Home Blog Page 692

This is why an absolute reform in education can only reclaim ‘The Lost India’ from British rule

Vijaya Dar
-
0
This is why an absolute reform in education can only reclaim ‘The Lost India’ from British rule

In early 2014, a Hollywood film “The Monuments Men” was released in theaters across India. It was just before the general elections that hopefully, changed the course of Indian history. The film, as reported in the blurbs, was based on the true story of “the greatest treasure hunt in history.” An action drama narrating the heroics of a World War II platoon, headed by George Clooney as Frank Stokes that had been tasked by the US President to go to Europe and rescue the great works of art that the Nazis had stolen during their occupation of France, and shipped to unknown destinations within Germany. Stokes assembles a team of seven art experts, with no military experience: they are museum directors, curators, art historians, who can easily identify a Renoir or a Michelangelo, but will have difficulty in recognizing a weapon.

With the masterpieces trapped behind enemy lines and with the Fuhrer having ordered their destruction as the German defences are crumbling, Frank Stokes and his band are involved in a race against time to save from certain destruction a thousand years of culture. With a cast including Matt Damon, Cate Blanchet, and Jean Dujardin (who had earlier won a Best Actor Oscar for “The Artist”), I was expecting a lot from the film. But, while the story held a lot of promise, somewhere George Clooney failed to get his act together as the Director of the film. The narrative is jumpy and whimsical; the pace pedestrian and lacking any sense of urgency or drama. Saving priceless works of art from an implacable enemy is no mean task, but Clooney failed to inject any sense of excitement or adventure in his narrative.

The viral piece on social media which has no authenticity.

This piece, however, is not a critique of the film or of George Clooney’s rather lacklustre performance as actor-director. It is about, possibly, the only worthwhile quote from the movie’s script. When he gets his team together, Frank Stokes tells his men: “You can wipe out an entire generation, you can burn their homes to the ground and somehow they’ll still find their way back. But if you destroy their history, you destroy their achievements and it’s as if they never existed. That’s what Hitler wants and that’s exactly what we are fighting for.”

That statement, I thought, explained so completely the civilizational predicament India had been going through for over a thousand years. Throughout the history of the occupation of this land by foreign adventurers and imperial powers there have been incidents when entire generations were wiped out; where their homes were burnt to the ground; but as Frank Stokes says, they still found their way back. 800 years of Islamic rule followed by 200 years of British occupation could not destroy the ancient culture of the land, notwithstanding the Aurangzebs and the Macaulays of their times.

Of late there has been an attempt by some anglophiles at resurrecting the reputation of Lord Macaulay, and a speech, which he is supposed to have given in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835, has gone viral on social media. Macaulay’s statement is printed on the appended clipping from an Indian newspaper that is frequently found navigating the social media currents:

Research shows that this speech is but a figment of someone’s imagination and cannot be found anywhere among the writings and speeches of Lord Macaulay. One has to just check the Internet to find scores of articles confirming this fraud on the English reading public in India. Macaulay’s contempt for the Orient and its achievements is best summed up in the statement: “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.” It was Macaulay who encapsulated Imperial Britain’s policy towards education in India when he said:

“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”

However, among the British civil servants who came to India as masters, there were quite a few who were intrigued and beguiled by this ancient civilization, and went to great lengths to recover its past that had been covered by centuries of neglect. Sir William Jones, who founded the Asiatic Society in January 1784 and James Prinsep, the decipherer of the Kharoshthi and the Brahmi scripts, (that brought Emperor Asoka’s rock and pillar edicts to life) are, to my mind, two of the most prominent of these Indophiles. Though not entirely free from the prejudices of a Colonial master, especially with reference to William Jones, the Orientalists tried to fabricate an impression that it was Jones who brought learning and letters to the pundits of India. A marble frieze in the chapel at University College, Oxford shows him sitting at a desk, writing on some paper, while three Indian pundits are sitting below at his feet as students would, looking at a closed book, or listening with great attention to what they are being taught.

The attempts to reinterpret our history that would fit preconceived colonial notions, as averred by the Macaulayists, were thwarted by other Europeans like Charles Stuart (c. 1758 – 31 March 1828) an officer in the East India Company Army, well known for being one of the few British officers to embrace Hindu culture while stationed there, earning the nickname Hindoo Stuart. Unfortunately, those who found much to admire and love in the ancient wisdom of India are not too many, though not quite negligible.

The great Nigerian writer Ben Okri explains this colonial agenda perfectly in one of his most memorable quotes. Okri says: “To poison a nation, poison its stories. A demoralised nation tells demoralised stories to itself. Beware of the storytellers who are not fully conscious of the importance of their gifts, and who are irresponsible in the application of their art. Stories can conquer fear, you know. They can make the heart bigger. The best writing is not about the writer, the best writing is absolutely not about the writer, it’s about us, it’s about the reader.”

Here, in a few words, is the entire Colonial agenda, spelt out by one of the great minds of our times.

Macaulay, however, was successful in creating “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” This class included the Nehruvian socialists consisting of Nehru and his followers and the so-called leftists who said that they took their inspiration from the Bolsheviks, but in fact were no better than any other political opportunist looking for a way to climb up the ladder of power and get aboard, what the Washington Post’s India bureau chief, Steve Coll called “The Great Indian Gravy Train.” One would easily be able to recognize these children of Macaulay even in our present times. People like Shashi Tharoor, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Ramchandra Guha, Amartya Sen, Arundhati Roy, Aruna Roy, Shekhar Gupta, etc., are just a handful of names from a passenger list that still tries to ride on this gravy train. By flogging the much-abused word “secular” in their writings these Macaulayists keep misleading the readers just like the others who are communal in concept and represent narrow, sectarian views.

Similarly, leaders of political parties started using the word “socialist” while naming their outfits, spouting secular homilies, fooling the masses with soporifics while amassing huge personal fortunes. Once in power, these creations of Macaulay lost no time in “secularising” the state and the system of education. Sanskrit and the classics of Indian literature were no longer prescribed studies in schools and colleges; ancient Indian history became fair game at the hands of committed historians like Irfan Habib, Romilla Thapar, R. S. Sharma, and many more, who were ready to toe the official line in return for positions of prestige and lucrative professional assignments abroad. Education became subservient to vote-bank politics. Pressure groups of all shades came into existence promoting agendas close to one political dynasty or another.

Religion and caste were exploited for personal gain while religious conversion suddenly became the chief agenda of many foreign NGOs working in the country under humanitarian pretexts. There are many “scholars” of dubious distinction who have become willing tools in the hands of these agencies and are actively promoting their agendas. In 2011 Rajiv Malhotra and Arvind Neelakandan, published “Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines” a book that painstakingly details the international conspiracy aimed at just that: “the breaking of India.”

Today, when I look at the society we have evolved into, it fills me with great despair. In our wholesale adoption of a Westernized lifestyle we have completely lost touch with our traditional culture and history. We have grown into a nation-state that is ashamed of its past, and try to disown most of our traditional learning as folklore, superstition and mythology. Contact with other humans has become minimal as we become mechanized introverts. Our dependence on gadgets for entertainment has replaced field sports, making most of us spectators rather than participants. As contact becomes minimal, hostility fills the vacuum. We are immediately suspicious of strangers and like animals exude a hostile scent when we encounter one. Our tolerance for conflicting views has shrunk and we are ready to explode at the slightest provocation. There is very little sympathy for those who do not come up to our standards, be they intellectual, financial, or physical. Disputes are not resolved with the objective of reconciliation, but for revenge.

It was not so when I was a young schoolboy in Srinagar, Kashmir. Our school syllabus included a study of elementary Sanskrit and textbooks had chapters on the ancient cultural and literary heritage of India. We had teachers who, apart from teaching the prescribed texts, would also remind us of our cultural heritage and impart values consistent with that legacy. A lot of what I learnt in school has stayed with me – a lot more than what I learnt later in college and IIMC. That is not the case today. Education has become a business and profit is the only motive. Teachers have no time to go beyond the prescribed syllabus as most of them are engaged in private tuitions away from their institutions. Most of our graduates and post-graduates today would have been considered illiterate a half-century ago. Yet government statistics would have us believe that a huge pool of talent is being churned out by the system every year.

The exponential increase in crime, the daily news of rapes and murders, the abysmal decline in morals, and the failure of governance, all are indicative of the malaise that has struck the youth of India. We have lost our cultural and historical moorings and are adrift in a sea of corruption. How do we pull back from here? How do we stop the destruction of our achievements and avoid the fate of civilizations that have become extinct? I think the answer lies in the restructuring of our basic education by de-Macaulaying it and introducing young minds to the rich and glorious culture of the land. We need to regain our pride in India and not become a clone of the US.

When Narendra Modi, in his first Independence Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort in Delhi, spoke about saving and educating the girl child and building millions of toilets, these leftovers of Macaulay’s legacy lost no time in deriding his choice of projects for a country that was supposed to be a powerhouse of youthful energy unleashed by a technology-driven consumer society. But Modi was fully aware of the real challenges that faced India – an India that was not on the screens of the TV sets in urban homes, but appeared to have fallen completely off the radar. Public health; sanitation; smokeless fuel for the millions of kitchens using coal, wood, and other organic materials to burn for cooking; crop insurance; medical insurance; cheap, easy, small loans to energise entrepreneurship; Direct Benefit Transfer eliminating the grasping hands of petty Babus; massive investments in infrastructure; and many other schemes too countless to record here, have been so transformational that four years later today India looks poised to become a 10 trillion Dollar economy in 5 years. Could anyone have even dreamt of such a figure at the end of UPA-II?

