Bharat Rakshak

somnath wrote: India's "right" over J&K is a function of our politico-military capacities, not a piece of paper, disputed or otherwise...However, that right isnt dependent on Anglo-American blessings..Far from it...At the same time, we have a lot in common, and a lot more to gain from, a productive alliance with them - that too there is no doubt on...

brihaspati wrote:Two observations:

(1) MKG specifically claims [as per my above posts] that even collaborating with a hated opressor or ruler or opponent whose rule is detested on tactical issues is perfectly compatible with being a "nationalist". If contextual collaboration with enemies disqualifies "nationalist" credentials, and shows subversion of "dharma" - then we should recognize MKG as not being a nationalist and not dharmik.

(2) There is often an attitude to history in the modern educated - that whatever has been claimed as historical interpretation by so-called professionals is the "end", final, irreversible, a kind of "truth". This is the same attitude essentially of the total and unquestioning submission to revelation by an authority who cannot be challenged - and submission to whom gives material benefits in exchange.

It seems that the Indian mind which traditionally did not dwell on a permanent truth but on a permanent quest which entailed continuous revisiting of old conclusions, to update - is lost. Especially in those who somehow have lost the inquiry/doubt faculty and therefore more easily convinced about the necessity of rejecting their birth culture claims - because the colonial/foreign masters and their Indian lackeys reward such rejection well. These minds therefore once divorced from their tradition fall into the trap of the revelation brigade - and become ultra-conservative thinkers on history - that all that has supposedly been claimed by western/colonial historians and their repackagers (who claim to be anti-colonial to gain legitimacy for such repackaging) are the final revelation and cannot be challenged.

Acharya wrote:This is mainly due to modern day social engineering which is very effective due to centralized schooling system and the modern media which can reach the living room at a cheap cost.

This needs to be controlled effectively inside India.

The Central Advisory Board of Education, the oldest and the most important advisory body of the Government of India in education was first established in 1920 and dissolved in 1923 as a measure of economy. The real reason being that they could not control the education policy according to their larger design. It was revived in 1935 and has been in existence ever since even after independence. The idea that there should be a central Advisory Board of Education was first put forward by the Calcutta University Commission (1917-19) which felt "that the Government of India could perform an invaluable function by defining the general aims of educational policy, by giving advice and assistance to local governments and to the development of educational ideas in the various provinces, and also elsewhere than in India." This is the start of the control of education in India by foreign policy makers which continues even after the independence. Almost simultaneously the Government of India Act, 1919 decided to make education mainly a provincial and a transferred subject and to limit the `control' of the Central Government over it to the minimum. This fundamental decision changed the character of the Government of India from that of an executive to an advisory authority; and consequently, the Secretariat Procedure Committee set up to implement the Government of India Act, 1919, observed that, in future, the executive authority of the Government of India should be mainly exercised through moral persuasion and recommended that, "in place of giving executive orders it should tend more and more to become a centre of the best information, research and advice." This recommendation made the adoption of the recommendation of the Calcutta University Commission all the more imperative and accordingly, a Central Advisory Board of Education was set up in 1920 under the chairmanship of Education Commissioner to the Government of India. It is a good deal of useful work but, owing to a financial crisis calling for drastic retrenchments, was abolished in 1923. The first seeds of thought control were setup in 1935 and the first set of Indians educated in India with western thought started in the 1930s and 1940s. They were the most influence in communism and socialism and the people born during that time were in the position off power in 1990s and 2000s.
For the next twelve years, there was no Central body to advise the Government of India in educational matters. This period was the critical period of British trying to find a path for the Muslim nationalism in India for a separate homeland? However, a feeling of regret at the discontinuance of the Board began to grow, especially after the Report of Hartog Committee (1928) which observed that the divorce between the Government of India and education had been unfortunate. Consequently, the present Central Advisory Board of Education was revived in 1935. The first constitution of the Board was given in the Government of India (Education, Health and Lands Department) Resolution No.F.122-3/35-E dated 8th of August, 1935. This period was the revival of the Muslim leagues demand and eventual creation of Pakistan in the eastern wing and the western wing. The Board has been reconstituted vide Government of India Resolution No.1-2/90- PN(D.II) dated 19th October, 1990, as per. The practice adopted by the Board has been to hold one meeting every year, although the record of the last fifty- five years shows that there were no meetings in 1937, 1939, 1966, 1969, 1973, 1976( emergency), 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985 and 1990, and two meetings were held each in 1938, 1943, 1950 and 1986. Prof. S. Nurul Hasan was the chair for the year 1972, 1974, 1975 which was the crucial years after the breakup of Bangladesh, unrest among Indian intellectual and academic bodies and Pokharan test in 1974.

