Blog | Page 293 of 889

The fraud of ‘Islamophobia’

-

29 October 2020

In a 1918 biography of Islam’s prophet written in French language the word ‘islamophobie’ was used, arguably for the first time. Robin Richardson, who translated that biography into English, did not use the word as “Islamophobia” but rather as “feelings inimical to Islam”. The word ‘Islamophobia’ with meaning of ‘unseasonable and imaginary fear and hatred towards Islam’ entered into common usage in 1997. The 2004 UN conference entitled “Confronting Islamophobia”, forced international recognition of “Islamophobia” as a specific expression.

But then what was the necessity to defend Islam with such a catch word? To understand that we need to look back to the rise of Islamic terrorism across the world since 1972 Munich Summer Olympic. In that Olympic Games, Palestinian Islamic Terrorist group of eight members killed nine Israelis and one West German Police official. A brief list of Islamic terrorist attacks after 1972 is given below:

December 1973: Killing and hijacking from Rome Airport.
June 1976: Entebbe hostage crisis.
February 1979: Assassination of US Ambassador to Afghanistan.
November 1979: Iran hostage crisis.
November 1979: Seizure of Grand Mosque in Mecca.
October 1981: Assassination of Egyptian President.
April 1983: Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut.
October: 1983: Bombing on American and French compounds in Beirut.
March 1984: US Political Officer murdered in Beirut.
April 1984: Restaurant bombing in Spain.
June 1985: Trans-World Airlines hijacking.
September 1985: Kidnapping and killing of Soviet Diplomat in Beirut.
October 1985: Italian cruise ‘Achille Lauro’ Hijacking.
November 1985: Egyptian Airliner Hijacking.
December 1985: Airport attack in Rome and Vienna.
March 1986: Aircraft bombing in Greece.
April 1986: Berlin Disco bombing.
February 1988: Murder of Lt Col of US Marine.
April 1988: Naples Attack.
June 1988: Murder of US diplomat in Athens by car bomb explosion.
December 1988: Pan Am 103 bombing.

The list goes on and on, culminating to 9/11 bombing of Twin Towers in USA during 2001. The Islamic terrorism continued thereafter with full zeal and vigour. On 26 November 2008, Mumbai saw worst Islamic terrorist attack. The Islamic terrorism has been continuing all along, the latest being the beheading of a school teacher in Paris. If even 99.9% of Muslims are not terrorists, they have never stood up en masse against 0.1% of Muslims who have been doing terrorist activities across the world. Does it indicate the tacit approval 99.9% Muslims for Islamic terrorism?

Apologists of Islam may cry that Islam is religion of peace and has nothing to do with terrorism. But all Islamic terrorist groups, more than one hundred in numbers across the world, vouch their terrorism in the name of Allah, Quran and Islamic teaching. It is a catch-22 situation for the apologists of Islam. Neither they can disown the violent and discriminatory teachings of Islam, nor can they associate themselves overtly with Islamic terrorists.

So, the only option left for them is denial and blaming the non-Muslim critics of Islamic terrorism with “Islamophobia”. But, where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is Islamophobia, there is Islamic terrorism. Hydrophobia occurs when one is bitten by rabid dog. Similarly Islamophobia happens when one faces Islamic terrorism. No phobia comes out of the blue. All phobias have basis and background. Ask a Mental Health expert to clear your confusion, if any.

Thus the most fraudulent term in today’s English language is “Islamophobia”. It is an absolute misnomer. Islamic and Left-Liberal groups, in their political correctness, use ‘Islamophobia’ to safe guard and cover up Islamic terrorism only. The non-Muslim secular, plural and democratic West, which is self loathing for its imperialistic history, becomes defensive to avoid the tag of ‘Islamophobia’ and looks the other way. And Islamic terrorism goes on happening. This is the greatest misfortune of our time.

Why Nikita Tomars of Secular nations will become BalikaVadhu?

Ankit Shah

-

29 October 2020

0

Why Nikita Tomars of Secular nations will become BalikaVadhu?

So the question here is how Nikita Tomar is linked to Balika Vadhu?

There has been a loyal audience for a decade of this particular daily soap elaborating the damage of child marriage and why this so-called hindu custom was so bad. Not surprising that a “secular” nation is supposed to hide the reasons behind the practices from the people.

Our culture has had revered the feminine form of godliness for centuries like none and if you look at the explicit, liberal artifacts and sculptures, this does not look like it started as an orthodox society.

As you dig in, you realize these practices of child marriage and ghunghat came up only after Islamic invaders entered the subcontinent and these were meant for defense against radical Islamic rule for survival.

Hindus had to compulsory do ghunghat and restrict movement of women outside homes due to jihadi armies under islamic rule. With ghunghat practice, the women were confined to restrict their movements inside homes so that the jihadi army do not spot them. With child marriage the little girl got security and support of two families and she reproduced in numbers to do fast human replacement in war times with jihadis in battles. This is how hindus survived the Islamic rule. And this was in areas where hindus could still give a fight.

In areas where Hindus couldn’t give a fight and were totally outnumbered, the women used to save their modesty with Sati and Johar. The Johar women especially laid their hand prints on the doors to tell us not to let radicals ever enter your nation.

So whether it be problems of love jihad or crimes like Nikita Tomar’s, it will go on because our syllabus was white washed since beginning right with appointing a Saudi born mulla as our first education minister and so on. In fact most education ministers were left-islamic appointments in the past.

Until we put out loud and clear in public that balika vadhu, ghunghat, johar and sati were defenses created for survival against Islamic jihadis, our daughters will get sacrificed like this again and again.

While it was very fancy to show Balika Vadhu and ghunghat for peddling fake narrative of orthodoxy in Hinduism, hiding true facts about Islamic culture or for fake “bhai bhai” theories are resulting now in heavy costs.

Europe will soon have to start Balika Vadhu and ghunghat within few decades if they wish to survive against jihadis as they are fast approaching a great civil war.

Lets hope they don’t have to go down the path of sati and johar.

Indian texts are riddled with controversial claims; but only if you deliberately decide to isolate the sayings

Reports

Sanatani

-

29 October 2020

0

Indian texts are riddled with controversial claims; but only if you deliberately decide to isolate the sayings

India is an ancient civilization. There had been the Indus valley as the main source of majority of India as we know it. With the years of civilization, there comes values, culture and teaching, that too are as old as the civilization we can so proudly say ourselves to be a part of. That means that there must have been controversial claims and teachings as well. Because thinking that our ancient ancestors were pure and didn’t do mistakes, is the first step of sidelining ourselves from the Indian culture, which had in summary taught us that only change is eternal, and you need to stay updated with time.