The area that appears to have escaped PM Modi’s immediate attention is reform in the education sector. Perhaps he believes that reforms in this sector can wait while the other areas need immediate and quick remedy. Education reform, especially Sonia Gandhi’s regressive RTE Act, is crying for attention, but PM Modi has not so far turned his gaze in this direction. It is possible that he thinks that reforming the education sector is a long-drawn process where results will be seen only after decades. Perhaps by fixing the economy and governance Modi believes he would have earned the right for a second term when he would turn his full attention to fixing the educational system. I hope I am right in both these assumptions!

At the end of the movie the American President asks Frank Stokes if putting one’s life in jeopardy for saving a piece of art was worth it. My answer would have been an emphatic YES!

Myths & Facts about Articles 370 & 35A of the Indian Constitution

Vijaya Dar
-
0
Myths & Facts about Articles 370 & 35A of the Indian Constitution

When the BJP won a clear mandate in the 2014 General Elections, sweeping all the three seats from the Jammu region, a number of voices from within the party began a clamour for the repeal of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Social Media also erupted into frenzy with many supporters of the PM demanding that he set into motion the process of repealing it. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy lent his considerable legal expertise to the discussion stating that a mere Presidential order would be sufficient to abrogate the Article. He did not feel that the Government needed to go to the Indian Parliament for its approval in this case. Minister of State, Dr. Jitendra Singh, had also stirred the hornet’s nest by remarking that the government was in some kind of a discussion with the “stakeholders” and that the “process of repealing Article 370” had been initiated.

The then CM of J&K, Omar Abdullah was quick off the block with a tweet: “Mark my words & save this tweet – long after Modi Government is a distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Art 370 will still exist.” The TV channels were quick to jump in the fray and the different “stakeholders” were shouting and screaming in the studios and outside, adding their two-bits to the already raucous cacophony. One thing that stood out sharply from all this noise was that most of the panelists had no idea about the Article, its origins, and its place in the Constitution of India. A lot of myths that have ossified into belief continue to befuddle the perceptions of people, including senior and seasoned politicians and constitutional experts. It is, therefore, appropriate and necessary to revisit this Article, its genesis, and its position within our Constitution, unemotionally and rationally.

The British ruled over India in two different ways. The first was direct rule through the British Parliament represented by the Viceroy and it extended over almost 60% of the geographical extent of the country, known as “British India.” The second was through the different princely states, totaling 562, known as “Indian States” nominally ruled by the titular Nawab, Raja, Maharaja, etc., but owing allegiance to the British Crown. The Indian States were allowed freedom to govern their territories in internal matters, while matters relating to defence, communications and foreign policy were under the British rulers through treaties of “paramountcy” that were individually signed with each local ruler.

The citizens of these princely states were not British subjects but “British protected persons” unlike the citizens of British India. The princes were protected from their neighbours by the presence of British troops in the capital of the state under the control of a Resident. This served the dual purpose of keeping the activities of the prince under constant watch as also providing him protection from his enemies.

On 20th February, 1947 the British government announced that it would be giving freedom to British India by creating two independent dominions of India and Pakistan based on the Hindu and Muslim majority areas of the various provinces that constituted British India. However, with regard to the 562 princely states, the British announced that the political arrangements under the treaties of “paramountcy” would no longer be valid and the powers that the states had given to the British would revert to them. In other words, the Indian States would become independent states on their own and the communal basis of the partition of British India would not be applicable to them.

True to their imperial colours, the British had attempted a fragmentation of the subcontinent too mind-boggling to comprehend. With 562 independent countries scattered all across the length and breadth of the country, the British had sowed the seeds of future civil wars and ethnic conflicts. It is pertinent to note that out of the 562 fragments only 14 would have been within the geographical extent of Pakistan, while the remaining 548 would lie within India. Imagine the administrative chaos of dealing with such a large number of independent entities!

The solution to this problem was found in the “Instrument of Accession” proposed by Sardar Patel’s secretary, V. P. Menon, under which the states would hand over the same three functions; namely defence, foreign affairs and communication, to the Central Government, while retaining the other rights that they had under the treaties of paramountcy. The draft instrument of accession was circulated among the princes by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten on 25th July 1947, whom he also advised that though legally they were independent, they should accede to one of the two dominions before the official transfer of power, keeping in mind the ‘geographical contiguity of their States’.

They would be surrendering to the Central Government only three subjects: defence, external affairs and communications. He also warned the States, “If you do not link with one or other of the dominions, you may be cut off from any source of supply.” In return, the Government was prepared to allow them to keep their titles, palaces, privy purses, and their right to British decorations and other privileges. By August 14, 1947 Sardar Patel’s “basket of apples” was almost full, and only three States had not signed the Instrument of Accession. These three were: Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Jammu & Kashmir.

How the first two apples fell into the basket is another story and not relevant here. The third apple, which at that time comprised of the largest (in area) of the princely states, had a Hindu Maharaja ruling over a large majority of Muslims, with Hindus and Buddhists forming the rest of the religious entities. Maharaja Hari Singh, a vainglorious individual, had dreams of remaining independent of both India and Pakistan, and therefore held out against signing the instrument. The Pakistani attempt to annex J&K by force through its sponsored tribal invasion in October 1947 forced Hari Singh’s hand and he had no choice but to sign the Instrument of Accession on 26th October 1947, when the raiders were almost at the gates of his palace.

The Governor General of India accepted it the next day thereby legally bringing the state of Jammu & Kashmir within the Dominion of India. The Indian armed forces, with a legal mandate to stop the aggression of the invaders, swung into action and were driving the Pakistanis back into their territory when the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, without consulting Sardar Patel, decided to announce a unilateral cessation of hostilities, and internationalized the dispute by bringing the United Nations in its midst.

Within days of signing the Instrument of Accession, Nehru betrayed the Dominion’s commitment to the State to defend its territories against external aggression. {Pakistan was still in control of 115,669 Sq. Kms. of Indian Territory (of which it subsequently ceded 37,555 sq. Kms. to China), while India had only 106567 Sq. Kms., or only 48% of the original 222,236 Sq. Kms. of the princely state. This betrayal of Nehru not only lost India a substantial part of the state, but also created a problem of intractable proportions that has bedevilled it ever since.}

Perhaps India’s acceptance of the ceasefire line as the effective boundary between India and Pakistan may have resulted in permanent peace, but for the fact that of all the Indian states that signed the Instrument of Accession, only the state of Jammu & Kashmir under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah and the inept governance of the Sadr-e-Riyasat, Yuvraj Karan Singh, chose to create a separate Constitution for itself that would define its relationship with India.

Though a large number of the Indian States had their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, and the Instrument of Accession gave them the power to draft a separate constitution for internal administration, none of them, barring Jammu & Kashmir, chose to exercise this option, as it was seen as a “Legacy from the Ruler’s polity which could have no place in a democratic set-up.” The rulers of these States issued proclamations making the Constitution of India operative in their States.

Jammu & Kashmir decided to invoke the terms of Clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession under which the State was not obliged to implement the Constitution of India in full. Instead, it decided to draft its own separate constitution. The Yuvraj of Jammu & Kashmir, on the advice of his Council of Ministers of his State’s Interim Government led by Sheikh Abdullah, told the Indian Constituent Assembly that the Jammu & Kashmir State’s association with India would be based ‘only’ on the terms of the Accession; that the State’s government did not accept the Constitution of India as a Constitution for the State, and that, despite accession, the State was still to be governed by its old Constitution Act of 1939.

Why the Prime Minister of India and Sardar Patel did not pressurize the Sheikh to do what the other States had done, and instead acquiesced to his demand is a mystery for which there are many conspiracy theories but no definite answer? Nehru’s softness towards Sheikh Abdullah is very well known and there are some who believe that Nehru did not want to thwart the Sheikh’s ambition of becoming a Prime Minister instead of a Chief Minister. Another school is of the opinion that Nehru acted under the influence of Lady Mountbatten.

However, as a result of this situation, when the Constitution of India was going to be operative in the entire nation, a special provision had to be made for the State of Jammu & Kashmir. This is the genesis of Article 370.

Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Minister without Portfolio in Nehru’s Government, moved a Draft Bill labeled Article 306-A in the Constituent Assembly, making a special Constitutional provision for Jammu & Kashmir. Ayyangar had already served as the Prime Minister of Kashmir from 1937 to 1943, and had received multiple honours from the British Government, culminating in a Knighthood in 1941. As Maharaja Hari Singh’s Prime Minister for seven years he was fully conversant with the State, and it is quite possible that he may have nursed the ambition of returning to the state as its Prime Minister when the British departed from the subcontinent, and titular rule reverted to the Maharaja. Taking advantage of the prevailing hostilities with Pakistan in the area, Gopalaswami Ayyangar made the following argument in favour of his Bill:

“Till India became a Republic, the relationship of all the States with the Government of India was based on the Instrument of Accession. In the case of other Indian States, the Instruments of Accession will be a thing of the past in the new Constitution; the States have been integrated with the Federal Republic in such a manner that they do not have to accede or execute a document of accession for becoming units of the Republic. It would not be so in the case of Kashmir since that particular State is not yet ripe for this kind of integration due to special conditions prevailing in Kashmir. In the first place there has been a war going on within the limits of Jammu and Kashmir State —part of the State is still in the hands of the enemies, and in the second place, the Government of India have committed themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain respects. They have committed themselves to the position that an opportunity will be given to the people of the State to decide for themselves the nature of their Constitution.”