Literacy rate every decade in India:
1901 5.3
1911 5.9
1921 7.2
1931 9.5
1941 16.1
1951 18.33
1961 28.31
1971 34.45
1981 43.56
1991 52.21
2001 65.38

We see that the literacy accelerated in the 60s, 70s and the major powers started to influence the education system inside India. Both Russia and UK/USA setup grants and university contact with new Indian Universities such as JNU and influenced the content and worldview of the future elite. The socialist and left leaning institutes were encouraged for a long term goal of revolution and upheaval inside India. Since Indians/Hindus do not have their own narration of other races except the Muslims and Anglo Saxons the major powers had a vested interest in influencing the worldview of a new generation of Indians. The British were most successful in changing the image of its colonial rule into rule of stability and progress for Indians and the country.
The National Policy of 1968 marked a significant step forward in the history of education in post-independence India. It dealt with several important aspects of education which had been examined in depth by Commissions and Committees over a long period both before and after independence, culminating in the Education Commission (1964-66). The Policy of 1968 aimed at promoting national progress, creating a sense of common citizenship and culture and strengthening national integration. It laid stress on the need for a radical reconstruction of education to improve its quality at all stages, much greater attention to science and technology, cultivation of moral values and a closer relation between education and the life of the people. But the policy left others to take control of history and narration in the process making changes which suited the vested interest such as the Marxists. Romila Thapar first edition of Early India was introduced in 1968 which later for 30 years became a standard reading material for many institutions( 2nd edition was in 2003).
The years since the adoption of the 1968 Policy have been considerable expansion in education all over the country, at all levels. More than 90% of the rural habitations now have schooling facilities within a radius of one kilometer. At the upper end of the pyramid also, there has been a sizeable augmentation of education facilities. The most notable development following the policy of 1968 has been the acceptance of a common structure of education throughout the country and the introduction of the 10+2+3 system by most of the States. In relation to school curricula, in addition to laying down a common system of studies for boys and girls, science and mathematics were incorporated as compulsory subjects and- work experience was assigned a place of importance.
The problem of school textbooks came up for discussion at the meeting of the National Integration Council held at Srinagar in June 1968. The Council attached great significance to the proper use of textbooks for purposes of national integration. It was of the view that education from the primary to the post-graduate stage should be re-oriented (a) to serve the purpose of creating a sense of Indianness, unity and solidarity ; (b) to inculcate faith in the basic postulates of Indian democracy ; and (c) to help the nation to create a modern society out of the present traditional one, and that the textbooks used in the schools should be specially designed to serve these purposes. It also recommended that the State Governments should create an appropriate machinery at the State level for the improvement of school text-books in general and for using them effectively for purposes of national integration in particular and that, in consultation with them a National Board of School Textbooks which will co-ordinate the efforts of the State Governments should be set up by the Government of India. But these recommendation was not taken into policy when the next change in textbook was done in 1978. The year 1978 can be considered as a crucial year in the history of education in India since the Marxists were in full control of the educational institutions and other intellectual institutions such as media. Most of the changes in history to suit the Marxists were done in this year and these reflected even upto the year 2002.
Government of India announced in January, 1985, that a new Education Policy would be formulated for the country. A full appraisal of the existing educational scene was undertaken and a document, entitled, "Challenge of Education" was brought out in August 1985. There has been a countrywide debate on the document, marked by keen interest, and enthusiasm. The views and suggestions received from different quarters were carefully studied and are reflected in this Presentation. The new Policy takes off from the National Education Policy adopted by the Government of India and approved by Parliament in 1968 and seeks to build on it, to respond to the changes which have taken place since.


In 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts. Among other things, it stipulated: "Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden." Thus, denial of history, or negationism, has become India's official "educational" policy. To the new historians the Aryan invasion theory was the lifeline which connected them to their masters in the West. This subservience provided them lecture tours, fellowships and presence in international conferences. To them India had nothing worthwhile to boast of except the unsocial practices perpetuated by the caste system and sati and the exploitation of the majority of the population by the Brahmins. To them India was never a nation, it became so only through the grace of the British. But for them, there would have been no India. The history which presented that India was modernized by the British and by the earlier invaders, was the only worthwhile history. After all, can anybody match the gift given to India in terms of say, railways and the English language! The great Indian Marxist academics who have followed the 1853 dictum of their Master.

"India, then, could not escape being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it be anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all... What we call its history is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society."