I recently read an article on Scroll in which they declared:

All the Dharma sutras and Dharma shastras asserted that the main task of the Shudras was to serve the twice-born (Apastamba DharmaSutra I.1.1.7-8.
– Caste discrimination: India must disown parts of ancient texts that contradict the Constitution

See how they mention “All” and then quickly fall back to only 2 or 3 such scriptures which ever mentioned the caste system in it’s entirety. But is it correct to isolate the saying of these scriptures out of the context and then claim that you have proved that Indian culture had been discriminatory from the start. I do agree caste system was an integral part of Indian culture, but was it as vile and as discriminatory as is portrayed? Let’s decode each scripture one by one. The first in the list of the scriptures is the Apastamba Dharmasutra.

Now, if you read the Apastamba Dharmasutra in it’s entirety, this is what it teaches:

Āpastamba proposes that scriptures alone cannot be source of Law (dharma), and dharma has an empirical nature. Āpastamba asserts that it is difficult to find absolute sources of law, in ancient books or current people, by stating as follows, according to Patrick Olivelle:

“The Righteous (dharma) and the Unrighteous (adharma) do not go around saying, ‘here we are!’; Nor do gods, Gandharvas or ancestors declare, ‘This is righteous and that is unrighteous’.”

Laws must also change with ages, states Āpastamba, a theory that became known as Yuga dharma in Hindu traditions. Āpastamba also asserts in verses 2.29.11-15 a broad minded and liberal view. The Apastamba Dharmasutra also recognizes property rights of women, and her ability to inherit wealth from her parents.

Aspects of dharma not taught in Dharmasastras can be learned from women and people of all classes.

I will not deny the fact that the Apastamba does tell in I.1.1.7-8, for the Sudras to serve the higher caste people. But if you understand where Apastamba took that reference from, you will realize it merely quotes Manu for the discrimination against Sudras. The same Manu whose Manusmriti was the most controversial text ever exiting in Indian culture, and the same Manusmriti that was easily forgotten by Indian people, only to be brought back by the Britishers, to apply their strategy of divide and rule. The so called four-fold hierarchy was derived from the same Brahman texts. This system of categorization was only textual or theoretical; which had no connection to the reality on the ground. This became embarrassingly evident from the first census in the 1860s when the British government decided to fit all the Hindu population in one of the four categories. WR Cornish who supervised the census of 1871 stated:

… regarding the origin of caste we can place no reliance upon the statements made in the Hindu sacred writings. Whether there was ever a period in which the Hindus were composed of four classes is exceedingly doubtful”.
-WR Cornish (Census of 1871)

In fact there is no evidence that the caste was such a significant feature of Indian society, before the British decided to use it and make it a definitive social feature.

The next in line is the Mahabharat Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 60.28. We don’t need to tell you what Mahabharat teaches. For the god’s own fools, there are several translations and summary to read online to get a gist of what Mahabharat really means. To quote the words as they are:

bharat! ab maian shoodr ka bhi dharm tumhean bata raha hooan. prajapati ne any tinoan varnoan ke sevak ke roop mean shoodr ki srishti ki hai; atah shoodr ke liye tinoan varnoan ki seva hi shastr-vihit karm hai.
–Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 60.28

The Shanti Parva book is set after the war is over, both the sides have made peace and Yudhishthir has started his rule. The book is recites duties of the ruler, dharma and good governance, as counseled by dying Bhisma and various Rishis. But there is a very important part that people reading with a biased mind miss.

Chapters 188 and 189 of the parva begin by reciting Bhrigu’s theory of varna, according to whom Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are differentiated as white, red, yellow and black. Rishi Bharadwaja asks how can we differentiate between castes when all the colors are observed in every class of people, all groups experience the same desire, same anger, same fear, same grief, and all other emotions? Everyone is born same, carries blood and bile, die same way, asserts Bharadwaj. So why do castes exist? Bhrigu replies

there is no differnence between castes. It arose because of differentiation of work. Duty and rites of passage are not forbidden to any of them.
Mahabharat, Shanti Parva, Chapter 188 and 189

According to John Muir, Shanti Parva and its complementary book Anushasana Parva claim:

Mahabharat, Shanti Parva, Chapter 188 and 189

The last of the texts is the Manusmriti, which is often cited as the main source of the caste based system. The verse, shamelessly mentioned by the Scroll editor mentioned Manusmriti X.127, which quotes:

dharmaipsavastu dharmajñāḥ satāṃ vṛttamanuṣṭhitāḥ |
mantravarjyaṃ na duṣyanti praśaṃsāṃ prāpnuvanti ca || 127 ||
If those who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.—(127)
Manusmriti 10.127

You can visit the link in the citation to see what it actually means. If I translate it to English, as per the translation done by Ganganath Jha, this verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 381), as prohibiting for Śūdras the performance of rites accompanied with the reciting of mantras;—and in Śāntimayūkha (p. 2), which quotes Medhātithi’s view that ‘this verse entitles Śūdras only to Fasts and such acts as are done without the use of Vedic mantras. These views are not correct, because to Fasts and other such acts they are entitled by virtue of the injunctions of those acts themselves, and the present verse would be superfluous.

So why is it that every time these so called educated liberals try to justify the caste system by mentioning one or the other texts, which when isolated can really wreak havoc on your mind. You have to read the texts in their entirety, because they are in themselves a story on how a man, a society and humans should exist peacefully on this earth. You would stop reading Harry Potter in between and come to conclusion that Snape was a villain. That would be superfluous, because you are twisting the reality to fit your own agenda. The books, the sacred texts are to be read in their entirety and with complimentary books.

Next time when you see someone mentioning these texts, do your own research. Or reach out to your nearest educated person on twitter. You know where to find and whom to find to debunk these propaganda masqueraded as justification of caste. The caste has been by virtue of your actions, and no propaganda can change that fact.