The Constituent Assembly recorded that since the debate regarding Jammu & Kashmir had reached a stalemate in the United Nations, it was decided to have an interim arrangement in the Constitution of India regarding Jammu & Kashmir. Sardar Patel, the then Minister of States in India, declared in the Constituent Assembly, “In view of the special problem with which the Jammu and Kashmir Government is faced, we have made special provisions for the continuance of the State with the Union on the existing basis.” Draft Article 306-A was subsequently added to the Constitution of India as Article 370.

It is worth noting that the debate never became heated and even though Mahavir Tyagi wanted to move a couple of amendments, he never pressed them. Maulana Hasrat Mohani of U.P. was the only one who spoke that while he was “not opposed to all the concessions being granted to my friend Sheikh Abdullah,” he wanted to know “why make this discrimination about this ruler? If you grant all these concessions to the Maharaja of Kashmir, you should give all these and more concessions to the Baroda ruler.”

However, within the Congress Party there was a lot of dissent and members expressed their opposition to the Draft Article 306-A in no uncertain terms. A strong opinion existed against any suggestion of discrimination between Jammu & Kashmir State and other States as members of the future Indian Union. The party was not prepared to go beyond certain limits in making the special provision for Jammu & Kashmir.

Cleverly, Nehru had entrusted this task to Gopalaswami Ayyangar at a time when he would be out of the country. When Ayyangar saw the opposition to his proposal, he went to Sardar Patel for help. The Sardar too had seen the draft proposal only in the meeting of the Congress Parliamentary Party. Although he was of the same opinion as the majority, being a gentleman, he is reported to have said: “Gopalaswami had acted under Panditji’s advice. How could I have let him down in the absence of his Chief?” L. K. Advani has recorded in an article published in The Indian Express of 17th February 1992 that “Patel asked the Congress Party Chief Whip to convene a Party meeting to discuss the matter. That meeting was stormier than the earlier one. Opposition was forcefully and even militantly expressed. It was left to the Sardar to plead that because of the international complications, a provisional approach alone could be made. The Congress Party reluctantly fell in line. Article 306-A was to be allowed to go through by Patel against his better judgment and because of his belief that the future would depend on the strength and guts of the Indian Government.” This very article was reprinted in the fortnightly magazine “BJP Today” of August 1-15, 2000.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution too had his reservations about this provision. Initially Nehru had sent Sheikh Abdullah to Dr. Ambedkar to explain to him the position and draft an appropriate Article for the Constitution. He is reported to have told him, “Mr. Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.” It was only after Ambedkar’s refusal that Nehru approached Ayyangar to draft the proposal.

With Article 370 embedded in the Constitution of India, Jammu & Kashmir announced the formation of a State Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution for the State. The Drafting Committee’s report was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 15th February 1954. The report embodied the ratification of the State’s accession to India. The State Constitution was formally established on 17th November 1956 and came into full force on 26th January 1957. It consisted of 158 Sections, of which Section 3 says, “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.” Further, in Section 147 of the Constitution that deals with amendments, it is made quite clear that Section 3 is not amenable to any change. Yet, there is hardly any mention of this section in national debates.

Labeled as ‘Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ right from the time it came into effect, the mischief lies in the interpretation of Sardar Patel’s statement in the Constituent Assembly regarding ‘special provisions for the continuance of the State with the Union.’ The article continues to be ‘temporary’ in our Constitution and Patel’s use of the word ‘special’ does not confer any permanence to it. Actually, it is Article 371 that specifies any “Special Provisions” and not Article 370. Even Nehru had declared on the floor of the Parliament on 27th November 1963 that “Samvidhan ki dhara 370 ghiste ghiste ghis jaayegi.” (“Article 370 of the Constitution would disappear by being eroded progressively.”)

Ayyangar’s draft of Article 370 contains one major blunder that seems to have escaped all the legal luminaries who finally approved it. After drafting the State’s Constitution and its adoption, the Jammu & Kashmir State Constituent Assembly was disbanded. However, Article 370 states that, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.” (This is where this author has a disagreement with Dr. Swamy, and would like his learned opinion on it.)

This exception gives permanent life to an extinct body while it leaves no other mechanism for change. The far-reaching meaning of this blunder is that the President of India can make any amendments to the provisions of Article 370 only with the permission of a long defunct and impossible-to-revive State Constituent Assembly. The introduction of the State Constituent Assembly instead of the State Legislative Assembly in the Article makes its repeal or amendment not only impracticable, but also impossible. So, before any attempt is made at repealing or amending Article 370, the Government should first correct this lacuna. How that can be done is for constitutional experts to determine!

The resultant consequence of this defective Constitutional Article has, over the years, created a vast gap between the laws of our Republic and the state of Jammu & Kashmir. To list just a few of them:

  1. As per the Third Schedule mentioned in Article 188 of the Indian Constitution, the oath sworn by every member of the State Legislature before assuming office requires the member to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.” This is true of the affirmation by every High Court and Supreme Court judge as well. In Jammu & Kashmir however, every legislator and every judge, including the Chief Minister and the Chief Justice, is required to swear only by ‘the Constitution of the State’ as mandated in the Fifth Schedule referred to in Sections 64 and 97 of the Jammu & Kashmir State Constitution.
  2. While Article 172 lays down five years as the normal duration of a State Legislature, that stipulation is six years in Jammu & Kashmir as laid down in Section 52 of its State Constitution.
  3. Jammu & Kashmir is excluded from the application of Article 360 under which the Union Government can give directions to that State to observe canons of financial propriety and such other measures deemed necessary when a Proclamation of financial emergency is issued under that Article.
  4. Any law, if and when enacted about a Uniform Civil Code, will not be applicable to the State.
  5. A law passed by the Parliament on Family Planning is not applicable to the State.
  6. The state is exempted from the law that requires a legislative assembly to not have more than 15% of its strength as ministers. Omar Abdullah’s cabinet consisted of 24 members when it should have had no more than 13.
  7. Refusal or failure to comply with any direction given by the Union Government under any provision of the Constitution of India applicable to Jammu & Kashmir will not be held as a misdemeanour by that State because the relevant Article 365 has not been extended to that State.

A detailed study of the relationship of the state with the Union will reveal many more areas of divergence that are only possible in other states as special provisions. Only in J&K the “temporary” Article 370 has become “immortal” due to the deliberate or genuine mistakes of the framers of our Constitution. M. P. Jain, a constitutional expert has neatly summed up this special relationship: “The two characteristic features of this special relationship are: (1) the State has much greater measure of autonomy and power than enjoyed by the other States and (2) Centre’s jurisdiction within the State is more limited than what it has with respect to other States.” The state has its own flag and an anthem called “Qaumi Tarana,” It is perhaps pertinent to point out here that the word ‘secular’ that was added to the earlier Preamble of the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional amendment in 1976, has been omitted in respect of Jammu & Kashmir State. The latter’s Constitution of November 1956 therefore does not proclaim the State’s basic structure to be ‘secular’ in nature.

Jammu & Kashmir is the most autonomous of all the states in India, and one cannot understand the clamour for Azadi from the disgruntled Kashmiris. It is not as if Jammu & Kashmir is a very prosperous and financially robust state. The British, who had sold the state to Gulab Singh for Rs. 75 Lakhs in 1846, extracted an annual payment from the Maharaja in return for giving him protection against external enemies. The state was poor and the Maharaja taxed his subjects to the utmost. Under the Instrument of Accession, the Government of India was obliged to provide all the facilities at no cost to the state. Jammu & Kashmir depends heavily upon the Government of India for financial assistance, and yet it cannot be questioned for any profligacy.

It is the most pampered state in the country. Thus, as calculated by Arun Shourie in 2000, the Central per capita assistance to Kashmir was 14 times that to Bihar, 11 times that to Tamil Nadu and 6 times to beleaguered Assam (Interview in The Times of India, July 8, 2000). V. Shankar Aiyar, writing “The Great Sop Story” in India Today of 14th Oct. 2002, says: “For all that talk of autonomy or azadi the fact is that Jammu & Kashmir cannot sustain itself without the Centre’s support.” According to him 3.48% of people of Kashmir are living below the poverty line, as against 26.10% across India. This, he avers, is because of the extraordinary amount of financial assistance the Centre gives to the state. Kashmiris have been surviving and living a rather luxurious life compared to the rest of India solely due to the largesse bestowed upon them by a munificent Centre. The statistics in Aiyar’s article make for some very disturbing reading.

Coming back to Article 370, there is a misconception among a number of people that this article prevents people from the rest of the country to purchase immovable property within the state. There is nothing within the article that specifies this restriction. The truth is that Article 370 is just the enabling Constitutional Article that allowed the State of Jammu & Kashmir to frame and adopt its separate Constitution, and it is that instrument that has these restrictions imposed upon the citizens of India.

Coming to Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, this Article specifically deals with laws with respect to the permanent residents of the state and their rights. Contrary to many beliefs, this Article is not a modification of an existing Article, but a malevolent addition built in the Constitution to drive a permanent wedge between the citizens of Jammu & Kashmir and the citizens of the rest of India.

