was expressed during the early years primarily in the support that was extended to evangelical institutions of higher education, including colleges and seminaries, and to a variety of evangelical parachurch agencies, from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christianity Today magazine to the American Bible Society and World Vision..."

"Some things are clear from this early period. One was the commitment of J. Howard Pew and others in the Pew family to support institutions that uphold historic Christian principles rooted in biblical standards. Another was their desire to see the Christian faith applied beyond the walls of the church to the great intellectual and social issues of the day..."

"[O]ne of the fundamental purposes of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust: ‘To promote recognition of the interdependence of Christianity and freedom...’"

"The Pew Evangelical Scholars Program has encouraged the most talented evangelical scholars nationwide to produce outstanding work from a Christian perspective on topics important to their disciplines, and the Pew Younger Scholars Program has recruited the most intellectually talented graduates of evangelical colleges and seminaries to enter into academic careers…... Pew-funded scholars have produced an impressive array of major-press books, journal articles, edited collaborative volumes, presentations at annual scholarly conventions, and university lectures. Networks of evangelical scholars have been formed, and fruitful cross-disciplinary, cross-generational conversations have been generated..."

Furthermore, Pew Trust controls the supply of survey research data on public attitudes about religion; it dominates in giving the grants for scholarships and post-docs in the "secular" academic study of religion; and it funds a variety of major programs at the top universities. It is also one of the top two funding sources of the American Academy of Religion.

The Henry Luce Foundation also has a very solid Christian leaning, and Luce’s family was Christian evangelists. It is a similar private family endowment operating in this space. Since Mr. Luce is in his old age, his successors and other appointed trustees have taken over, and are said to have Christianized it further. I was informed (unconfirmed) by a reliable person close to the situation that even his present wife (who is sympathetic to Buddhist causes) was turned down by the controlling Christian trustees when she wanted to give certain grants to Buddhism-related causes.

Too much of this is kind of political influence is unofficial, confidential or is simply never compiled systematically for public scrutiny. It is very important to do a report on who funds what: I would be glad to pool resources and information with anyone interested to inquire into every funding source pertaining to India-related studies. (Funding agencies are already required to file annual reports on who they fund what amounts and for what purpose, and it would be a matter of compilation.)

In parallel, I would also recommend to Vijay that we propose a code of conduct for scholars and activists to voluntarily disclose their funding sources and affiliations publicly, not because there is necessarily anything wrong in every instance, but for the sake of transparency.

This disclosure is especially critical in the case of scholars with dual careers: one career is inside the academy that serves to legitimize them, and the other un/semi-official career is in often some vague, undefined, unaccountable affiliations classified under a meaningless umbrella such as "peace activist".

Managed opposition

There are considerable mechanisms in the career maze that scholars must learn to get through to advance.

The management of controlled internal opposition is a major mechanism behind the success of the Western Grand Narrative, as illustrated by the following examples from diverse fields:

a) Exxon is the world’s largest investor in solar energy research, but in order to protect its billions of dollars in fossil fuel underground reserves, it must ensure that breakthroughs in solar energy do not advance too fast, or else the new energy sources would erode into its own asset value. On the other hand, it must periodically announce solar energy breakthroughs to give hope and to prevent genuine competition from filling the vacuum. So both sides of the competing interests are ultimately controlled by Exxon.

b) Many pseudo-democracies pretend to have oppositions, but these cosmetic-only oppositions are controlled by those in power.

c) Ronald Reagan used to periodically get his cronies to "roast" him on primetime TV shows, so as to be seen as having a good sense of humor and the ability to take criticism.

d) Musharraf got his chief nuclear scientist to publicly take the blame, and he instantly pardoned his own co-conspirator (who knew too much of the dirty laundry), thereby putting a stop to further inquiry. Officially, the due process has already been carried out as per the law, because the scapegoat confessed, and the General used his legal powers to pardon in the national interest. The US government quickly accepted the whole matter and slid it under the rug, while the controversy over WMD’s in Iraq (of far less security risk) takes center stage in the media. There was a deceptive arms-length relationship between the parties, because, in fact, they are potentially inter-related.

e) The funding of the World Social Forum by organizations like the Ford Foundation (until recently) is another good example of "managing dissent."

Similarly, the academic system encourages Indian pseudo-intellectuals to engage in harsh criticism of the West, provided they do it using Western categories. This is managed so as to not become too intense, and yet to be severe enough to protect the system’s reputation.

So post-colonialism is largely a criticism from within the neocolonial system. In fact, it strengthens the Western Grand Narrative and pre-empts the potentially devastating criticism that could come from alternative worldviews using alternative categories. The third-world post-colonial critic is merely playing a script approved and supervised by the West. One should not imagine that these Indian scholars truly have unlimited freedom or agency, or even the training, to criticize the Western Grand Narrative (WGN) beyond some approved threshold. From the big icons - such as Bhabha, Spivak and Chakrabarthy – all the way down to ordinary undergraduate English majors who are trying to master "theory", they are performing within the limits of different kinds of approved roles within the WGN.