Hypocrisy – Thy name is Bollywood

Opinions

kinjaldave007

-

29 October 2020

0

After months of deafening silence over the mysterious death of the late actor and physicist Sushant Singh Rajput, the high and mighty of Bollywood “ganged up” together to “gag” the media. It started with targeting a specific number of journalists, but the stance was later changed to include “all of media”. What was the media’s fault? – They were asking questions (somewhat difficult ones) to the once demigods who live in their own little fantasy land.

Instead of helping with the much needed clean up in an industry polluted with drug abuse, illicit money trades, casting couch, sex rackets and exploitation they decided to put a stop on free speech they advocate all the time! Backlash should be expected and something Bollywood will have to deal with if it refuses to have an honest conversation and own up to its shortcomings!

Playing the Victim Card

Attacking the messenger ideology has left Bollywood totally exposed in the eye of the common public, damage control would have been better organised by owning up to mistakes made and assuring cooperation with the authorities. However, they decided to question and malign the very people asking for Justice for Sushant Singh Rajput, ‘gag’ media houses to save what is left of their “reputation”! Moreover, some have audaciously announced “nobody has forced the people to go and watch films, don’t watch our films if you don’t want to”. Self-destructive mode is on!!!

What’s there in a name? That but we call Bollywood by any other name will reek of Egotism!

Bollywood is a term coined to reflect “Bombay Hollywood” and copy the term “Hollywood”. This in a way is a reminder to every one of the existent Plagiarism in the name itself. Over the last 2 decades it has become a very influential and powerful industry; sometimes also claiming to be a soft power of the country. However, in the last few months the dark underbelly of the “starry” world has been badly exposed. For the first time the industry is encircled with frustrated and angry audience questioning their hypocrisy!

Asking difficult questions on issues that matter is not a witch hunt!

Plagued with the dark secrets of casting couch, bullying, nepotism, “gangism” and narcissism the deafening silence on the mysterious death of Sushant Singh Rajput was a final nail in coffin of the industry. It is about time that people have difficult conversations and robust debates about these issues. As a matter of fact, some personal observations have been made and …

Here a list of claims Vs Realities of Bollywood:

Claim	Reality
Creativity is prevalent, appreciated and celebrated.	Plagiarism has plagued Bollywood for a long time even the most iconic romantic scene in Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a “copy” of the scene from Clint Eastwood’s In the Line of Fire. Copy from Hollywood is not the end – many big budget films are copied from true and grounded stories portrayed in regional cinema. They are given a “grand look” and a new “classy colour”.
Promoting Feminism and Women empowerment	Eve teasing is nothing new in terms of Bollywood, classic scenes where girls are presented as damsels in distress when a roadside goon is either shown attacking her or passing lewd comments, (all in time for a male heroic figure to come to the rescue) are not uncommon. What is even more disturbing is male actors not being held accountable for their comments like girls should not be a “choosa hua aam na lage” and “felt like a r&(ed woman” after a workout. The reality is not women empowerment but disgusting Obscenity, vulgarity and objectification of women.* Even in “item numbers” where female actors do cameo appearances for a dance number. Requirements are clear – show skin, show navel, show legs! Powerful female actors who happily hold placards for women empowerment dance happily on vulgar lyrics that objectify women.
Promote the notion of Health and Fitness	Issue of drugs and alcohol abuse extensively shown on screen in a glamorising form has been heavily debated. Many claim that it is creative freedom, others say that wrong messages should not be given out in the name of “creative freedom”. However, the recent developments have drawn attention to the prevalent problem of drug abuse and alcohol abuse in the industry. The matter becomes especially important when a so called “A- Lister” in the hope of correcting his image before his film release admits on record of there being a major drugs problem in the industry. Most actors who claim to be advocates of martial arts, outdoors activities end up releasing and promoting video games for money.
Encouraging Secularism as an attitude	Presenting Selective derogatory content on a particular religion has been a customary practice. Sexualising Hindu Gods and deities and using terms like “sexy Durga”, “sexy Radha” may have been a long seen problem, however a recent blunder where memes showing lead figures of the industry in a lewd and rude way (with subtitles of “Majama in my Pajama”) mocking the pious festival of Navratri have totally exposed the so called “secularism” of Bollywood
Champion the cause of saving the environment	Donning leather jackets, and proudly sharing insights into having 100s of shoes and never repeating clothes is actually anything but sustainable! Pulling down a car window glass to tell someone off for littering is a great Publicity Stunt, but one wonders what happens to their ideals when their crew litters a beautiful village with biomedical waste in the testing times of COVID. Giving out free advice on the holy and pious occasion of Diwali to not burst crackers to “look out for asthmatics like me!” is a great PR strategy, but getting spotted by Paparazzi happily enjoying your cigarettes and cigars on a private Yacht is NOT SUSTAINABLE/ENVIORNMENTALY FRIENDLY LIFESTYLE!
The notion of promoting Inclusivity	Most of the so called “A-Listers” have been horrendously embarrassed in recent times for actively endorsing “fairness creams” and raising their voice for BLM movement. The reality is that images of “size zero”, perfect figure of “36,24,26” with fair skin (white skin) girl and a perfectly chiselled “6 pack abs” boy is endorsed in all the films. Over years characters like “Poo…” in “K3G” have been glamourized and systematically girls have been made to believe that if you do not fit in the image of those glamourous figures there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Homophobic content propagation is also nothing new in Bollywood. Portraying the 3^rd gender comically is a great insult to the transgender community of India.
Inspiring cultural ethos of India	Presenting Distorted historical facts in mainstream cinema without appropriate disclaimers have been practiced for a long time. The most recent example includes maligning the most decorated intuitions of India (known not only for its power but for its morality) The Indian Airforce! Where on Earth will we ever find an example of a film dedicated to a brave fighter pilot having a dialogue of “I don’t love my country – I just want to fly planes”? Manufacturing controversy for attention gain and managing PR activities is also nothing new, however in recent times these attempts have come in the public domain.
Bollywood is one big happy family	A listers and so called “stars” live both figuratively and physically in their vanity vans all the time! No one is unaware of the fact that the industry is plagued with the virus of Narcissism and dynastic products. Outsiders have always been isolated and singled out – whilst the non-talented “nepokids” have been promoted limitlessly. So called “actors” better known as Nepotism products do not know anything about the culture or language of India. Speak a certain form of “basterdised English” (their English is never grammatically correct and they are proud of it!) are used to being treated like Gods, whereas the crew members who travel along with them and work on the film sets day and night are deprived of basic food and cleaning and utilities. Some have gone on record to say that get treated worse than slaves. These videos have been made public and are available on social media platforms. Film producers and directors make millions of bucks but still the film sets have following problem: No ambulance for stuntmenNo toilets and hygiene products for cast and crew Sanitisation and workplace health and safety are never looked after! Nobody dares to check the studios; film sets etc. because questioning them is a witch hunt!!!