While the Presidential Order of 1954 extended Indian citizenship to the residents of the state, the purpose of inserting Article 35A into the Indian Constitution was to enable the State legislature to define the privileges of the permanent residents of the state. Permanent residents, defined as “State Subjects” were set out in the State Maharaja’s Notification of 20th April 1927 read with the Notification of 27 June 1932. They were chosen on the criteria of year of birth in the State, on the period of permanent residence in the State, and on the acquisition of immovable property in the State. It is Article 35A that forbids those who are not “permanent residents” from:

  1. Acquiring immovable property.
  2. Securing employment with the state government even though they may be citizens of India.
  3. Becoming a member of a village Panchayat.
  4. Being eligible for a State Government scholarship.
  5. Being eligible to vote in the Assembly elections, even though they may vote for the Lok Sabha in their constituencies.

This perverse article of the Indian Constitution was added without any debate or discussion in the Parliament and was presented as a fait accompli to the people of India. It has now been challenged in the highest courts as a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution, as any addition or deletion of an Article could only be approved by the Parliament, as per procedure laid down in Article 368. It is also in violation of Article 14 that covers “equality before the law.”

Apart from the above exceptions, Article 35A also decreed that a woman of Jammu & Kashmir would lose her “state subject” status if she married a non-state subject. The children of this union would also be excluded. Conversely if a state subject male married a non-state subject woman, she would be entitled to the privileges of a state subject, and so would be the children.

Worse still, it condemned workers and settlers from SC/ST categories, who have lived in the state for generations, to a life of permanent servitude. The Valmikis who were brought to the state during 1957 were given Permanent Resident status on the condition that they and their future generations could stay in the state only if they continued to be safai karmacharis, i.e., scavengers. Even after 60 years of service in the state, their children continue to be scavengers, having been denied the right to move up the social ladder and look for other professions.

West Pakistani refugees, though citizens of India, are not given permanent resident status by the state and so remain bereft of the privileges enjoyed by the state subjects of J & K.

Even admissions to state colleges are restricted only to children of state subjects.

With this rather unavoidably long background history into the genesis and development of Articles 370 and 35A, I hope the reader is more enlightened about their role in our polity. The contingency of vote bank politics has put personal and party interests above national interest, and permitted the continuance of this fraud upon the poor people of India. No doubt the Government of India honoured the Instrument of Accession in both letter and spirit, but even after six decades, we are continuing to permit a temporary measure to hold us to ransom. The attitude of the powerful people in Kashmir and the general public is one of supreme disdain for India and it is doubly galling to see them extending their begging bowls expecting India’s largesse as some kind of divine right.

They have forgotten that it was they who in 1947 had implored India to save them from the marauding Pakistanis who were pillaging the countryside, burning, looting, raping and destroying the very culture of Kashmir. The arrogance with which Omar Abdullah, his father and the various two-bit politicians and bureaucrats like Shah Faesal of Kashmir speak is totally dependent upon the undeserved support they have received from successive governments at the centre. Jammu and Ladakh have already distanced themselves from the valley in the manner in which they have voted in the last general and assembly elections. But as things remain, it is the valley that continues to call the shots in the State.

If Narendra Modi and his government wish to remove this dichotomy and fully integrate the state within the Union of India, he will first have to amend the provision that requires the concurrence of the defunct Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly to make any changes in Article 370. To expect that the State Government will cooperate in this endeavour is but a dream. There is no other alternative but to use coercive methods like the trifurcation of the state. In a separate article, The Kashmir question – A permanent solution, I have already listed it as the one permanent solution for the Kashmir problem. All the talk about the resettlement of Pandits in their original homes is so much baloney. The Pandits will not go back as there is no guarantee of their safety as also of employment. Too much water has flown down the Vitasta since the last exodus.

The Pandits have built their lives elsewhere. Their children, born in refugee camps, are now adults with no memory of Kashmir or what is euphemistically called ‘Kashmiriyat’. Even prosperous Muslims of the valley have found greener pastures outside Kashmir, and though they may still have their links with the valley, they are spending more and more time away from it. Lack of educational infrastructure is taking most young people away from the valley. Lack of employment opportunities will perforce make them settle elsewhere. Also, to think that the mere removal of Article 370 will lead to a rush of immigration from the mainland into Kashmir is downright foolish. The religious demography is not going to change and Kashmir will remain a Muslim majority state. However, it is certainly desirable and advantageous for all to revoke Articles 370 and 35A and bring the state into the Indian Union as an equal and full partner.

Now that the Supreme Court has “summarily” adjourned the hearing on petitions challenging the validity of Article 35A on grounds that preparations for local body elections were under way, it is almost certain that the Modi Government is wary of starting something that could soon spiral out of control, months before the next general elections in 2019. The thinking appears to be, “let us first make sure that we are there for a second term, hopefully with a larger majority, and then undertake this exercise in full integration.”

As of now, I would leave Articles 370 and 35A where they are because the current timing for tinkering with them is not right. Emotional integration must precede any political integration. However, to revive the economy of the state, massive investments will have to be made by the Centre. These investments should not be left to the mercy of the corrupt state bureaucracy but be disbursed and supervised by a competent Central Ombudsman, someone like the erstwhile British Resident, who would be responsible for the deployment of central funds within the state but have no political role to play.

Development projects in Jammu and Ladakh could be implemented with speed and with a higher allocation of funds. The valley will have to wait till it shows that it has retracted from its belligerence and separatism. Narendra Modi is perhaps the best person to undertake the task of reviving the economy of Jammu & Kashmir because he does not subscribe to vote bank politics and is personally incorruptible.

The way forward, now that the PDP-BJP government has fallen, should begin with the dissolution of the current Assembly, with the state being put under Governor’s rule. A change of guard in the Governor’s office is long overdue. A new Governor, preferably a retired senior military officer with a first-hand knowledge of the state, would be ideal. A Central Financial Ombudsman would be one of the frontline advisers in the team assisting the new Governor. Normalization could begin with the lifting of the state of siege by sending the security forces into their barracks and by strengthening the military presence on the Line of Actual Control.

A sealed border should prevent Pakistani desperadoes from stealing into the state unchecked, and ensure that most of them are terminated before they cross into Indian Territory. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act also must be gradually withdrawn. As a confidence-building measure, this is of paramount importance. No doubt Pakistan and its sympathizers within the state will try to disturb the peace but the state police and central paramilitary forces should be able to anticipate and deal with them without letting them go out of hand.

Indians, in 2014, gave themselves a chance to redeem the freedom they won at such a heavy cost 70 years ago. It is now for Kashmir and especially for the residents of the valley to understand that history has given them a chance to jump back from the brink and to make that leap of faith.

 

Addressing the misinterpretations and distortions of the Vedas

kapardin
-
0
Addressing the misinterpretations and distortions of the Vedas

On the pretext of indological research and documenting history, the Vedas have been misinterpreted in an extreme manner by Indologists and historians. It is well known that the likes of Witzel, Thapar, Doniger and co. who promote the dubious “Aryan Invasion Theory” which finds no mention in the Vedas. But unfortunately, their opponents, who attempt to reply to these accusations in a well-intentioned manner, also end up distorting the actual meaning due to a lack of knowledge of the rules for interpretation.

What should be understood is that the Vedas are not historical records. They are considered “Apaurusheya” (unauthored by both man and god) and eternal in traditional circles. Being without an author, human or divine, there is no flaw in the Vedas, since flaws arise due to ignorance of an author. Authorlessness also means that they are entirely neutral– for bias also arises only due to an author. Furthermore, unauthoredness removes the logic of mutual fallacy that plagues man-made religions – the foundation of these religions being “God gave a book, so the book exists, and since the book exists, God exists”.

The proof for the apaurusheyatva of the Veda would span many pages and is not relevant here, so let us skip that.

The Vedas talk about many topics, and if anything at all is historical, it is the deeds of Gods which are mentioned there. These are regarded as history (ithihāsa) by traditional scholars, but not so by indologists. Thus, “history” as defined by them, does not exist. The Vedas do contain descriptions of means to attain certain worldly aims for seekers of different persuasions, but they also strongly exhort the seeker to reject these aims and strive for the highest purushArtha (object of attainment) enshrined in the Vedas which is brahma-jnAna. As such, the key information revealed in the Vedas can be considered to be the following, in a nutshell:

  • Nature of the Supreme Reality.
  • Nature of the Individual Self.
  • Means to attain the Supreme Reality.
  • Obstacles encountered in attaining the Supreme Reality.
  • Nature of existence post-liberation (upon attainment).

Different schools of Vedanta have different views on these five topics, but in general, all the knowledge of the Vedas is condensed under these headings. And as such, any alleged references to tribes, lands etc is nothing but a misinterpretation of the Vedas. For it is said,

itihāsa purāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabriṃhayet bhibhedyalpa śrutā dvedo māyayaṃ pratarediti (~ Mahabharata Adi Parva 1.267)

Meaning: The Vedas should be analysed with the help of Ithihasa and Purana.  Without the knowledge of these, the Vedas get frightened for fear of getting misinterpreted.

Besides a knowledge of the Vedangas, one must have a basic knowledge of philosophy (one of the three traditional schools of Vedanta that he may choose to follow) as well as a working knowledge of the countless smritis that are required to understand the Vedas. Without these, if one ventures into an “interpretation” of the Vedas, the end result would simply be chaotic nonsense.