The producers and directors of the Western Grand Narrative remain Western institutions, controlling the theater of activity through appointed string-pullers, including many Indians.

Carrots for compromise:

One must notice how Uma Narayan (whose criticism of Western feminist agendas was extensively quoted in the companion article on The Cartel’s 'Theories'), got promoted as Director of the Women's Studies Program at Vassar College, with the result that she no longer produces such provocative scholarship that questions Western feminism’s legitimacy to the same extent.

Another example is Gowri Vishwanathan, who wrote her brilliant book, Masks of Conquest (Oxford University Press, New Delhi 1998), in which she explains how English Literature was brought to India’s education system in the 19th century specifically for the purpose of breeding educated Indian babus who would be in awe of the culture of their European masters, and who would look down upon native language/literature. But, later, Vishwanathan wrote another kind of book, which makes Christian conversions seem good for Indians, and for this she got an award and her career advanced fast. She has now stopped writing the "Masks of Conquests" kinds of books, at least not with the same vigor, and has joined the Hindu(tva)-bashing activists.

These are just two of many similar examples of correlations between career advancement and a change in the nature of the scholarship. But one must not be too quick to infer causation, i.e. that one is the consequence of the other, at least not without further analysis. Furthermore, I want to clarify that I have great admiration for the earlier works of both these scholars, and my intention here is to wonder if they are helplessly paying the price of advancement in this system. They are merely examples of a widespread phenomenon that needs to be examined closer.

I will explain in future articles how carrots lure Indians into roles within the WGN that compromise their ability to challenge the WGN. "If they are potential challengers, buy them" – seems to be the plan in many cases. The individual scholar being appropriated is often in denial.

Pseudo-resistance:

Vijay writes: "The post-colonial scholars who are more historically-minded and who are driven by theory are not in power..." (Emphasis supplied.) And: "the journal [of Subaltern Studies] itself has not superceded the more traditional authority of the Orientalist and quasi-Orientalists who continue to be dominant over the institutions of the field." I agree with both these statements.

These statements confirm that, despite whatever so-called "resistance" these post-colonialists might have tried, they remain voices largely on the margins of Western academe. So Vijay appears confused over where he stands on this issue, and vacillates with three different positions: (1) He generally seems to agree with me that there is pro-Western bias. (2) But then he tries to explain it away by citing examples of atypical publications/individuals that are fighting this bias. (3) And then Vijay accepts that these attempts are on the margins and have failed to dislodge the entrenched biases. So he is back to square one.

Given #3, Vijay must agree with me that the problem remains, despite whatever "heroic" efforts some individuals might have attempted. As an activist, Vijay knows that just because we can mention a Dalit rally that happened yesterday, or a book protesting their plight, does not suffice as evidence that their problem is resolved. Yet, Vijay often lists bibliographies or names of individuals who are "resisting," as a way to show that the problems I highlight have been "taken care of" already. He uses rare counter-examples as if the issue at hand is gone.

Vijay might (once again) respond trivially to my descriptions of Western government, church and private funding influences, and to my explanations that Indian scholars are the intellectual underdogs. By citing an example of someone’s writing, he might claim, "I already know it," as if that matters. This is not the TV game, "Jeopardy," so it is irrelevant what either of us already knows. Let us differentiate between a problem’s diagnosis and its treatment. That some lone voices might have diagnosed it already does not imply treatment. Furthermore, treatment does not imply cure. So the ground reality that Eurocentrism drives knowledge production and distribution is not voided by citing someone who already said this or that or noting some exceptions.

The post-colonial scholars are merely playing the roles designated for them inside the Western Grand Narrative. Anyone who does start to seriously challenge the WGN will be either be co-opted within the system with rewards (as mentioned above), or marginalized (with negative "Hindutva" branding). Sometimes a threat-reward combination can nudge the scholar to get on the "right track."

What makes this system work is that ordinary desi writers/activists are in awe of the South Asianized icons who rule the ghetto of South Asian Studies. In India, most students in JNU’s English Department (and other prestigious English Departments), and to some extent in History, Sociology and Politics Departments, want to study Western literary "theory" more than anything else. This hero-worshipping of the gods/goddesses of trends is very high among Indians, and the lure of visas, travel, jobs and other symbols is like a giant suction pump attracting hordes of young people.

However, the Western academic mainstream does not respect post-colonialism very much and keeps it on the sidelines on a leash. It is an ornament in the portfolio and not seen as having substance.

The post-colonialist scholars’ main impact has been to make careers for themselves, based on exploiting white-guilt to create such academic programs, and to serve as role-models to reproduce more of their own kind back home.

Virtual "camps":

Vijay writes that I do not understand "the camp structure of the academy, where scholars of different political and methodological views fall into different camps that both produce knowledge that can be read by each other, but who also produce critical work on each other's work." But I have shown (and will continue to show even further) that the different "camps" are ultimately sub-narratives and roles within the WGN.

Each "camp’s" inmates have the discretion to decorate their cells, to eat the food they like, to listen to their favorite music, and to congratulate themselves for being so free, at least relative to the images of the horrible culture back home. The actors performing in the WGN do have latitude to improvise, and even to resist, but only up to a limit.