Many film actors have become MPs and will happily use the remarks like “thaali me chhed!” in the parliament (indicative of a lordship and an obedient servant ideology/mind-set) but have never been seen raising concerns on any of the above issues!!

Thanks to Late actor and physicist Mr. Sushant Singh Rajput (May God Bless His Soul!), these things have come out in public and the box of worms disguised as a Pandora box is now open!

In death he has managed to enlighten the masses!

Reports make inaccurate claims of the benefits of raising the legal age for women’s marriage

ashwin

-

29 October 2020

0

Reports make inaccurate claims of the benefits of raising the legal age for women’s marriage

The purpose of this article is to assess the arguments made in favour of raising the legal age of marriage as presented by the report of SBI Ecowrap that has also been used in several news reports [1][2]. This is following the announcement made by the Prime Minister that the central government would consider making the aforementioned changes. The government had previously constituted a committee to reconsider the minimum age for marriage and would make a decision once the committee submits its report.

In its essence, the above-mentioned SBI’s Ecowrap report places several arguments before the reader on the potential benefits of raising the legal age of marriage to 21. The aim of bringing about this change, as per the report, is to increase the mean age of marriage in order to realize these benefits.

The claim of social benefits

The report claims that “Early marriage has an adverse effect on health of mother as well as child” and points out that the lower age bracket has the highest proportion of maternal deaths. Along with this it also displayed the below table and highlights the age group 20-24, possibly to indicate that the highest proportion of deaths occur within this age bracket. This in effect implies that the proportion of maternal deaths is highest among young mothers and that occurs within the age group of 20-24.

Table displaying proportion of estimated maternal deaths as shown in the SBI Ecowrap report

The age of 20-24 is definitely a healthy age to bear a child. The mere occurrence of the largest proportion of maternal deaths within this age bracket is in no way a reflection on the negative impacts of bearing a child at this age. This could merely be a result of the mean age of marriage, which the report correctly says, is 22.3 years. This means that this particular information offers no information of value as it is merely a representation of the state of affairs.

Followed by this piece of information the report paints a picture of the dismal state of nutrition for mothers and their children in India. Among the tactics mentioned to tackle this problem is education. While the report, on the whole, does make a claim that increasing the legal age of marriage will increase the number of graduates, it is well known that a graduate level of education is not necessary to ensure good maternal health.

Then a claim was made that India could significantly reduce it’s MMR (Maternal Mortality Ratio) by simply increasing the legal age of marriage to 21. To substantiate their argument, the average MMR of countries with a legal age of marriage of both 18 (129 deaths per 100000 live births) and 21 (124 deaths per 100000 live births) were compared. The argument made was that since the mean MMR of countries with a legal age of marriage of 21 is lower, India would benefit from have the same legal age. This is an inaccurate comparison as the MMR of these countries would depend on a multitude of factors beyond just the legal age of marriage. As a result, this comparison again offers no valuable information for India.

This means that report fails to prove any social benefit that could occur from merely raising the legal age. The argument for social benefit is based on only the hope that it could improve the MMR. But that itself is based on a trend that does not giving any meaningful information.

The claim of economic benefits

The report claims that increasing the mean age of marriage in India (mentioned to be currently at 22.3 years) would lead to positive economic outcomes as a result of the increased number of graduates. For this, a comparison was made between the graduation percentage of women of the various states. It was found that states with a mean marriage age higher than the national average, had a higher percentage of women undergoing graduation.

Table displaying the mean of marriage age of various states along with their percentage of graduation as displayed in the SBI Ecowrap report

The inference made was that increasing the mean age of marriage led to an increased percentage of graduation among women. However, this is not how society works. It is only in families where there is a culture of ensuring the women do graduate where they tend to marry at a later age. Hence the higher mean age of marriage in some states is merely a representation of their socio-economic status that enables them to graduate rather than an independent decision to marry late.

This means that there is absolutely no proof that by merely increasing the mean marriage the percentage of graduation would increase. On the contrary, it is common knowledge that the reverse relation is definitely true and that’s why we see the trend in the table displayed above. The report gives the impression that the graduation percentage is the effect when in fact it is the cause for later marriage. Hence here as well the report fails to show any financial benefit.

Incentivizing a higher marriage age for women

The report argues “We believe Government has also a role in incentivizing people to get married above legal age enhancing social and economic benefits to the country”. While I do not disagree with their claim on the need for the government to do this, as it seemingly does have better economics outcomes for the women, I believe that changing the legal age of marriage is not an incentivizing move rather it is coercive in nature. A coercive action is to be taken only when there is an absolute dire need to make a change. Does the report argue the need for this change in such a manner? It doesn’t. In fact, both their claims of social and economic benefits are inaccurately represented as I had argued above.

Is there a need to make equal laws for men and women?

The legal age of marriage for women is 18 and that of men is 21. The laws were made as per the social conventions that were being and is still largely followed in this country. The report cites a consultation paper where the Law Commission argued that this unequal law promoted a “stereotype that wives must be younger than their husbands”. The problem here is that the Law Commission makes a moral judgement on the Indian society and its customs. While it is ok to argue that there is nothing wrong in having an equal law here it is a matter of concern when the paper merely wants an equal law as a result of the societal practice prevailing in the country. The law should be kept as it is as there is no need to correct the societal mindset as such a move fundamentally reeks of a colonial mindset the State still dearly holds on to. Or the State could make the legal age of marriage of both genders to be 18 and let the society decide what’s best for them.

Conclusion

Ever since the Prime Minister’s announcement regarding the change of legal age of marriage of women, several voices have argued in favour of the move using poorly argued benefits of both social and economical in nature. Besides this, there are people who make a moral argument as well. It is true that for the average reader of this article, a good age of marriage would be at a point when a woman has completed their graduation. However, it is unfair to use coercive measures to make others, especially of lower-income levels, to adhere to our standards of morality. They should be allowed to continue their practice if no one is harmed as a result of their practice.