To some this was the essence of the Vedas, the Puranas and the Smritis. Total commitment and unadulterated subservience.
Effacing the harshness of Islamic rule in India has been the primary objective of Indian Marxist historians. Even rulers of the notoriety such as Mohamed of Ghazni and Aurangzeb have been recipients of their kind benevolence. R. C. Majumdar has drawn attention to a typical, though not so well-known, case of Marxist intellectual jugglery. Double speak forms the leitmotif of Marxist literature on medieval India. The Turkish invasions are glorified for effecting the political unification of India, and ending her alleged isolation, while Mughal rule is presented as the country’s second classical age. Notwithstanding lofty declarations about free debate, Indian Marxists have, in classic Soviet style, relied heavily on state patronage and control of state-sponsored institutions to disseminate their version of history. Satish Chandra’s Medieval India (NCERT 2000) was part of the Marxist offensive at the school level. It has been said that history is essentially the story of civilization memory. That has certainly been the case in India. Both communities which constitute Hindus and Muslims today, have varying memories of their historical journey. A Marxist dictate on inter-community amity in medieval India has abjectly failed to alter civilization memories. The gulf between the two communities even at the village level has been poignantly brought out by a Bengali writer who notes:


Indian Marxists take immense pride in presenting what they claim is a scientific analysis of the past. Some examples of this ‘methodology’ are given below. It may be seen that Marxist narrative is bedeviled by a non-Indian perspective, which casts a shadow over its very veracity and motivations.
Though purported to be a text on ‘Medieval India,’ Satish Chandra’s book begins with a discussion on Europe in the aftermath of the breakup of the Roman empire, followed by a description of European feudalism, the Arab world from the 8th to the 10th centuries, and last but not least, East and South-East Asia! That India does not merit even a subsection in the opening chapter perhaps best illustrates the Marxist alienation from the Indic perspective and their utter reliance upon foreign categories and periodization for understanding events in India. Even though the very first paragraph of the book admits that developments in Europe and Asia only “had an indirect effect an India….”(Page 1), Marxists are unable to break away from imported categories of thought, howsoever ill they fit the Indian reality. They seem incapable of viewing India in terms of itself. For them, it must always move in tandem with Europe, the Arab world, even East and South-East Asia.
Shaping the minds of the future generation is the third center of gravity which the major powers want to target in any nation. The eminent authors of history books amongst them, in the true tradition of Macaulay, wanted to create a generation totally delinked from its past. They knew that the most successful approach to demoralize a nation would be to demoralize the young generation. That could bring about a red revolution. The best strategy would be to make them ashamed of their past. After all, they belonged to the generations of weak, "unresisting and unchanging people." The negationist kind of history was thrust down the throats of young Indian children for decades together. A select group of leftists came to control academic institutions of national importance and invented a course of Indian history of their choice. Those who opposed them were just ignored and relegated to oblivion. They were not found suitable for any of the fellowships or recruitments in the institutions and universities. In the process many careers were destroyed. Eminent historians were thrown to the periphery and never even referred to in the intellectual outputs. The one perverse objective of this group of intellectuals in authority was to destroy Indian institutions and whatever was sacred to multitudes of Indians. This is one of the centers of gravity to be destroyed in India which the great powers had in mind. It was considered vital to destroy all edifices of which India could be proud of. They ridiculed Indian samskaras, spirituality, the culture of tolerance and acceptance and the unique balance in Indian society.

Acharya wrote:Once the textbooks are standardized across all the states the same Marxist versions of the history got pushed inside India from 1975. Anybody can read the education board meetings for the last 40 years and see what changes were made in the education.

somnath wrote:

Acharya wrote:Once the textbooks are standardized across all the states the same Marxist versions of the history got pushed inside India from 1975. Anybody can read the education board meetings for the last 40 years and see what changes were made in the education.

The only "standardised" textbooks are from NCERT..they are used only by CBSE..All other boards have their own textbooks...BTW, the BJP tried it own hand at history book writing

I haven't seen this book being discussed here. I don't as yet have a copy but the outline and associated materials can be found here:

http://www.breakingindia.com/

couldn't find anything about Bihar/Magadha on the website...confused where that came from?

Kashmiri separatists hail Gathafi's UN marathon
Separatist leaders in Kashmir united in praise for Gathafi's ringing endorsement of their struggle.
Middle East Online

'Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani'
SRINAGAR - A marathon UN diatribe by Libya's Moamer Gathafi won him an enthusiastic fan base in Kashmir. Gathafi berated US and some EU powers for an hour and 35 minutes from the General Assembly podium on Wednesday in a speech covering issues as diverse as John F. Kennedy's assassination, swine flu and his support for Kashmiri independence.