This illusion of intellectual freedom is unexposed partly because of compartmentalization: The Peer-Review Cartel showed that overspecialization results in greater arbitrariness in the use of authoritative sources outside one’s own specialty. One may choose like-minded theories and ideological positions from the other disciplines, and bring in the referees that are suitable.

Home Team

What is needed is a home team grounded in Indic categories that is also able to do in-depth purva-paksha of the West (which today’s experts in Indic siddhantas are unable to do and are even unaware of the need). A truly post-colonial home team would be immersed within the Indian traditions and be able to create counterpoints from within it, rather than continuing to view it as an object to be studied by theories developed in Western academic contexts resting on the pyramid of Western thought – from Greco-Roman, to European Enlightenment, to Postmodernism, and so forth.

Therefore, the desi South Asianists are not a home team, but are proxies appointed by the West to pretend to be India’s home team: This is part of the managed resistance program of the WGN. Many of them have good intentions and they need to learn Indian systems of thought. But right now, Indic thought is mostly in the hands of Western scholars, who have extracted many of their "original" theories and ideas from it (as in the example cited of Herb Benson of Harvard), while the Indians have been shamed into disdain of their heritage on sociopolitical grounds.

The Sepoy Army

Vijay writes that he does not know Courtright personally or professionally. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Vijay does not know Courtright’s work. Nevertheless, when I published a rejoinder to Courtright in India Abroad a couple of months ago, Vijay instantly posted the following call to action against me, to his FOIL comrades:

From: Vijay Prashad

Friends: In the latest issue of India Abroad, Rajiv Malhotra has written an article entitled "Satyagraha against academic defamation of Hinduism." In the article, Malhotra, head of the Infinity Foundation, launches a satyagraha against religious studies in the US, particularly against how Hinduism Studies is taught. Some right-wing scholars have also launched the Dharma Association of North America, with a Nov. 21 conference at Atlanta. The paper carries a report from it. I wonder if there are some religious studies people on the FOIL list who might be interested in crafting a response to these developments. There is a need for a progressive voice in this debate over 'who has the right to teach Hinduism' and what kind of 'Hinduism' gets taught. Solidarity, Vijay.

It is encouraging that Vijay has apparently backed out of that project, presumably after he found that it was a complex matter with many protagonists already on many sides, and that FOIL did not have the necessary background or sophistication in Religious Studies to be able to make any worthwhile contribution. However, it would have been even better had he not mobilized his comrades in the first place, but had written his doubts directly to me in the same open spirit with which I wrote to him to get this debate started.

Even though Hindus in America are minorities, there is a contradiction between the Indian Left’s treatment of Hinduism in America and its treatment of Christianity/Islam in India (which are minorities there). I have not come across serious criticisms by the Indian Left of overly-rosy portrayals of "Christianity" in India, with the same vigor as it routinely attacks Hindu Americans’ "chauvinism."

Nor have I come across the Indian Left’s criticism of the way Judeo-Christianity (as the majority religion in America) permeates American secular life, with the same vigor as its vicious attacks against Hinduism permeating Indian society (as the majority religion in India).

Therefore, the Indian Left has completely failed to switch contexts from India to USA when it critiques Hinduism in America, because it has not repositioned Hinduism in the American context as a minority religion deserving the same supportive activism that the Indian Left gives to other minority religions in USA and India.

Imagine as an analogy that Religious Studies was prevalent in India’s universities, and that as a part of this discipline, minority religions were covered with courses on Dalit Studies, Indian Islam Studies, Indian Christian Studies, etc. Now, what would be Vijay’s reaction if 90% of the academic scholars of Dalit Studies (as an example) were practicing Brahmins? Or, imagine if 90% of the scholars of Indian Islam were practicing Brahmins. (I use this analogy because only approximately 10% to 20% of the academic scholars of Hinduism Studies in USA have public identities as practicing Hindus.) In their defense, these practicing Brahmin scholars (of Dalit/Islam) would be able to prove their eminent academic credentials, their years of competent research, etc.

My guess is that Vijay would probably claim that (i) the Dalit/Muslim insider’s voice has a direct experiential feel about being a Dalit or Muslim, respectively, which the practicing Brahmin lacks and (ii) the practicing Brahmin represents a community with a competing history and interest and is likely to subconsciously superimpose his biases no matter how honest he may be as an individual.

Let us take this analogy further: Suppose an Indian Muslim activist starts to blow the whistle on the Brahmin-dominated study and teaching about Islam across Indian universities, by pointing out many instance of glaring errors and outright insults (the equivalent of Courtright’s, Doniger’s, Kripal’s, Caldwell’s, etc. depictions of Hinduism). Now my question is this: Would Vijay mobilize his Sepoy Army to go after such a Muslim writer because he dared to challenge the system’s asymmetries? I think not. But if Vijay can, with a clear conscience, answer this is the affirmative, then I would agree that his mobilization against me was well-intended (despite being ineffective due to FOIL’s lack of expertise in Religious Studies). If not, I must question the legitimacy behind such a mobilization.