This article is thus intended to show how several people, some being indologists with a  leftist slant, and others being favorable to right wing ideologies, have intentionally (in the former case) and unintentionally (in the latter case) misinterpreted the Vedas. Examples can be sourced from older articles in various websites to demonstrate this. The conclusion would be to highlight that the Vedas do not talk about history, and neither should they be considered in the light of “Vedic science” or “Vedic mathematics”, to which they have no relation to.

We take two examples from the internet below.

EXAMPLE 1 – A WELL-INTENTIONED MISINTERPRETATION

In this article, When Rigveda meets Indo-secularism , the author, who is behind the handle “True Indology” on twitter, interprets a Vedic mantra as follows,

Around us is the Dasyu: riteless, void of thought, inhuman, keeping other rituals (Rgveda 10.22).

And his explanation is quoted here as follows,

“Here, a Dasyu is described as “riteless” (akarmah) and “keeping other rituals”(anyavrata). He is also called inhuman (amanusha). Prominent Indologists (Elst 1999, parpola 1998) have identified Dasyus with proto-Iranians, Proto-zoroastrians and even proto-sakas. This identification lies on a fact that Dahae is a self-designation for North Iranian tribes of Central Asia even today. The classical Greeks have also located Dahae in central Asia. Elst speculates that these Dasysus were Zarathustra’s followers. SW Jamison notes that in another verse of the aforementioned Dasyu hymn that the krpanas (=karapans), the vedic enemies of Zoroastrians, are mentioned favourably. Whatever the identity of Dasyus, it is clear that their religion and rituals differed (even if slightly) from Vedic Aryans. Yet, they were differentiated in very clear terms.”

This is a clear example of how the shastras are misinterpreted despite the intentions being well-meaning.

Correct Interpretation

The author, who draws from interpretations of the likes of Elst, has completely misunderstood the intent of the mantra. It does not talk of any tribes in India, Iran or elsewhere. Here is the proper interpretation.

akarmā dasyurabhi no amanturanyavrato amānuṣaḥ | tvantasyāmitrahan vadhardāsasya dambhaya || (~Rg Veda 10.22.8)

Meaning: This perishable body (dasyu) surrounds us (the imperishable self), devoid of actions that constitute doership (akarmā), devoid of intellect as it is insentient (amantura), of conduct that is unnatural to the true nature of the self (anyavrata), distinct from the sentient selves which are capable of thinking (amānuṣaḥ). You (Supreme Being), who are the killer of desire which is the enemy of the self (which is the ego), destroy the mind of the embodied self, that impels one to attachments.

This mantra describes the difference between the body and the self.The body is called “dasyu” because it is perishable  (root of dasyu is “dasa” or “upakshaya” – that which wastes or decays away — perishable).The self in contrast, is imperishable.

akarmā – This body is to be understood as not being the doer. It is the self that directs the activities of the body. amantura – This body is insentient, as opposed to the sentient self. Anyavrata – “vrata” means vow, and in general, conduct. The individual self which is knowledge by nature, when embodied, acts in a manner different to its nature in the form of thinking itself as independent, exhibiting ignorance etc. Thus the body is said to be different in nature to the general conduct of the self.  amānuṣaḥ – The self is “mānuṣaḥ”  meaning it is capable of thinking (manana śīla). The body is distinct from the sentient self, hence it is “amānuṣaḥ”.

The Lord who is the killer of desire which is the enemy of the self, is requested to destroy the mind of the embodied self designated as “dambhaya” – that which impels one to attachments which cause transmigration (dambhayati iti dambhaya).

The embodied self is called “dāsa” because he abides in the body which is his servant. If the self resides in a man-body, it can say “I am a man”. Similarly, the self resides in the body which is called “dāsa” as it is subservient to him as it carries out all the actions he wants it to do, then the embodied self is called “dāsa” here.

“amitra” refers to desire and “dambhaya” to the mind. For it is said in the smriti,

kāmarūpeṇa kaunteya duṣpūreṇānalena ca। (~Gita 3.39)

Meaning: This constant enemy in the form of desire….

And other pramāṇās like the one below:

“The Lord destroys the monstrous mind (Ravana) with ten heads formed by the ten senses of the seeker of knowledge by the use of the arrows of wisdom.” (~sAtvata samhitA, pAncarAtra 12.51)

Thus, there is no inkling of tribes or invasions here.

EXAMPLE 2 –  A VIRULENT ANTI-HINDU MISINTERPRETATION

Here is a blog which seeks to prove that the Vedas discriminate on skin-color (!!)

The author writes,

“The Dasas and Dasyus are also described as brahma-dvisah in the Rig Veda RV 5.42.9; 8.45.23; 10.36.9; 10.160.4; 10.182.3, which Ralph T.H. Griffith translates as “those who hate devotion” or “prayer haters“.  —

We have already established that the term refers to the body and not to any tribe or person. The body is an enemy of “brahma” which refers to the individual self that is vast on account of its’ knowledge (root of brahma is brh- that which grows referring to knowledge of the self that expands) and thus is called “brahma-dvisah”. Ralph T.H. Griffith is not an authority on the Vedas.

Here is more of the opponent’s diatribe:

In the Rig Veda, Dasa, Dasyu and similar terms (e.g. Pani) occur sometimes in conjunction with the terms krsna (“black”) or asikni (“black”)……There are three instances in the Rig Veda where the phrase krsna (or ashikni) tvac occurs, literally translating to “black (or swarthy) skin”:

1.130.8de mánave śâsad avratân tvácaṃ kṛṣṇâm arandhayat — “Plaguing the lawless he [Indra] gave up to Manu’s seed the dusky skin” (trans. Griffith)

9.41.1 prá yé gâvo ná bhûrṇayas / tveṣâ ayâso ákramuḥ / ghnántaḥ kṛṣṇâm ápa tvácam[16] — “(Praising the Soma-juices) which descend like streams of water, swift, brilliant, rapid driving off the black covered (Rakshasa who are darkness)”[17]

9.73.5cd índradviṣṭām ápa dhamanti māyáyā tvácam ásiknīm bhûmano divás pári[18] — “Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.” (trans. Griffith)’

Correct Interpretation

Let us see what those RKS actually mean.

indraḥ samatsu yajamānamāryaṃ prāvad viśveṣu śatamūtirājiṣu svarmīḷheṣvājiṣu | manave śāsadavratān tvacaṃ kṛṣṇāmarandhayat | (Rg 1.130.8)

Meaning: The Supreme Lord who is wealthy (Indra), who commands myriad weapons that protect (from samsara), protects in all the strifes (of samsAra), the wise one who knows the self, who performs the sacrifice of self-surrender (yajamānamāryaṃ) and also in the strifes (involving exhaustion of karmas for gaining knowledge) that enable attainment of the Supreme Abode. Chastising the senses which are opposed to enjoyment of Brahman, he (the Lord), subjected the black cover which is the body made of prakrti that is darkness, to the One who mediates (on his true nature).

“Indra”  refers to the Supreme Being Narayana and not to the devata Indra. Here, the root “idi- paramaiṣvarye” – means great wealth. Since the Lord pervades everything, all is his wealth.

He uses his weapons like conch, discus etc to protect the devotee – one who is the “Arya” or the wise person who has a knowledge of the distinction between body and the self, and who surrenders to the Lord. “yajamAna” means one who performs a sacrifice. What does he sacrifice? Himself, by surrendering to the Lord.

To such a person, the Lord offers protection in 2 types of strifes. One consists of several conflicts with myriad objects of enjoyment, and to cultivate detachment to all of them. The second type of conflict is with the innumerable karmas obstructing knowledge of the innumerable auspicious qualities of the Lord, which result in attainment of the supreme abode.

This is the same as the Gita Shloka:

daivī hyeṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā। māmeva ye prapadyante māyāmetāṃ taranti te।।(~Gita 7.14)।।

Meaning: This Maya of mine is prakrti which consists of the three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Because it is created by me for purpose of sport, it is divine in its power and therefore difficult to overcome. But those who take refuge in me alone – me whose resolves are always true, who has supreme compassion, and who is the refuge of all beings without exception and without consideration of their particular status – such persons shall pass beyond this Maya of Mine consisting of the three Gunas.

“Śāsadavratān”– Chastising the senses which are “avratān”-“vratayati iti vrata”- the term refers to enjoying food. And Brahman is mentioned in the Shastra as food, as his auspicious qualities are enjoyed. Thus, “Vrata” means “enjoyment of Brahman via meditation” and the senses are said to be “avratān” or opposed to such enjoyment due to their attachment to sense objects.

The line  “manave śāsadavratān tvacaṃ kṛṣṇāmarandhayat” has no reference to black skin or anything. “manave” refers to one who thinks, as in, one who contemplates continuously on his true nature as different to the body. “tvacam” means “cover”  and “krsnam” means black. By virtue of pramāṇās like “tāmasa paramo dhāta”, “tamasas parastāt” – it is the body made of prakrti which is called “tamas” or “krsnam” on account of causing the darkness of ignorance. It is ignorance which is the darkness referred to here. It is called a cover as it hides the true nature of the self.

For the next 2 mantras that the opponent quotes– “kṛṣṇâm ápa tvácam” and “tvácam ásiknīm” – the same meaning exists. Prakrti is called tamas or krsnam because it causes darkness of ignorance and it is called a cover as it envelopes the self, concealing its’ true nature.