Separatist leaders in Kashmir were united in praise for his ringing endorsement of their struggle. "Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict," Gathafi told the assembly.

His remarks were splashed over the front pages of Kashmir's leading dailies on Friday, as separatist leaders applauded.
"We hail this brave and valiant leader for his bold advocacy of Kashmiris’ wishes and aspirations," said Yasin Malik, head of pro-independence political party the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. "Such statements from international leaders provide solace and satisfaction to the oppressed people of Kashmir," said Malik.
[...]
Syed Ali Geelani, a hardline separatist, said the Libyan leader had set an example for others to follow. "Not only Gathafi, but the world leaders, especially those from Muslim nations, should play an active role in the resolution of the Kashmir issue," Geelani said.

brihaspati wrote:Now which side should the Kashmiri separatists dance on? In September, 2009, Gaddafi praised the Kashmiri separatists and the separatists like Geelani dance in joy and supported Gaddafi.

Separatist leaders in Kashmir united in praise for Gathafi's ringing endorsement of their struggle.
Middle East Online

'Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani'
Now the same Gaddafi says he is doing a "Kashmir" a la India in Libya. Where is the Indian press raising the issue with Geelani and Malik?

According to fund tracker EPFR Global, fund managers and other investors yanked $5.45 billion from emerging markets funds in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere in the second week of February and placed it in equity funds of advanced economies — their biggest weekly inflow in more than 30 months.

Developed market funds recorded their seventh straight week of inflows in mid-February — with European equity fund flows hitting 41-week highs. So far this year, investors have committed $47 billion to U.S., European, Japanese and global equity funds — $29 billion of it into the U.S alone.

Meanwhile, investors have pulled out over 20 percent of the $95 billion they parked in emerging markets during 2010 since mid-January, EPFR said. Since the beginning of the year, outflows totaled $1 billion from mainland Chinese equity markets alone.

"Investors are, for the first time since 2007, seeing more opportunity in developed market equities than in emerging markets," said EPFR managing director Brad Durham. "The underperformance of developed markets last year, which has made valuations more appealing, and expectations of a return to faster paced growth in the US, Europe and Japan are the main drivers of this shift."

The shift from emerging markets and into developed ones has been keenly felt in some key stock markets since the beginning of the year. The Dow Jones industrial average is up 4.1 percent, Japan's Nikkei 225 is up 5.1 percent, and Germany's DAX rose about 4.5 percent. France's CAC-40 is up a whopping 6.9 percent, while Britain's FTSE 100, a relative laggard, was up slightly under 1 percent.

Meanwhile, India's Sensex has slid 10 percent, and Brazil's Bovespa is down 4.4 percent. Indonesia's SE Composite Index has dropped 5.1 percent. Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh index is down 3.8 percent — wiping out some small investors hoping to strike it rich.

New Delhi hosted a foreign minister-level meeting with Brazil and South Africa on Tuesday, which was to have been an innocuous occasion for some rhetorical "South-South" cooperation. On the contrary, the event soared into the realm of the troubled world order and shaky contemporary international system. The meeting took a clear-cut position of nyet vis-a-vis the growing Western design to impose a "no-fly" zone over Libya.
[...]
Obama's tryst with history is indeed bugging him in his decision-making over Libya. Robert Fisk, the well-known chronicler of Middle Eastern affairs for the Independent newspaper of London, wrote a sensational dispatch on Monday that the Obama administration had sought help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for secretly ferrying American weapons to the Libyan rebels in Benghazi, for which Riyadh would pick up the tab so that the White House would need no accountability to the US Congress and leave no traceable trail to Washington.

The moral depravity of the move - chartering the services of an autocrat to further the frontiers of democracy - underscores Obama's obsessive desire to camouflage any US unilateral intervention in Libya with "deniability" at all costs.

Now comes the body blow from the Delhi meeting. The three foreign ministers belonging to the forum that is known by the cute acronym IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) thwarted Obama's best-laid plans by issuing a joint communique on Tuesday in which they "underscored that a 'no-fly' zone on the Libyan air space or any coercive measures additional to those foreseen in Resolution 1970 can only be legitimately contemplated in full compliance with the UN Charter and within the Security Council of the United Nations".