In his soul-searching to answer the question raised above, Vijay must bear in mind that black Americans once had a similar struggle to gain direct participation in their portrayal in higher education, because until then it was white scholars who researched and taught about blacks. Furthermore, women’s studies in USA came about as a result of a similar activism by feminists who claimed that, even with the best of intentions, a male-dominated depiction of women was at least incomplete and potentially flawed. I am unable to fathom why the Indian Left denies Hindus in America the same rights and processes that are normal for all new groups and old minorities.

Furthermore, Vijay lists Gadhar, FOIL, and various Indian post-colonial scholars as pioneers in "resisting" against the dominant culture. He complements their courage and supports them. Why, then, did he not see my work in the same positive light? How am I different in my resistance against what I perceive as systemic Eurocentric biases against my tradition?

One can only presume that this global opposition by the Indian Left is peculiarly and asymmetrically directed towards Hinduism alone. While the Indian Left is allowed (by the Western academy) to tilt at the windmills of imperialism in ways that do not make much impact, the price they must pay for admission into this game is to get co-opted in the imperialist project, by doing the groundwork for Christian Evangelists, i.e. by demonizing Hinduism.

My hypothesis is that Jack Hawley, or some other "Barra Sahib," encouraged or indirectly facilitated this mobilization by Vijay. After all, Vijay and I had never met or come into direct contact previously. But Hawley has had years of encounters with me and has tried every trick in his catalog to try to debunk my challenges to his fortress. While the Hawley matter is outside this debate, my question to Vijay is: Was Vijay co-opted as a sort of commando in Hawley’s Sena? If so, is this not another instance of getting browns fighting against browns? Why did Vijay fall for it so naively?

In any case, the closed-room Internet chatter among India’s Left about me is fascinating to watch. Here is an excited sepoy writing on FOIL’s list:

Usha Z:

Hi all, I'm enclosing an individual response by Raja who's also critiqued the H-Asia reaction to Rajiv -- please see below. As of now, Jo and Neilesh are signed on to craft the reponse. Where are all the other historians/south Asianists on foil? Please do join in -- if anyone has a problem posting the response to H-Asia, I can do that. Would it be possible to sign off as FOInquilabiL? Or proxsa?
usha

Another anxious voice of FOIL chimed in, calling me a "creep" without even knowing me:

Dear Usha, I just read the previous post with the responses from faculty...THe problem seems to be there are no critical anthro, soc, womens studies folks responding to this creep . so far seems mainly historians, poli science, south asian studies folks. peace, raja..

This fed the frenzy further, based on false data and outright misinformation, as contained in the following post.

From: J. Sharma

After reading about the Mehrotra piece, I went to the Infinity site and was perturbed to see that they are sponsoring a session on Teaching Indic Traditions at the Association of Asian Studies conference, and are also mobilising to influence the content of World History courses. I gather from their website they are already sponsoring Indic religious studies at Lancaster, UK(which otherwise has a very respected program) under the tutelage of Prof Julius Lipner who has strong links to the Hinduja Foundation, and a visiting position in Sanskrit at Harvard. So it would seem that they are now trying to enter History through the World History backdoor. I'd like to hear from fellow historians in particular, as it is probably necessary to alert professional bodies like the AAS and the AHA to the implications of this kind of opinion. If Usha, Daisy and Vijay have any more information...Again, I am fairly new to Foil and US academia, and might have missed some pertinent discussions in the past. I teach history but am not in an Indic/South Asian/Asian studies dept. I teach South Asia/British Imperial and World History courses. I plan to check out how H-Asia and other list-servs are reacting to this.

There is far too much garbage in the above email to be worth parsing out, except to point out how a scholar who is "new to FOIL and US academia" must establish her credentials as sepoy-in-training.

This mayhem went on, as illustrated below:

From: J. Sharma

Dear Usha and Neilesh,

I was wondering whether we should wait for Rajiv M's promised second piece. In any case, I would suggest that since N and U are already putting something together we build on that. My sense is that we should take advantage of this encounter between concerned academics and activists to perhaps think out strategies about History (specifically of South Asia). And since these seem to be more public than I imagined, I'd rather those of us who are interested get together in a sub-set, at least while we are discussing things through.

(Note : Since I am not a member of the FOIL list, all the emails quoted above were sent to me anonymously by someone. Some of them came from multiple senders)

Opening the fortress gates

I am glad that Vijay wrote the following in his previous post in this debate: "I do not agree with the view that academics should not have an open dialogue with those who are not academics..." Vijay then asks me to cite evidence to demonstrate any lack of open dialog from the academic side. So I shall now give a few examples, starting with the fact that FOIL’s own behind-the-scenes approach (as illustrated above) is not indicative of the "open dialog" principle he espouses.

Furthermore, Vijay was the keynote speaker at a Harvard conference, on November 8, 2003, meant for South Asian educators, in which, as per some attendees, Vijay spent much of his time making outlandish insinuations against me personally. From what I have heard (and I am still hoping to get more concrete facts), he combined wild conjectures and guilt-by-association methodologies to demonize me. This can hardly be considered Vijay’s "open dialog," because: (1) I was not invited to respond at the event (nor was I notified of the event or that I was the topic of discussion even afterwards), making this a trial-in-absentia. (2) I was never contacted by Vijay to verify his allegations about me, which violates his principles of empirically-based inquiry. (3) The correlates cited were sketchy at best, and were clearly over-interpreted to say the least.