Another reason why people would want to raise the age of marriage is to prevent cases where women run away from their homes and get married due to their poor choice of judgement. In such cases, it is smarter to demand a change in the law wherein the women must have the consent of their parents if they were to marry between the age of 18 and 21. This prevents young women from making poor decisions as well as freedom for the family to practice their customs.

The SBI Ecowrap report in my opinion makes several inaccurate claims as I have demonstrated above. The most important thing required for a coercive measure, such as raising the legal age of marriage, is a good reason as to why it is absolutely necessary. If the State is unable to solve issues using other means, only then could one justify a coercive measure. If it is necessary based on what evidence or logic can one claim that by merely raising the legal age of marriage, the required objectives would be met? Unfortunately, the report did not meet such standards and also didn’t consider the potential infringement on the society’s right to make decisions for itself.

Be correct, not politically correct

Opinions

Abhinav

-

29 October 2020

0

There was a gentleman who used to outrage a lot against corruption. One day I wrote a tweet – “I am immoral. I lie, cheat, bribe, exploit. Destroy nature. I steal. I discriminate. I’ve hate it. I’ve violence. But I am lonely in this world full of moral people.” This gentleman trolled me a lot and shamed me. A few days later, the same gentleman sent me a DM and asked how did I get the strength to write that tweet? I said one doesn’t need strength to speak the truth. One needs it to build a lie around one’s life. And that’s when he confessed that he was caught in some corruption cases and sought my help.

I was shocked that just few days earlier he was outraging against the government on corruption issues. A lot of people hide their socially unacceptable traits behind a facade of fake outrages when someone else gets caught with their pants down. With the advent of social media, we have started living in an age of extreme Political Correctness. It’s no longer about protecting the weaker section or minorities. It has become a political weapon to persecute others either to settle scores or just for fun. Don’t you dare say or think the wrong thing, or a Twitter mob of angry villagers will come after you with digital torches and metaphorical pitchforks? I remember reading somewhere which I wrote in my notes – no matter what you do, no matter what you say, someone out there will proclaim how outraged they are because they think it’s their job to be offended by every god damn thing. It makes people feel important. It makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel like their opinion is relevant. It’s the Yelp effect.

Every halfwit who eats food suddenly thinks he’s a food critic. And don’t get me started on people ‘reviewing’ books they don’t read and ‘films’ they don’t see. Who needs information when you can have an uninformed opinion? Who needs morality when you can fake it in 280 words? Plus claiming to be offended or taking a high moral ground is a great way to elevate yourself at the expense of others. “Look at me! I’m a much better person than you! I judge you, I condemn you, I shame you…. Shame…. shame…. S.H.A.M.E.!” Look how good it feels.These media-shaming bear an uncanny resemblance to medieval witch-huntings. If you were accused of being a witch back then, you were shit out of luck. Being accused was all it took. Forget, “innocent until proven guilty.” Nobody bothered to prove your guilt. Nobody dared to speak up on your behalf for fear of being called a witch-sympathizer. Because if you were seen as a friend of the witch, you were the next one to be accused of being a witch.

If you don’t like your neighbour because her dog keeps shitting on your lawn, accuse her of being a witch. Problem solved. ‘He’s communal… he is a bigot… he is a racist… and above all…. He is a sexist…. That simply means that you are neither of the above… you are not a sexist yourself. The more outraged you are, more shaming you can do to the other person means you are a really really good person. Shaming someone else automatically gives you a character certificate…. Till the time someone doesn’t shame you. In the Bible, Jesus said, “let him who is without sin throw the first rock.” But a lot of people seem to think he said “if you throw rocks at others, it proves you are without any sin.”So my friends, be correct not politically correct.

नए आत्मनिर्भर बिहार का रोडमैप

Santosh Pathak

-

29 October 2020

0

भाजपा ने हाल में बिहार के विकास का रोडमैप जारी किया है. अन्त्योदय की नीति तथा रीति जो हमने अपने पुरोधा श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी तथा दीनदयाल उपाध्याय जी से सीखी है, यह उसी का मिश्रण है. हम यह मानते हैं की जन भागीदारी सुशासन का महत्वपूर्ण अंग है, इसलिए इस घोषणापत्र को तैयार करते वक़्त भी हमने उसे प्राथमिकता दी है तथा जो 6.25 लाख लोगों हमें सुझाव मिला है, उसे शामिल करके उनके अनुरूप ही इसे बनाया है. रोडमैप जारी होने के तीन दिन के बाद यह लेख मैं इसलिए लिख रहा हूँ, ताकि जनता की प्रतिक्रिया को भी समझा जा सके और मैं गर्व से कह सकता हूँ की हमें जबरदस्त जनसमर्थन मिल रहा है. इस लेख में मैं लालू यादव जी के 15 वर्षों के शासन का तुलनात्मक अध्ययन एनडीए के 15 वर्षों के शासन से भी करना चाहता हूँ, ताकि यह तथ्य स्थापित हो सके की भाजपा अपने घोषणापत्रों में जो कहती है उसे पूरा करती है.

बिहार की जनता ने 2005 में हमें जनता दल (यू) के साथ साझा सरकार बनाने और सुशासन के लिए ऐतिहासिक जनादेश दिया था. वस्तुतः वह जनादेश उस दौर की बेहद जटिल सामाजिक-राजनीतिक परिस्थितियों के आलोक में मिली थी. तब शासन के नाम पर राज्य में संगठित अपराध एक मात्र व्यवसाय बचा था, बिहार के बजट का आकार मात्र 23 हज़ार करोड़ रूपए था, कृषि बजट मात्र 20 करोड़ रूपए थी, प्रति व्यक्ति आय 8000 रूपए, बिजली मात्र 22 प्रतिशत तथा सड़कें मात्र 34 प्रतिशत लोगों तक उपलब्ध थीं. बिहार के सभी व्यवसायी, उनके संगठन तथा कल कारखाने बिहार से जा चुके थे और जो सबसे बड़ी चुनौती हमारे सामने थी वो यह थी की जनता में सरकार के प्रति विश्वास कैसे बहाल करें?

मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार के साथ मिलकर हमने सर्वप्रथम जनसरोकार के विषयों पर ध्यान केन्द्रित किया. बिहार से संगठित अपराध को ख़त्म किया और बिना किसी लागलपेट के सबको न्यायिक प्रक्रिया के तहत जेल भेजा ताकि समाज में शान्ति स्थापित हो सके, हमने सरकारी क्षेत्र में 6 लाख से ज्यादा लोगों को अवसर दिया जो राजद के 15 साल के शासनकाल में मात्र 90 हज़ार थी, बिहार में बजट का आकार बढ़कर 2,11,000 करोड़ से ज्यादा हो गया है, प्रतिव्यक्ति आय 47 हज़ार से ज्यादा हो गयी है, स्वयं सहायता समूहों के माध्यम से 1.20 करोड़ महिलाओं को आर्थिक तौर पर सबल बनाया गया है, सभी के घरों में बिजली का कनेक्शन दिया जा चूका है, 100 तक के आबादी वाले बसावटों तक बिना किसी भेदभाव के 22,500 किमी सड़कें तैयार की जा चुकी हैं, कृषि का बजट आकार 2,400 करोड़ का हो चूका है और विद्यालयों में बच्चों को पोशाक, साइकिल तथा छात्रवृति स-समय उपलब्ध हो रही है तथा प्रदेश में 1.61 करोड़ घरों तक शुद्ध पेयजल पहुँचाया जा चुका है.

इसमें कोई शंका नहीं है की एनडीए के विगत पंद्रह वर्षों के शासनकाल में बिहार में उल्लेखनीय प्रगति हुई है. बिहार शासकीय अराजकता से शान्ति व सद्भाव की तरफ बढ़ा है; विखंडित सामाजिक चेतना, जातिगत और धार्मिक हिंसा से बाहर निकल आया है. अब यहाँ विकास के प्रतिमान के रूप में सड़कें है, गंगा, सोन, गंडक, कोसी आदि नदियों पर महासेतुओं की श्रृंखला है; चौबीसों घंटे बिजली है; नक्सली हिंसा से मुक्त होकर खेत- खलिहान लहलहा रहे हैं; किसानों की उपज में दुगुनी से ज्यादा वृद्धि हुई है; बच्चे विद्यालय तक पहुँच रहे हैं और सरकार भी उन तक पहुँच रही है; प्रति व्यक्ति आय में पांच गुणा वृद्धि हुई है. विकास के सभी मानकों पर बिहार ने श्री नीतीश कुमार तथा श्री सुशील कुमार मोदी जी के नेतृत्व में शानदार प्रगति हासिल की है.

अब हम आत्मनिर्भर बिहार के दृष्टी पर काम करना चाहते हैं. आप हमसे पूछ सकते हैं कि आत्मनिर्भरता का क्या मतलब है? आत्मनिर्भर होने का मतलब है 21 वीं सदी की आतंरिक तथा वैश्विक परिस्थितियों के अनुकूलता में स्वयं को देखना. हम केंद्र में सरकार बनाने के बाद से ही ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ की बात कर रहे थे और कोरोना कालखंड ने हमारी उस मुहिम पर मुहर लगा दी है कि एक राष्ट्र के तौर पर स्वयं की आवश्यकताओं सहित दुनिया की मांगों के अनुरूप हमें भारत को तैयार करना होगा तथा भारत को एक समर्थ राष्ट्र के रूप में खड़ा करना होगा. हमारे आत्मनिर्भर भारत अभियान में बिहार एक महत्वपूर्ण पड़ाव है इसलिए हमने अपने रोडमैप में 19 लाख रोजगार के अवसर खड़े करने की बात कही है जिसमें सरकारी नौकरियां भी हैं और आर्थिक उन्नति के अन्य अवसर भी हैं.

हमने 15 नए दुग्ध प्रसंस्करण उद्योगों की बात कही है, जिससे गौपालकों को आर्थिक तौर पर समृद्ध बना सके, मीठे पानी में उत्पन्न होने वाली मछलियों के उत्पादन में बिहार को देश का नम्बर एक बनाने ला लक्ष्य निर्धारित किया है, चीन पर निर्भरता कम करने के लिए खिलौने, डेकोरेटिंग लाइट्स, गाड़ियों के पार्ट्स इत्यादि जो कम पैसे तथा कम जमीन में खड़े हो सके ऐसे उद्योगों की स्थापना की बात की है तथा राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति के अनुरूपता में हिंदी भाषा में सभी प्रकार के तकनीकी शिक्षा उपलब्ध कराने की बात हुई है. हमने इस दृष्टी पत्र में हरेक पहलु पर ध्यान केन्द्रित किया है. एक बच्चा जब विद्यालय पहुंचे तब से 21 वीं सदी के अनुकूल कैसे बने से लेकर युवा के रोजगार प्रबंधन तक, महिलाओं के आत्मनिर्भर बनने से लेकर उनके हरेक हुनर को आत्मसात करने तक, किसानों के अन्नदाता से ऊर्जादाता बनने तक, हर हाथ को काम हर खेत तक पानी पहुंचाने के लक्ष्य तक, गरीबी के जाल में फसें हमारे कमजोर तबके लोगों को भी उस चंगुल से बाहर निकालने का दृष्टी इस पत्र में संकलित है.

हमारी घोषणाओं में जहाँ बिहार के समेकित विकास का रोडमैप है वहीं राजद विकास के इस बेहद महत्वपूर्ण दौर में जंगलराज में धकेलने की कोशिशों में लगा है. लालू जी के शासन काल में गैर योजना कार्यों पर बजट का 78% खर्च होता था जो हमारे शासनकाल में घटकर 50% से नीचे आ गया है. हमने इस अंतर को कम करके हर तबके तक विकास की रौशनी पहुंचायी है. लालू जी के दौर में बढ़ी हुई गैर योजना व्यय इस बात का परिचायक है की विकास समाज के सभी लोगों तक ना पहुंचकर कुछ लोगों तक सिमटा हुआ था या राशि भ्रष्टाचार की भेंट चढ़ गयी. आज जिस प्रकार की घोषणाएँ तेजस्वी यादव कर रहे हैं, वह समाज के सर्वांगीण विकास का धोतक ना होकर केंद्रीकृत मानवीय विकास की बात ज्यादा है. श्रधेय अटल जी के दौर में देश भर में आर्थिक उन्नति हो रही थी तब अवसर को गवांकर आज आर्थिक न्याय की बात करना सिर्फ और सिर्फ वोट लेकर वापस उसी दौर में बिहार को ले जाने की कोशिश ही नहीं बल्कि षडयंत्र भी हैं क्यूंकि सीपीआई (माले), सीपीएम, सीपीआई जैसे दलों से गठबंधन करके औद्योगिक विकास के सपने बेचना गंजे को कंघी बेचना ही है.