And thus, we dispel with this absurd accusation of the opponent as well.

EXAMPLE 3 – MISINTERPRETATIONS BY INDOLOGISTS

Here is another RK that is misinterpreted by western indologists (quoted from An Ancient Indian Untold Story : Truth of Dasa and Dasyu

“Distinguish between the Aryas (the noble) and Dasyus (evildoers). Chastising the wicked and the infidels (who observe no sacred rites), encourage the noble in their performance of virtuous deeds.” —- Rig Veda 1.51.8.”

Correct Interpretation

The rk is:

vi jānīhyāryān ye ca dasyavo barhiṣmate randhayā śāsadavratān | śākī bhava yajamānasya coditā viśvet tā te sadhamādeṣu cākana || (~ Rg Veda 1.51.8)

Meaning: O Mind! Distinguish well those who are the individual selves who are knowledge by nature, hence imperishable (Aryas) and the bodies (Dasyus) which are perishable. Punishing the senses which are opposed to enjoyment of Brahman (śāsadavratān), subjugate them to the self which is shining as it is self-luminous (barhiṣmate randhayā). You (the mind) become a helper (śākī bhava) of the one who has performed the sacrifice of self-surrender to Brahman, and fixed (on Brahman), all of your perceptions (of the auspicious attributes of Brahman) are my delight.

“Arya” means “wise” and indicates the individual selves who are knowledge by nature and imperishable. “Dasyu” indicates the body which perishes as indicated earlier.

This is an appeal to the personified mind to distinguish between the perishable body and the imperishable self, to control the wayward senses and wean them away from attachment to sense objects and subdue them to the service of the self which is self-luminous on account of knowledge. Then, the rk hails the mind by saying that in doing so, it has become a helper to the one who has surrendered to Brahman, and such a mind is always fixed in meditation on the auspicious qualities of Brahman. The term “ādeṣu” is interpreted as “ādeṣayati” – to show – meaning to allow perception of the innumerable auspicious attributes of Brahman in meditation.

Conclusion

Whether well-intended or not, many people commit the mistake of reading the Vedas as historical records, or as a description of races or tribes or skin color. This couldn’t be further than the truth, as is seen by this article. There is a grand total of zero references to such things in the Vedas.

Sources:

Here is why NRC is an essential exercise for Assam

geetima
-
0
Here is why NRC is an essential exercise for Assam

Surprisingly, Assam remained calm, contrary to expectation, after the release of the draft NRC on 30th July. The NRC is the ‘National Register of Citizens’ that will contain the names of Indian citizens of Assam. The recent exercise (2014-16) is the updation of NRC 1951 across Assam in order to identify illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Everyone, whose names appeared in the NRC 1951, or in any of the Electoral Rolls up to 24 March 1971 or in any other admissible documents till 1971, will be included in the list. These documents are collectively called Legacy Data.

As soon as it was announced that 40 lakh names were excluded from the draft list, it attracted the attention of the nation for all wrong reasons. Most of the discussions or reporting on this topic in national media was flawed without any understanding about the genesis of the NRC.

There is a need to clear a few points before delving into the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of NRC.

  1. NRC is not a Hindu-Muslim issue or an Assamese-Bengali issue. It is about detecting illegal immigrants that have entered Assam irrespective of religion or language.
  2. This list is just a draft and not the final list. So, the question about what happens to these people after detection does not arise yet.
  3. All the 40 lakh people excluded from the list are not illegal immigrants. It seems politicians reacted too soon without knowing the details – some claiming credit and some declaring bloodbath. Many genuine Indians and even some indigenous people of Assam found their names missing because of problems in legacy data. Delay in responding to request for legacy data from other states also resulted in the exclusion of some Indians from other states. It is reported that West Bengal failed to verify the legacy data of about one lakh people not on the list.
  4. It is really foolish that some well-known journalists tried to draw similarities between illegal immigrants living in Assam to those Indian professionals living in US. The Indian professionals working in the US are there with valid documents and work permits and they are not illegal immigrants. If these professionals are found to be illegal, they will be immediately deported or put in jail. So, the people of Assam have been quite generous with these illegal Bangladeshis.
  5. A large number of illegal immigrants is reported to be in the NRC draft list. For example, about 200 suspected foreigners from Morigaon belonging to 39 families with cases pending in foreigners tribunals made it to the NRC draft. So, to brand everyone in the list as genuine citizens and those not in the list as illegal immigrants is absolutely misleading.
  6. No political party can claim credit; the NRC was initiated and supervised by the Supreme Court.

Why was such registration of citizens felt in Assam? To understand the question, we have to start at the beginning. Assam underwent major socio-political change with British annexation in 1826. The British needed native bureaucrats familiar with their administrative system to run the state. Thus, a large number of Bengali Babus came into the state to help with the administration but they were not familiar with the local language. Assamese, the local language, has a long history of its existence.

However, the Bengali Babus convinced the British that it is a mere dialect and managed to get Bengali as the official language in 1837. Interestingly, the first protest against this official language came from Christian missionaries who realized that they could not use Bengali to spread their teachings. Later with the help of elite Assamese intellectuals, the Assamese language got the rightful place in 1873. This long period of 36 years from 1837 to 1873 is known as the darkest period of Assamese language. This resulted in permanent distrust between the two communities of Assamese and Bengalis.

Despite this, Bengali continued to be the medium of instruction in middle grades until the close of the 19th century. The struggle for the language continued even after independence.

The official language movement started by All Assam Students’ Federation (student association of Gauhati) in 1960 is famously known as ‘Bhasa Andolan’. The student body submitted its demand to the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru during his visit to Gauhati University in April 1960. There were widespread protests and processions. Finally, the Assamese Official Language Bill was passed in the Assembly on October 10, 1960. It is not known if any local language of the state had to undergo such struggle to get recognized as the official language.

Assam witnessed an unmanageable influx of migrants from East Pakistan right after the country’s partition 1947. The influx continued unabated due to porous border. It was considered prudent to prepare the NRC in 1950. Much later, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) took the initiative and demanded updation of NRC as they started the Anti Foreigners’ Movement in 1979 in order to weed out the illegal immigrants from the state. The six years long popular mass movement led by AASU continued till 1985. The state government came down heavily on the agitators and we lost 885 young people during the movement. It was not a Hindu-Muslim conflict. There were several Assamese Muslim AASU leaders who lost their lives at that time. Some young men got frustrated with the non-violent movement and took up arms and formed United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). The memory of various army operations and the loss of many innocent lives during cross-fires remains painful.

The movement ended in 1985 with the signing of Assam Accord between AASU leaders and PM Rajiv Gandhi. The regional party came to power. There was a celebration all around. Little did these naïve Assamese realize that their struggle was all in vain. The central government was not serious about detecting illegal immigrants. Assam was placed under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal ) Act, 1983 – famously known as IMDT Act. It was applicable only to the state of Assam whereas, in other states, detection of foreigners was done under The Foreigners Act, 1946. Unlike the Foreigners Act, the IMDT Act mandated that the burden of proving the citizenship or otherwise rested on the accuser and the police, not the accused. So, it became impossible to detect illegal immigrants in Assam. The effectiveness of NRC stood on three pillars – detection, deletion and deportation. The IMDT Act made the first step of Detection impossible rendering Assam Accord toothless.

Between 1971 and 1991, Assam’s Hindu population grew by 41% as against a growth of 77% of Muslim population. In 1998, Governor of Assam, Lt Gen S K Sinha, had sent a report to the centre highlighting the danger of large influx of immigrants. The governor warned, “This silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam may result in the loss of the geo-strategically vital districts of lower Assam. ….It will then only be a matter of time when a demand for their merger with Bangladesh is made.”

The AASU tried taking up the issue with the NDA government and got an assurance from the Centre to update the NRC during the meeting in New Delhi on November 1999. However, nothing came out of it.

The IMDT Act was eventually challenged by Sarbananda Sonowal in courts in 2000. The Congress government at the state defended the Act and the case was argued by Kapil Sibal and later K K Venugupal. The Act was stuck down in 2005 by SC but the UPA government passed the ‘Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order’ in 2006 that made detection impossible.

The IMDT Act led to the rapid rise of the immigrant population. According to the 2001 census, Muslims now constitute almost one-third of the population, a considerable increase from 24 per cent in 1971. The districts of Dhubri (74.9%), Barpeta (59%), Goalpara (54%), Karimganj (52%), Hailakandi(57%) already have a Muslim majority population with districts of Bongaigaon (39%), Cachar (36%), Darrang (35%) and Marigaon (47.5%) close to a Muslim majority.

In 2005, the illegal immigration issue was raised by AASU again. A tripartite meeting between the officials of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), State government and AASU representatives took place after AASU threatened to boycott PM’s visit to the state to flag off the first Indo-ASEAN car rally. After the meeting, both the then Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh committed to updating the NRC by September 2007. However, neither the Centre nor the State, both ruled by the Congress at that time, took any steps.

It was the PIL filed by Assam Public Works (APW), an NGO, on July 20, 2009, that finally revived the NRC process. Thanks to these individual efforts, the Supreme Court started the hearings. Eventually, AASU also became a party to the case. The bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi took up the matter seriously and forced the authorities to start NRC in time bound manner.

In 2010, a pilot project of NRC was taken up in Chaygaon and Barpeta circles which were abandoned soon after protests and violence started instigated by interested groups. NRC was put in cold storage once again by the state administration.