At the Delhi conference in December, it was relayed to me (since I was absent) that Vinay Lal defended Courtright’s book in private conversations. (This book states that Ganesha represents a "limp phallus" in Hindu worship, among other award-winning conclusions.) Lal’s argument rested on the "credibility of the scholar" since it had been published by Oxford University Press, who wouldn’t publish it if it wasn’t of the highest academic standards, versus the lack of credibility of the critics outside academia.

The on-going discussions at Emory, between the Courtright camp and those who seek to ban his book (which I do not support), exclude me, although I am referenced by both camps. But even more importantly, why has Courtright not engaged with the point-by-point Sulekha critique about his book in the same manner as if it had been done by a "peer"?

The discussion list of the Religions In South Asia academic group disallows non-scholars (as defined by the Western academy) from membership. (Of course, these rules are occasionally bent to allow a few non-academicians who will tow their line.)

The relatively new Hinduism Unit of AAR, that was created specifically to give Hinduism a balanced voice, has had proposals from Tracy Pintchman (former head of the Unit) to amend the charter in order to block voting rights of those she calls Indian "engineers." (Just as the Amish people call all outsiders "Yankees," so also some RISA scholars think that all diaspora members must be engineers, even though many are physicians, corporate executives, business owners, and so forth!)

The Hindu-Christian Studies group that meets at AAR used to have membership open to anyone who paid the dues. But, whenever certain scholars would post a link about some Hindus committing atrocities (this was long before Godhra, etc. happened), some non-academician would post another link about Hindus being killed in Bangladesh or some other place. The powers in control could not tolerate the latter, as they were in place to do "data-gathering" only about the former. So they suddenly disbanded the list, and made a fresh one in which they have denied membership to all those who criticize their biases. In effect, this is a Hindu-Christian dialog in which the Hindu proxies are selected by the Christian team. Once again, Christianity, Inc. decides who is licensed to speak for Hinduism.

The Ann Gold saga described earlier in this debate is about my unsuccessful attempts to convince anthropologists to redefine what they mean by "peer." My position has been that the village women of Ghatyali (Rajasthan) must be repositioned from being Ann’s "native informants" to being her "peers." They must be able to interact with her as equals, to give their views on whatever she has produced over twenty years about their culture. The West should respect other cultures as peers, and get rid of the nonsensical and outmoded "native informant" asymmetry that puts the Western scholar on higher ground.

Furthermore, I have proposed that every AAR panel on any Hindu tradition or facet of society (Vaishnavs, Shaivites, some jati/tribe X, or whatever), should invite a respondent from that particular group who is their official (or unofficial) spokesperson, especially one who has issues about the scholars’ work. I even offered to help facilitate the travel in those cases where it becomes necessary. But the academy has been disinterested.

Each of the above examples supports my claim that the academy is closed to outsiders’ attempts to engage it.

It is noteworthy that Dalai Lama has had a decade-long peer-to-peer dialog with Western scientists at very high levels (in physics, health sciences, neurology, consciousness studies, etc.). There are at least half a dozen volumes published from this dialog. It is held every year or two, in either Dharamsala or in the US. The most recent one was in the Boston area and resulted in a cover story on The Science of Meditation in TIME magazine. Note that while the sub-text in this piece is "Just Say OM", there is emphasis on Buddhism but no mention of Hinduism. The Dalai Lama and his tradition are not performing in native informant roles, but have negotiated a peer status effectively. Academia has no similar peer relationship with Hindu leaders, partly because (i) Hindu gurus do not have their Western disciples as professors in important places in the same manner as the Dalai Lama does, and (ii) the Indian Left has done a great job in demonizing and delegitimizing Hinduism.

[RajeshA]

Wow!

[Prabu]

An Interesting, (but sad state of afffiars) read about the corrupt leaders in Indian politics ! Received by email

Plunder of India

[brihaspati]

devesh ji,
it is not all so hunky-dory about "Hinduism"-denigration brigade in the "west". it has to be tackled in two ways - first by starting an independent "denigration" and delegitimization of the very basis of Marxian and Christian thought that is used to bash the "Hindu". Second, legitimize the "Hindu" thought through a persistent academic collaboration that draws on history, social and political anthropology, linguistics.

I can vouch for the fact that the process has started. Ironically the best agents to do this will be people from Marxian/Islamo-phile/Christo-phile backgrounds who have abandoned those lines out of well-thought out and reasoned exposure to the reality of a completely dhimmified existence within and outside of India. They know the methods and tactics used by the "enemy" and can effectively counter those methods.

You would be surprised at the responses I increasingly get from a wide spectrum of sociologists. There are several collaborations going on, outside of my main professional thrust. They have deliberately been kept in the dark about many elements of "Hindu" past and present, or with utter misrepresentation. This is the reason I have insisted on them looking up source materials and narratives. People are not really as naive as they are made out to be. It will change.