लेखक भाजपा प्रदेश कार्यसमिति के सदस्य तथा 2020 विधानसभा चुनाव के घोषणापत्र समिति के सदस्य हैं.

Do Pakistani leaders care about Islam?

Abhinandan Kaul

-

29 October 2020

0

Recent statements by Pakistani leaders reflects how the so-called “Islamic” nation of Pakistan just backs on the façade of religion to justify its existence and misrule of leaders over its citizens, and in reality doesn’t truly care for the religion. It appears the failed experiment of Pakistan, ever since its establishment, has been trying to keep itself afloat using Medieval power tactics, a major part of which is religion.

Its founder, Mr. Jinnah exclaimed that Pakistan had been incepted to provide a separate country to the Muslims, who he felt wouldn’t have a voice in a country where the majority populace follows another religious tradition. However, it is difficult to believe that the Pork-eating and Brandy-drinking Jinnah actually cared about his people. Rather it seems that he just used religion as a tool to achieve his selfish political ambitions and seek benefits from the British. After Jinnah, this tradition sadly continued, and many groups exploited the religious plight of Pakistani citizens to gain political power and then justify misrule.

Zia-Ul Haq’s era also referred to as the period of a “Military Mullah” alliance, stands as a prime example. There was a massive proliferation of religion throughout the country at this time which was further fueled to motivate the youth to fight against the Soviet- communist forces in Afghanistan. Following Jamat-i-Islami version of Islam and combining religion with politics greatly helped Zia to escape the immediate implications of his misrule, however the society became even more radicalized, and thus it wasn’t Islam or the society the rulers of Pakistan cared about, but it was political power.

It is distressing to see that even in today’s modern age when Pakistan has a Prime Minister who projects himself as a modern leader, this trend continues. His recent statements bashing the French President Macron’s calling out of Radical Islamic terrorism and his mum on China’s brutal holocaust type massacre of the Turkic-speaking Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang is a point in the case.

Imran Khan hasn’t heard about #Uyghur Muslims in China pic.twitter.com/lERKxKTkdI
— Ismail Royer (@IsmailRoyer) March 28, 2019

It must be perplexing at first, to understand how just a comment against Radical Islam by the French President antagonized the Pakistani Prime Minister to such an extent that he went on a full on rant, and the massacre and murder of Islamic culture and people in China doesn’t affect him a bit, however now, it is quite clear with the past political experience in Pakistan that political power and obligations feature much higher than faith for its leaders. His popularly perceived image as a critic of global mistreatment of Muslims and his silence on the inhumane persecution of the Uyghurs by China is so contradictory that a reporter at the World Economic Forum even questioned him on this and he very sloppily tried to dodge the question by claiming to not “know much about” the scale of abuse faced by those in Xinjiang.

China is not only eradicating the Islamic culture in Xinjiang, but also has insulted the faith on many instances. It has built a toilet on a mosque site, forcefully fed Muslims during Ramazan preventing them to fast as well has forced Muslim Imams to dance on the streets taking a pledge they will not the religion. Sadly, many still fail to acknowledge this and continue to perceived the Pakistani leader to be different from his predecessors. Hopefully, those living in this political utopia are brought down to reality and realize that Imran is nothing more than just a refined version of those who ruled before him.

Is application of western feminist logic to Indic practices justifiable?

Rutuja Patole

-

28 October 2020

0

Is application of western feminist logic to Indic practices justifiable?

Modern Feminism has scapegoated Indian society in such a way that criticism of traditional customs of feminine worship have become an everyday thing. Self styled feminists eagerly wait for occasions like Navaratri and Durgostsava to slander Indic virtues. But to what extent does this criticism holds ground is a matter of question which we need to address.

To analyze this, let us first have an introduction to the term ‘feminism’ and its significance in the west. Feminism has its roots in early eras of western civilization demanding political, economic and cultural equality to women. During the time of Roman Republic women were not allowed to express their opinions, Rules like Oppian law limited their access to gold and expensive goods, they were prohibited to ride in carriages, access to knowledge was rare. Even Latin literary genres offer women glimpses through male narratives. To overcome this intersectionality and to gain social status women sought for domination, which could only be granted by political and economic authority because these were the pillars of the western society. Where in economic bring in and political hold was considered supreme aspects ,and the one who could posses these supreme aspects was held as prepotent. And due to inherent muscular strength and higher testosterone levels, men were considered fit for the task, making the society male dominant.

But this wasn’t the case with Bharat, When Western nations were busy fighting territorial battles, we developed most sophisticated and divine Culture ;when they relied on Paramountcy, we preached Dharma; when they struggled for feminism, we worshipped Shakti ; when they were stuck with equality, we believed in pluralism. The struggle for equality in west in nothing but the competition to prove that feminine can oppress masculine by inheriting their traits. For example, a women is considered empowered only if she is a bread winner. But Views regarding gender in our culture are different from those standardized by worldly life, they are egalitarian. In our context, Gender equality refers to different behavior, aspirations, needs of both men and women are considered, valued and favored equally. Our scriptures preach worshiping Ardhanareshwar (Lord Shiva having body of two halves, male and female) telling that the man and women represent two aspects of one person; no matter whether you are male or female, you are a combination of Shiva and Shakti.

Our civilization isn’t centered over domination, it believes that men and women are supposed to be complementary not substituting. The main struggle of feminism in west arose from unequal marital rights where the women were considered inferior. But our civilization considers women Ardhangini and Sahadharmini which means better half of her husband in journey of life and attainment of goals. Also is a Sahayogini and a Sahakarmini which assumes her as vertebral co operator having equal shares in all jobs and ventures. Together they are called Dampati having joint responsibility of the household.

Another aspect was unequal educational rights, which is dropped out in a testimonial fashion by many verses in Vedic scriptures which glorify women like no other. One similar example is in Rigveda (7.78.3) verse which says,

“We can see brilliant scholarly women enlightening society with their noble qualities right in front of us. They have given birth to sun of knowledge and fire of noble actions.Due to their glory,the darkness of ignorance and negativity are destroyed.”