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota told the media in Delhi that the IBSA statement was an "important measure" of what the non-Western world was thinking". He said, "The resort to a 'no-fly' zone is seen as expedient when adopted by a country but it weakens the system of collective security and provokes indirect consequences prejudicial to the objective we have been trying to achieve." Patriota added:

It is very problematic to intervene militarily in a situation of internal turmoil, Any decision to adopt military intervention needs to be considered within the UN framework and in close coordination with the African Union and the Arab League. It is very important to keep in touch with them and identify with their perception of the situation.

He explained that measures like a no-fly zone might make a bad situation worse by giving fillip to anti-US and anti-Western sentiments "that have not been present so far".

Equally significant was the fact that the trio of foreign ministers also penned a joint statement on the overall situation in the Middle East. Dubbed as the "IBSA Declaration", it reiterated the three countries' expectation that the changes sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa should "follow a peaceful course" and expressed their confidence in a "positive outcome in harmony with the aspirations of the people".

A highly significant part of the statement was its recognition right at the outset that the Palestinian problem lay at the very core of the great Middle Eastern alienation and the "recent developments in the Region may offer a chance for a comprehensive peace ... This process should include the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... that will lead to a two-state solution, with the creation of a sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestinian State, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, with secure, pre-1967 borders, and with East Jerusalem as its capital."

Haque (1992: 106) has argued that "The original or Quranic concept of Islam is essentially
revolutionary". The thrust of this paper is to present a socio-historical analysis of how this
original revolutionary spirit of Islam was being demonstrated by the Islamic religious reformers and the Ulama, the traditional Islamic religious leaders in India. It examines how their changing religious ideologies reflected and supported the political policy of the conservative Islamic dynasties up to the seventeenth century A.D as well as how they influenced and invigorated the famous revolutionary political movements from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, especially, the Khalifat, in their political ideals and operations. The paper argues that, among other factors, the reformers’ and ulama's religious
inspiration, motivation and legitimization of the revolutionary activities of these political
movements were mostly responsible for their effectiveness. It therefore concludes that the role of Islam in India demonstrates the validity and complimentarity of the polarized
Marxian and Weberian paradigms of interpreting the social functions of religion, which
should rather be seen as the two sides of the same coin.
[...]
Presently, in the contemporary India, the influence of Islam in the socio-political structure follows the same pattern. This clearly shows how Islam by discovering the dynamics of the historical process, offers raw materials for developing an ideology of socio-political revolution. This further illustrates, as Uchegbue (2001: 15) has argued, that the religious systems of the world can provide positive ideological support for largely secular political systems committed to rapid socio-political change. Like other major religions of the world, therefore, Islam in India uniquely demonstrates what Uchegbue (1997: 216) describes as "the radical potency, prowess and capacity of religion" for confronting and transforming the existing social orders of given contexts. Viewed side by side with the earlier role of the Ulama, we notice the paradoxical roles of religion in society. In providing a supportive ideology for the conservative Islamic dynasties up to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Ulama represented a theology of the status quo which reflected the existing social order. But it also functioned as a transforming power later by seeking to change the existing colonial sociopolitical system. Both views are relevant depending on the given context of operation and analysis. This calls, therefore, for a reconciliation of the Marxian and Weberian paradigms of interpreting the social functions of religion as the two inseparable sides of the coin. From these two perspectives, it is indubitable that Islam remains a formidable force in Indian socio-political and economic experience and destiny. Specifically applicable to Islam in India is the following concluding remark:

The new vitality of Muslims has also led to a religious awakening among them. Under the spur of internal decay and external pressure, they have sought to restore and purify some aspects of their religious heritage and to reform others. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is the sheer devotion to Islam which 20th century Muslim exhibits at a time when religion generally has declined. Islam has acquired renewed dynamism and is a major force stimulating Muslims to achieve a better place for themselves in the world
(Encyclopedia Americana 1977: 502).

brihaspati wrote:Not wet dreams. Given the fractional thinking of the elite in control of the rashtra, it is not entirely infeasible.

devesh wrote:what we need is a reconversion campaign by RSS/VHP. other contemporaries like Baba Ramdev can help too. a combination of bhakti based conversion, appeal to logic, history, inner Indic-ness, are all useful tools.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693

^^^ don't know what to make of it. wanted to post the article but it is too long and i'm not quite sure what the author is getting at. the experts can visit and share their thoughts.

abhishek_sharma wrote:On Indian Muslims: The more they remain the same

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/The-m ... me/761881/

abhishek_sharma wrote:On Indian Muslims: The more they remain the same

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/The-m ... me/761881/

do not bother what Modi did with Muslims

devesh wrote:what is ROP?

RajeshA wrote:

devesh wrote:what is ROP?

ROP=Religion of Peace
ROL=Religion of Love