[brihaspati]

There is a growing body of people interested in looking for alternative models within Indic thought. They are very much aware of the processes used to enforce Islamo-phile or Christianized view of India and "Indian", as well as Marxist propaganda. In fact what has been most heartening is to see a growing hardening of attitudes towards "Marxian" analysis, and a corresponding space to explore how "Marxian" analysis has been used to obfuscate or suppress elements of Indian culture and history that could throw a completely different light or even useful alternatives. I work with a wide spectrum of anthropologists, sociologists, and a small but growing group of historians - and help in developing testable models.

Mere refutation with alternative claims from formal organizations is insufficient. It is better to work collaboratively and in a greater academic collaboration framework.

[ramana]

Book Review in Pioneer

http://www.dailypioneer.com/348433/Imag ... lines.html

Imaginary fault lines
June 25, 2011 9:53:03 PM


Breaking India
Author: Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan
Publisher: Amaryllis
Price: Rs 699

The book exposes three strands operating in today’s India — Islamic radicalism, Maoist and Marxist activism, and Dravidian and Dalit identity politics — all engaged in systematically breaking up the country, writes Saradindu Mukherji

This book has an eerie cover image taken from http://www.dalitstan.com, showcasing a map of the Indic region wherein its northern part stretching up to Assam is depicted in green as Mughalistan — Pakistan and Bangladesh included. The southern parts are called Dalitstan and Dravidistan. For the authors, such a holocaustic scenario seems a distinct possibility unless the process is immediately halted and neutralised.

Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindam Neelakandan expose three strands operating in contemporary India — Islamic radicalism, Maoist and Marxist activism, and Dravidian and Dalit identity politics — all engaged in systematically breaking up what the venerable Ram Swarup called a “shrinking and shrunken” India.

This book, however, deals only with the third dimension related to the Dravidian/Dalit ‘studies’, the ridiculous Afro-Dalit project that seeks to showcase the Dalits as ‘Blacks’ of India and non-Dalits as ‘Whites’. It also exposes the hypocritical roles of various American/European academic institutions and evangelical organisations, besides the NGOs and their collaborators in the media.

The entire gamut of the mechanism and ‘ideology’ to break the country is exposed in 19 well-researched chapters. “Breaking civilisation”, the authors say, is “like breaking the spine of a person. A broken civilisation can splinter, and the balkanised regions can undergo a dark metamorphosis.”

The book suggests that the Western imperialists have sought to undermine India by both ideological and institutional means. They used the Aryan invasion theory (now discredited), the Criminal Tribes Act 1871, caste-based Census, Indological studies, etc, to divide and rule the country. Surprisingly, while the British abandoned the caste-wise enumeration after a while, the present UPA Government has resumed it!

Despite criticism of Orientalists like Max Müller, Johann Gottfried von Herder, etc, for their loyalties towards Christian evangelists, several Indologists were also admirers of India’s ancient Hindu texts and civilisation. They stood apart from those during the Islamic rule, who merely destroyed/vandalised much of the country’s Hindu-Buddhist heritage. The presence of people like William Jones, despite their evangelical biases, along with the establishment of the Asiatic Society and the Archaeological Survey of India, helped restore the country’s past that contributed to the emergence of national consciousness. It would, therefore, be wrong to tar every strand of European scholarship with one brush.

The chapter, ‘Imperial Evangelism Shapes Indian Ethnology’, examines the true character of HH Risley (ICS), often projected by the less discerning as a “brilliant anthropologist”. He comes out as one who “morphed” jati-varna into a racial category. The authors cite BR Ambedkar convincingly demolishing the spurious racist theory based on the nasal index. “The measurements establish that the Brahmins and the untouchables belong to the same race. From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans, the untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the untouchables are Dravidians,” Ambedkar said.

The politics of Dravidian separatism gets more than six chapters. ‘Seminal’ contributions of evangelist-propagandist intellectuals like Brian Houghton Hodgson and Bishop Caldwell in creating an unhistorical divide between the Aryan north and the non-Aryan south are well explained. In this mischievous invention of Dravidian separatism, evangelists sought to de-Indianise and de-Hinduise the Tamil traditions. They distorted ancient Tamil texts like Thirukural and Shaiva Siddhanta by attributing them to Christianity. Though rejected by other Christian scholars of that time, it has been revived in our times by evangelical movements, aided and abetted by racist politicians in the country. In reality, all Shaivite hymns written in Tamil speak of Shiva as residing in the Himalayas.

The authors err in blaming only Pakistan for fomenting terror in India, overlooking the home-grown Islamic separatists/terrorists. Long before Pakistan was created, large tracts of the country had been Islamised/Arabised and massive conversion to Islam accomplished; moreover, Pakistan was created by “Muslim Indians”. Islamic jihad has been operating in India long before Western/evangelical intervention, and with much greater ferocity and success. Both the “Godhra carnage” and the “Babri demolition” are inadequately explained in historical terms.