Whether they were Gurumatas like Sati Anusaya in Ramayana ,Shishyas like those depicted in Valmiki aashram of Uttar Ramayana, Rishikas like Urvashi, Lopamudra, Apale, Shishyasi, Vishwavara, ghosha etc. who co authored major parts of Rigveda, Maharani Malalsa who contributed to Markendeya Purana, Mantravid like Kushalya, Bramha Vadinis like Vedawati who used to spend most of the lifetime in search of Wisdom or lady philosophers like Gargi who indulged in Shastrarth (debates), Vedic women held an elevated position.Coming to Political Status of women; The so called muscular inferiority did not stop Vedic women from engaging in warfare. Rigveda refers to queen Bishappala, bharhut sculptures represent skilled horsewomen in the army, Maharishi Patanjali mentions the Shaktikis (women spear bearers) ,Kautilya mentions Strighana Dhanvibhi (women archers). Moreover there were strong women political leaders like Rani Abbaka Chowta of Ullal and Rani Rudrama Devi of Kakatiya Dynasty.

This was the level of equality which our culture granted, it used to be more progressive when it comes to Women’s status in the society than it is now or maybe even more than the present western nations.

After looking at all these evidences It would require highly ignorant and prejudiced mind to apply western notions of Feminism to Vedic cultural practices. And we should accept the fact that the society has undergone stupendous changes after centuries of violent clashes and foreign invasions, and this has resulted in simultaneous deterioration of women status in Indian society which we need to restore not by shamming traditional practices but by reinstalling the glory of age old Indic Civilization.

American election-result has no bearing on India

Opinions

G Indira

-

28 October 2020

0

American election-result has no bearing on India

The world, though pre-occupied with the Covid-19 pandemic and its containment (in respective nations), is also waiting with bated-breath for the outcome of the U.S. elections. A week before the final outcome (i.e. on Nov.3), all countries are looking at America to gaze the mood of the electorate. In this polarised world, some are staunch supporters of Donald Trump and some are of Joe Biden. In a way, these leanings are more ideological. Those who support Trump are more bent towards nationalism; protectionism: of identity; of religion and of historical moorings of their country. They are champions of boundary-wall to their country and less/no enthusiasts of allowing migrants. They seem to be possessive of their country’s historical past and its associated colour. In a way, they are conservative Republican Party principles. However, these feelings are more fore-grounded in Trump’s presidential term i.e. since 2016 because of social media.

Joe Biden’s supporters seek for values of enlightenment, which are the realisations of the humanity after the World War-II. They, in their own way, stand for free passage of immigrants, because they believe America has become ‘great’ by the contributions of immigrants. They also stand for a free-society, free-market, freedom of speech, above all the ‘rule of law’ and human rights to prevail. Of course, they are all American values too. To the Liberal-world, religion is a great inhibitor of scientific temperament. The Liberal opinion makers would make target of Trump for the violation of the world-order they are in-sync with. To them Trump has brought in all unenlightened views of previous eras to the fore with a lightening hurry. Among them the biggest roadblock for the liberal order is: Identity-based politics leading to tribalism that is in turn to – ethnicity and religion. Perhaps, due to excess of secular liberal values espoused by liberal activists in that country back-fired to the pass of Trump-administration. It’s pertinent to note what Fukuyama had to say in his book: Identity. He writes, ‘Freedom and degree of choice that exists in a modern liberal society can also leave people unhappy and disconnected from their fellow human beings. They find themselves nostalgic for the community and structured life they think they have lost, or that their ancestor supposedly once possessed.’

In the U.S. already the die is cast. Many states had cast their vote. Many people that lined- up at the polling centres to cast their vote, were supposed to be Trump-supporters, according to political pundits. For, Trump has cast aspersions on postal-ballot/ballot by mail. Record number of voters turned up till now. Americans are calling it record of the century! Both presidential candidates are now concentrating their campaign in the swing-states that decide this election-result.

As far as India is concerned, any party the American people elect, is the legitimate/deserving party to govern that country. Because, it is the sovereign right of that country’s people to have their say. However, there are many right-leaning activists that desire Donald Trump to win. They have their strong feelings that connect with Trump’s ban on people coming from some Muslim-countries. Unlike the democrat-presidents, he would not interfere in India’s internal matters; his proximity with Indian Prime Minister Modi ji: the event of Howdy Modi! in Houston, Texas (forgetting our prime minister was close to democrat-president Barack Obama too, who was invited to the India’s Republic Day, as chief-guest); and his impertinent bashing of liberals on any given occasion. Above all, Joe Biden’s leaning towards the hard-core Left-liberals.

The 2+2 Dialogue:

On 27 Oct., India has had a 2+2 dialogue with the U.S dignitaries. India’s Defence minister Rajnath Singh, Foreign minister S. Jaishankar had talks and agreements with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defence Mark Esper. The U.S. designated India as a Major Defence Partner. Major Agreements like: LEMOA (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement), COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement), BECA (Basic Exchange and Co-operation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation) were signed. These agreements, as foreign policy measures, would continue, irrespective of whatever party comes to the power in the U.S. next. To rein-in the expansionist China, America needs India’s support strategically in this region. Like never before, all western European countries including the U.S. aspire for India’s growth in the region. This is to India’s advantage. Never before, were so many countries keen on India’s growth!

To contain China’s aggressive expansionist designs in the region of Indo-pacific, South-China-sea and in this sub-continent, the U.S. has come out in open to prop India up. As a matter of fact, it was waiting in wings for this opportunity to come. India, as a sovereign country, resisted all the while for American support. The country had a fear, where it had to lose its strategic autonomy. Now, with all checks and balances in place, India has come to these agreements. In any case, India’s pro neighbour-hood policy remains intact. In the recent 2+2 meeting of Defence and Foreign Ministers, though American dignitaries made out-right criticism of China, Indian ministers were dignified and poised in not making any comments on China overtly. The U.S. is far from this continent of Asia. The neighbourhood countries like; Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc. are all well aware of that they need to live in harmony with their neighbours, especially with China without provoking it.

Earlier, Australia and China were partners in business and had struck many deals. Later, when Australia came to know how deep China penetrated into their system and into their politics, they carefully crafted a policy to disentangle themselves from the Chinese network and interference. India maybe silently working for the same. Of course, it has already begun to keep Chinese business at bay. It is for India to become Atmanirbhar (self-reliant) in all the ways for its progress and to contain the hegemony of China in the region. The days ahead are bright for India.