This very changing demographics in Kokrajhar resulted in the Muslim-Bodo clashes in 2012 and in 2014 where indigenous Bodos had their land encroached by Bangladeshi immigrants. The national media though tried to give it the colour of Hindu-Muslim riot without understanding the underlying reasons.

Finally, the NRC updation started in 2015 after a directive was given by the apex court in 2013. Even though this NRC process was forced to start during the Congress regime, Congress party did not come out in support of the draft list. On the other hand, Mamata Banerjee of TMC made some ridiculous and very provocative comments trying to incite an Assamese-Bengali conflict. The comments from political parties helped reinforce a wrong perception among many in the rest of the country.

There may be many reasons to find fault with the draft list. The primary one is the absence of any strategy regarding what to do with the people once detected as illegal immigrants. But the intent cannot be questioned. It is one of the most rigorously carried out process where one has to prove his residency since 1971.

As more details about the names in the list become public, it is feared that illegal immigrants might have managed to get their names in the list as they had all fake official documents with them to prove their legacy data. This was done during the time they were settled as vote banks with the help of state machinery. While, many Indians, blue-blooded Assamese do not have their names on the list. Particularly women had difficulty in proving their legacy data. As most of the housewives misplaced their college/ school certificates, missed putting their name in voters’ list and never bothered about any official identity card, this section of women did not have requisite documents. Few national and international media carried scathing pieces on how these poor, uneducated migrant women could not manage to have their names on the list. They can rest assured that most of those migrant women have official documents while genuine Indian women are facing problem. It is already feared, in the state, that the NRC might have actually legalised these illegal immigrants.

Most probably, after verification, a few lakhs will be detected as illegal immigrants. Then, what did this NRC achieve? First, there may not be any more large-scale influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Second, securing the border may become imperative. Third, there may be demands from other states for a need of similar registry. Illegal migrants are not only a problem in Assam. There may be similar demands for protection of indigenous people from other NE states. Manipur has recently passed Manipur People’s Bill, 2018 that fixed 1951 as the base year for distinguishing the indigenous from non-indigenous which led to violent protests in Jiribam area.

The people of the state strongly oppose the Citizenship Act of 2016 that proposes to grant citizenship on the basis of religion. This will make Assam Accord of 1985 meaningless. The people of Assam will wait for the final list of NRC and pray that they do not have to bear the burden of another long anti-foreigners movement. The major political parties should come forward to support the people of the state if not for anything else, just for national security.

Fact check of Master Stroke’s episode which got Punya Prasun Bajpai sacked from ABP News

neelkamal
-
0
Fact check of Master Stroke’s episode which got Punya Prasun Bajpai sacked from ABP News

On June 20, Prime Minister Modi spoke to a farmer Chandramani Kaushik from village Kanhari in Kanker district (Chhattisgarh) through video conference. The lady farmer had claimed that her income got doubled after she joined  Krishi Atma Pariyojna. On July 6, ABP News aired a report claiming that the woman in question had been coached by officials from Delhi about what she was required to say to the prime minister and how she must say the bit about the doubling of income. The show, Master Stroke hosted by Punya Prasun Bajpai also showed Chandramani’s interview in which she claimed that her income has not been doubled due to rice farming. Based on this ABP news concluded that the claim of doubling of income is false. However, ABP News clearly missed the point in that episode as, in the interaction video with Modi, Kaushik never said her income had been doubled by sowing rice/paddy. She clearly told the PM that the secret was her shifting to fruit and pulp processing.

Read our detailed report on this to understand how ABP News was wrong in their analysis.

Even Chattisgarh Government reiterated the same thing that Chandramani was talking about Custard apple (Sitaphal) not rice cultivation. After Government’s clarification, ABP News sent the reporter again to the village and interviewed other women from the group of Chandramani. The report was telecast on July 9. Here is the summary of their findings or claims.

Claim 1: ABP news assumed that Chandramani claimed that her daily income was Rs 50-60.

Fact: Chandramani in her interaction with Prime Minister Modi had said that earlier they used to sell 25 kg custard apple in Rs 50-60. ABP News simply assumed that she or her group used to sell only 25 kg custard apple in a day thus making daily income as Rs 50-60.

Watch this video from their show (6:34)

Claim 2: After joining the program, their daily income became Rs 750 which was divided into 12 women. Thus it was just around Rs 58 per day for each woman. Thus the claim of double income is false.

Fact: Chandramani in her interview with ABP News said that with 25 Kg custard apple they make 5 kg pulp and sell it at Rs. 150 per kg thus making Rs 750 per 25 kg. Watch the above video carefully from 7:55 minutes.

Now ABP assumed that group of 12 women make only 5 kg pulp in a day i.e around 0.41 kg per woman.

We don’t have exact information to quote how much pulp they were extracting per day. But data clearly suggests that one woman gets Rs 58 per 0.41kg pulp which can be extracted from approx 2 kg of custard apple. Chandramani also claimed that they have the machine to extract pulp thus we can assume that the group of 12 women can extract more than 5 kg pulp in a day. Earlier, they were getting Rs 50-60 for harvesting 25 kg custard apple and now they get Rs 700 for harvesting and extracting pulps from the same amount of custard apples. But ABP News and Punya Prasun Bajpai assumed that group of 12 women extract only 5 kg of pulp in a day.

The booming business of custard apple in the village was earlier highlighted by Your Story. As per the report, during the harvesting season, farmers are able to harvest 25 to 30 kg from a tree. Read the report here which was published much before all these controversies happened.

By making custard apple ice cream, women of Chhattisgarh’s Kanker are becoming financially independent

Conclusion: ABP News clearly made a lot of assumptions just to prove that the farmer was pressurized by officials to say that her income doubled from the business. As per analysis if a woman can extract even 1 kg of pulp which needs 5 kg of custard apple then their income will be easily doubled.

Note: Aftermath of this episode of “Master Stroke” was not good for ABP news and its host Punya Prasun Bajpai. Many people complained that there were issues in satellite network during 9-10pm (time of the show), Bajpai has even claimed that he was instructed not use the name and picture of Prime Minister Modi on his show. Ultimately, he had to resign from the channel. There is a lot of conspiracy theory floating on the internet which we will be debunking in the coming weeks.

In the same episode, ABP news has interviewed many other villagers who have claimed that the news of double income is not correct. It’s very difficult for us to verify any of these claims without talking to farmers.

Assaduddin Owaisi’s threatens Indians to convert them into Islam by any means: Again misses out media outrage

G Indira
-
0
Assaduddin Owaisi’s threatens Indians to convert them into Islam by any means: Again misses out media outrage

The Liberal media (both the Television and Print) often pounce on some of the BJP-leaders for their strident utterances. They shred their words into pieces and make a hair-splitting analysis in the evening prime-time slots and in their slanted news columns. Strangely, the same anchor-jurnos on TV and in print- as opinion-builders, keep mum or minimize their details when it comes to Owaisi brothers of Hyderabad who still run the erstwhile Razakar-party, Majilis Ittehadul Muslimeen of Qasim Razvi and his legacy in all aspects.

That has been proved, as the local newspaper, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad (dated: 07-08-2018), carried a front page-item about the AIMIM-leader Assadudin Owaisi strongly reacting to an incident that happened in Haryana wherein a bearded Muslim man was forcefully shaved off by three persons earlier this month. It is understandable that such a thing, as manhandling and forcing a person to do something that goes against his religion, is brutal, in a free and democratic country like India. At times, these atrocities happen because of personal animosities also. So, dubbing each and everyone of them as communal clashes would become a hasty conclusion. The culprits, four of them might have been booked by now by the police of the state. Yet the national leaders of the Muslim community, the likes of Owaisi, grab the opportunity to make irresponsible statements.

Owaisi made it Deccan’s front page news

Owaisi in his words said, “I am telling those who did it, I tell them and their fathers, even if you slit our throats we will remain Muslims. We will convert you to Islam and make you keep a beard.” One would not mind the first statement Owaisi made of being Muslims (that is remaining in the religion)- a come what may- kind statement. It is but natural for a person of any religion to speak so. However, there are serious objections with the second. He said in the latter that they (the Muslims) would convert the others (read Hindus) in the country to Islam and make them keep a beard. This is what is going overboard!

The BJP-MLA, Raja Singh, who is always in the eye of Liberal media to be a controversial person, got quite a catch from Owaisi to give a befitting reply. “Seven generations of your family cannot do anything to Hindus. The only thing you can do is to gather public and bark. Why his brother (Akbaruddin) does not grow a beard, he asks. For those Hindus who think often Raja Singh makes unwarranted statements, his statements of now are a music to their ears. Even Hindu counter- weights of Raja Singh types are needed to balance Owaisi-brothers. Otherwise some of these rabid-Muslim leaders could go to any extent. Unsurprisingly, Owaisi’s divisive and worryingly wedge-statement is not covered in Times of India print-edition of Hyderabad or on the online edition of Deccan Chronicle knowing the potential potion it has got to do with the public-psyche. When it comes to Muslim leaders, this much of guarding! This caution is not applied to some non-discript Hindu leaders who make deviant statements from some state or the other. Their statements and their facial expressions are a 24/7 feasts for Liberal icons on TV Channels.