The authors blame scholars like Martha Nussbaum, Lice McKean, Romila Thapar, Meera Nanda, Angana Chatterji, Christophe Jafferlot and Gail Omvedt for floating many academically unsound ideas that would strengthen anti-India forces. The book also exposes the dark sides of the American Government, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the United States Agency for International Development, Ford Foundation, Dalit Solidarity Network (UK) and many others. It is a fact that most ‘glorified’ scholars in social sciences have strong anti-Hindu and anti-India biases. India’s Nehruvian, pan-Islamic revivalists, Leftists and subaltern scholar-propagandists have long been party to this unholy alliance, and many of them are funded through the public exchequer.

The authors rightly assert that “the colonial constructs of previous centuries have transformed themselves subtly, yet persistently, today” and turned more radical than before through “institutional mechanism and networks”. After all, these academicians have “become tools in facilitating strategic Western interventions”. The book, however, fails to see that the Nehruvian state system with its blatant anti-Hindu bias was no less a culprit.
-- The reviewer is a history professor, the University of Delhi

[brihaspati]

Thinking of Ganesha, there should be research on the "cross" being in firm continuity of tradition of the ancient Near East worship of the male genitals too! The hypotheis exists - just needs to be researched and aired more. Hargrave Jennings, I think wrote a book on this in 1874. I was delighted to find this book long after I had used the same "drooping phallus" argument based on visual similarity arguments to stop a Ganesha bashing session. Think of it Damen und Herren! Adults should get the visual comparsions immediately.

The Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship
by Sha Rocco
(pseudonym of Abisha S. Hudson)
New York, A.K. Butts & Co.

THE triad is parent to the idea of Trinity. It is met with in the most distant countries, and is traced to Phoenicia, Egypt, on the west, and Japan on the east, of our hemisphere, and to India. Constituting, as the triad and yoni did, the ever-dominant thought, and actuated by the narrow realm of an absorbing self-personality, they formed the basis and spirit of religious observance. They were referred to openly and broadly, or more generally and in later times by a mark, a metaphor, a motion, or a sign. For this sign the letter T became typical, and still later the figure of the cross became that sign. "It is most remarkable," says Payne Knight, that "the letter T and the cross, symbols of symbols, are made to represent the male procreative powers, which are emblems of generation and regeneration."

Reverse the position of the triple deities Asher, Anu, Hea and we have the figure of the, ancient "tau" ✝ Of the Christians, Greeks, and ancient, Hebrews--not of the modern Hebrews. It is one of the oldest conventional forms of the cross. It is also met with in Gallic, Oscan, Arcadian, Etruscan, original Egyptian, Phœnician, Ethiopic and Pelasgian. The Ethiopic form of the "tau" is this ✝ the exact prototype and image of the cross; or, rather, to state the fact in order of merit and position in time, the cross is made in the exact image of the Ethopic "tau." The fig-leaf, having three lobes to it, became a symbol of the triad. As the male genital organs were held in early times to exemplify the actual male creative power, various natural objects were seized upon to express the theistic idea, and at the same time point to those parts of the human form. Hence, a similitude was recognized in a pillar, a heap of stones, a tree between two rocks, a club between two pine cones, a trident, a thyrsus tied round with two ribbons With the two ends pendant, a thumb and two fingers, the caduceus. Again, the conspicuous part of the sacred triad Asher is symbolized by a single stone placed upright--as in Gilgal in "Vocabulary," Fig. 2--the stump of a tree, a block, a tower, spire, minaret, pole, pine, poplar, or palm tree. While eggs, apples, or citrons, plums, grapes, and the like, represented the remaining two portions; altogether called phallic emblems. Fig. 3
portrays a triad found on a medal of Apollo. The triple points at the summit are in multiple of the Trinity, as they but repeat the same idea the structure would express without them. Baal-Shalisha is a name which seems designed to perpetuate the triad, since it signifies "my Lord the Trinity," or "my God is three."

We must not omit to mention other phallic emblems, such as the bull, the ram, the goat, the serpent, the torch, fire, a knobbed stick, the crozier: and still further personified, as Bacchus, Priapus, Dionysius, Hercules, Hermes, Mahadeva, Siva, Osiris, Jupiter, Molech, Baal, Asher, and others.

If Ezekiel is to be credited, the triad T, as Asher, Anu, and Hea, was made of gold and silver, and was in his day not symbolically used, but actually employed; for he bluntly says "whoredom was committed with the images of men," or, as the marginal note has it, images of "a male" (Ezek. xvi, 17). It was with this god-mark--a cross in the form of the letter T--that Ezekiel was directed to stamp the foreheads of the men of Judea who feared the Lord (Ezek. ix, 4). In China, Tau is Nature's absolute unity.

Thus we find the cross is the Ethiopic and ancient Hebrew "tau" ✝. The T is the triad, the triad is Asher, Ann, and Hea--the male genitals deified--the genitals are pudenda, pudenda means shame or immodest, and so we arrive at the unavoidable conclusion that the cross is of sexual origin and purely masculine. It is the sign of a man-God.

This is not all of the cross. In ancient days it had a natural counterpart little suspected by moderns. This essential opposite was denominated the Yoni.

added : the text is in http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/asw/asw00.htm. The author can be bashed perhaps, but the logic given should be as relevant as the visual comparisons and psycho-sexual mumbo-jumbo about Ganesha's phallic significance.

So the Christian Cross is only utilizing an ancient - and perhaps Indian - motif, about regeneration symbolized by the male phallus, and representing a drooping one too - where the Indian one shows it erect. Whatever......

[devesh]

So the Christian Cross is only utilizing an ancient - and perhaps Indian - motif, about regeneration symbolized by the male phallus, and representing a drooping one too - where the Indian one shows it erect. Whatever......

Brihaspati ji, that's it. I vote this for the best post of the year......

[devesh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_Christian

we need to work on this page. there are huge stereotypes which are presented as facts. and they don't have any references for those "facts." lots of stuff about how male domination of females was reversed by Christianity in AP. about how Telugu Christians are "more progressive." there is absolutely no presentation of the dark side of exploitation. huge bias. I have never spent much time making edits and tagging articles which are crap, on Wiki. but we need to work on this page. at the very least, it requires huge number of references to back up a whole bunch of assertions.

[Prem]

Why cant the Trinity be respresented by Man, Woman and Gay in between? Cross stands for crossdresser.

[Pranav]

It looks like another painstakingly built institution may be snatched away from Indic hands:

State tightens noose around Sathya Sai Trust - http://www.rediff.com/news/report/will- ... 110628.htm

Firefighting efforts by trustees - video of press conference: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/n ... /203717?sp

[brihaspati]

The reason that "institutions" should not be traceable, tangible, asset laden, and localized. Instead it should be a movement, preferably a mass one - that is much more difficult to control and possess. This whole asset building method is like serving as worker bees in the hive - adding on honey so that one day a queen bee emerges to rule over her brood, and humans smoke out the bees to get all the honey.

[Rony]

The story of Mother India

[devesh]

^^^
of course, the article had to end with "mahatma gandhi," "vegetarianism," "animal rights," "peace," etc...
a decent article, although it has its share of "Aryan invasion" nonsense. the only mention of India's warlike culture is of Ashoka's "slaughter" in Kalinga. very interesting choice of an example. why not Chandragupta's defeat of Seleucius?

[Manny]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13994351


Treasure (3$ Billion) found in Indian temple


A treasure trove of gold, diamonds and precious stones hidden for centuries was discovered in the underground vaults of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram, India.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India - A treasure trove of gold, diamonds and precious stones hidden for centuries was discovered in the underground vaults of a temple in southern India, a temple official said on Sunday, as authorities scrambled armed police to guard the shrine.

Local media said that the search team’s finds included a four-feet-tall gold statue studded with emeralds, 15-feet-long gold necklaces and jewel-encrusted crowns. The estimated value of the hoard is 750 billion rupees ($17 billion), but officials said they were yet to assess the findings.

“Most of the articles found in the temple are offerings made by devotees and wealth the erstwhile rulers of the Travancore princely state had stored in the temple,” the temple official said on conditions of anonymity.

The treasure was found in the 16th century Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple in southern Kerala state, the royal chapel of the former rulers of Travancore, now part of Kerala.

con't...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/ ... 68261.html

My comment:

This money is being taken by the sekular Govt for all people. Basically, the Church and Msoques would get to keep their money for their religion. but Hindu money should go to all people?

This is outrageous.. this is persecution of Hindus. This is possible only in India.

[RamaY]

Such treasures were meant to be used in national emergencies such as severe draughts, wars etc. I sincerely hope GoI keeps the custody of the treasure in temple management's (not the govt controlled trust) hands and leave it to future generations.

Added later:

Chief minist Ooman Chandi confirmed that the treasure belongs to the temple and will remain in the temple. God bless him.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... temple-515

[Manny]

This should be done as per the Hindu Temple trust... as they see fit. The way the church decides how to spend their money. I would wish they use this money to open many Hindu charity schools maybe.... but its for them to decide..not for any "Social do gooder lefties commies of Kerala" nor for the federal govt of India.

[Aditya_V]

Aldready the Secular spin in going on, For Example Headlines Today describes the Tresure as "PLUNDER OF THE TRANCORE KINGS" and not as saftey deposit of treasury to protect it from looting by the British. For eg, in the Taj Mahal Emerald and Rubies were taken and replaced by Glass.

[ramana]

Bodhi of India Forum looks at MF Husain's art:

MF Husain in a New Light: A Hindu Art Prespective-PART I

my Comments:

ramana
June 20, 2011 at 4:41 am

Very good exposition of MF Hussein’s art works. I think you critiqued him better than his best supporters. Eagerly await your critique of the offending pieces. Also hats of to your knowledge of aesthetics. One question is MFH never did explain his art as you did.

ramana

and part 2:

MF Husain in a New Light: A Hindu Art Prespective-PART II

My comments:

Bodhi,
Wonderful exposition of MF Hussain’s artworks. I think you have the correct picture for one a can't explain his art from even Western point of view. At the higher level art expresses itself through the artist.
I think you have done a great job of interpreting MFH through Hindu aesthetics and reclaimed him lest he becomes another lost child of India.