The BJP MLA Raja Singh did not stop there, he went ahead in his inimitable style and said that they would launch a “Ghar Wapasi” programme in the country and all Muslims whose ancestors were Hindus will again return to Hinduism. The BJP-MLA was this time round showed graciousness and concern towards Muslims with a genuine empathy by saying that he agreed that it was a wrong step by the people who had cut the beard of a Muslim man and assured that police would take action against them. He also suggested that Muslims who are secular, should boycott the “Jihadi Muslims” and send them out of the country. The MLA also questioned Asaduddin Owaisi whether he was following Islamic Principles correctly. For, he said Telangana Wakf Board land encroaching is “gunnah”(sin) in Islam, but no action against it by AIMIM leaders. He also urged Muslims of the city to choose another Muslim MP from some other party in the Old City, in case they are keen on getting a Muslim MP.

Asaddudin Owaisi, stuck to theories that liberal media propagates on lynchings and cow-protection groups and also on his own views on the prime minister of India. He said, “A No-Confidence Motion was moved against Mr. Modi and they (Rahul Gandhi) hugged the same person against whom they moved the motion. If I had gone, shaken hands with Mr Modi, a fatwa would have been issued against me. but when he (Rahul Gandhi) hugged Mr. Modi, Congressmen didn’t utter a word.” Mr. Owaisi’s talk defies logic. Which community gives fatwas in India? Only the fundamentalists in his religion, Islam, give those diktats. So, he has to keep his house clean.

Next, he would not hug or shake hands with the PM; even for courtesy sake, as he would have to face the angst of his hard-core base. For this, he has to blame himself as he trained them (his core-base) so, against a Hindu-PM. His equating of the PM to Hitler who did not show any sympathy on Jews, though many of them embraced him, showed his lack of minimum decency for a democratically elected leader who is revered by the majority in India. His joke on PM and Rahul Gandhi’s hug— to be something that they keep doing as they do not have any one to hug in their homes— tantamount encroaching into their personal domains, which a sensible leader would never do.

The present PM of India, Shri Narendra Modi sacrificed his personal life for a public cause i.e to serve the country. Nobody can deny that. He is not for power or pelf. He has not amassed wealth as most of the politicians in India do, though being in politics for so long. Owaisi does not know culture of Bharat. He does not know there is something called “renunciation”. Our saints and Rhishis, most of them are not married. For, a married man, has to fulfill marital responsibilities. Otherwise, it will be a sin according to Dharma of this land. To remain dedicated to the nation by being single is a noble things by itself, it is not something for derision, Mr Owaisi.

For all Owaisi’s statements, the Liberal media that bats -only for the Muslim-causes, should be apologetic and answerable. His vituperative, divisive and offensive diatribe would definitely  offset their theory of -bashing Hindus-only.

Here is a very simple reason why cow deserves a special protection law

wishwalker
-
0
Here is a very simple reason why cow deserves a special protection law

We have been witnessing the changing narratives of politics in India over the past four years, with various kinds of issues flying all across our news feeds, from the most outrageous to the most benign of things, landing in one controversy or the other. But, one issue that seems to have taken a permanent center-stage in our national politics is Cow. That most innocent of animals, is a topic of raging debates which show no signs of abating, a favorite topic of the detractors of current government, using Gau and Gau Mutra etc. as slurs against those who are well-disposed towards the current dispensation in any way.

While no one in their right mind supports any violence happening in the name of cow, an unbiased take has to be in light of the massive cattle theft and smuggling racket happening illegally over large parts of the country, the count being in millions, and in a country where law and justice are oftentimes, but just fancy terms. But, leaving aside the issue of self-styled vigilantes, the larger issue I want to talk about is the way a section of society tries to mock the tradition of giving the cow an exalted status, by large number of Hindus. The attack is not just on the vigilante violence but the entire concept of Gau Mata, as if that is somehow a backward, superstitious thought. No matter that our first battle for Independence started with Mangal Pandey giving his life on the issue of beef in the bullets, a Gau Rakshak in essence.

So, why is there this reverence for the cow in India? To answer that, we have to start from the larger context of an attitude against harming/eating animals in the Dharmic traditions of India, which essentially see divinity in all existence, and thus strive to cause the least harm possible to it. Even those Indians who eat meat, avoid it on special days in honor of their chosen Gods, be it Hanuman’s Mangal or Devi’s Navratra, thus affirming the moral superiority of the principle, even though they might not follow it every day of their life. But, the acknowledgement is what matters. You won’t find chicken being served in a Gurudwara!

India as an agrarian society, has had a lot of respect for the cow, as it had a big positive impact on people’s lives, it gave us milk, cow dung was/is used for cooking, among other benefits to society. So, it reached an exalted status. And since you are drinking milk, which you are effectively stealing from the calf, the only moral way to do that is by treating the cow as a mother, and not as something to be used and abused. This kind of attitude is coming out of the highest levels of human understanding of nature, and not some dogma.

It is also not that having laws for a particular animal is unique to India. Horse meat is banned in several US States, and there are many attempts to bring in legislation to ban it at a Federal level, as horse does hold a revered status in the Anglo-Saxon world. A similar attitude towards horse exists in the UK too.

The real crux of the matter is that since beef is a staple diet in much of the western world, protecting cow becomes an irrational thing to do in India, as all rationality must necessarily flow from the West to East.

Then there is the argument of Kerala or North East and beef. Yes, there are differences in attitudes within India, but that does not mean that those who do hold a certain attitude towards cow are irrational in any sense. In fact, Kerala has seen big cultural changes, being in close contacts with the outside world for trade, witnessing demographic shifts, and then ‘rational’ communist rule, out to build that perfect ‘sensible’ society from the rubble of old tradition.

In the end, some things are just part of a specific culture, and equating it with “blind faith”, “religiosity”, is just an ugly tactic, specially used by the materialist Western understanding against Dharmic traditions, and those deracinated folks who happily borrow the terminology to mock it, and derive a perverse pleasure out of it. Meanwhile, Gau Mata quietly moos in the dusty Gaushala, getting ready to get you that next packet of Amul milk delivered at the doorstep in the morning.

What new age leadership can learn from Narendra Modi

devsenamishra
-
0
What new age leadership can learn from Narendra Modi

On 29th July, while addressing the business and investors community in Uttar Pradesh, PM Modi has said: “The current pace of our progress is a beginning for me” India’s fast-paced transformation is a matter of discussion around the world. The ‘New India’, ‘Transforming India’ and ‘Sankalp se Siddhi’, kind of phrases are now a part of the diplomatic jargons related to India. This is a major change. Sustaining this changing reality is the responsibility of India’s New Age Leadership.

Earlier for the young leaders in India, there were no concrete references/models available within the contemporary politics to follow which led them to pursue the traditionally successful path. But these replicas of previous generation leaders will not be able to drive India into a fast-changing dynamic global environment. The New Age Leadership of India needs to take some notes from our current leadership. The four years of transforming India are a bundle of knowledge on Leadership Spirit. Behind the success of every single initiative, there is a shining case study on leadership approach and philosophy.

During the last four years, we have achieved some of those milestones which were not even imagined before! Make in India, Make with India, indigenous defense manufacturing push, defense corridors, boost to defense startups and MSMEs, transformation of public sector procurement process, continuous reforms to improve EODB status, and a healthy competition among the states for EODB rankings, a successful implementation of GST, Digital India, national digital literacy mission, digital payment ecosystem, transformation of Indian Postal department, focus on doubling farmers income and reforms for transforming agriculture sector into a profitable enterprise, 100% electrification, distribution of guarantee free loans through Mudra, Standup India, Village-level entrepreneurs, Common Service Centres, Ujjwala yojana, housing for all, focus on the education of tribal youths, one of the biggest infrastructure push through Bharatmala and Sagarmala, Smart Cities, Smart villages, Skill India, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Yojana, Deendayal Upadhyaya Swaniyojan Yojana, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Unnat Krishi Shiksha Scheme, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanchar Kaushal Vikas Pratisthan Yojana, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya shramev jayate and the list goes on and on and on. India’s transformation from one of the ‘fragile five’ to the only ‘bright spot’ on the global economic landscape is a matter of discussion around the world.

When PM Modi initiated his vision, a number of people criticized him for thinking too big and setting goals too high! The search engine algorithms were full of negative and biased content about India. Many people used to believe that Digital India, Make in India, Startup India etc. are just flashy slogans and a part of his event management approach! And they were prepared to bomb PM Modi with questions like what you have done for the farmers? for women? for the poor? for backward? And for the minority? But now these questions are as irrelevant as their seekers!

India is a young country, 65% of our population is youth. The responsibility of New Age Leadership is huge; they have received a fertile ground for taking a quantum leap. To take this leap, this time, they need to learn from the approach of PM Modi. How PM Modi has turned every challenge into an opportunity, how he has surpassed the culture of negative politics with his constructive approach, how he always put ‘India First’ instead of politics and the way he makes the staircase with the stones that are thrown at him.

Our new age leadership needs to understand that they are the driving force of New India and ‘Hard work with Determination’ is the only path for them.

Cheap politics over skull-cap by Sashi Tharoor vs. PM Modi’s mission of new India

S Ranganathan
-
0
Cheap politics over skull-cap by Sashi Tharoor vs. PM Modi’s mission of new India

The attempt of some congress leaders to defame our ancient culture and heritage needs to be condemned.  The recent remark of Mr. Sashi Tharoor questing why Modiji likes to wear North Eastern dress when he visits North East but not scull-cap and avoid green colour.

Modiji has clearly stated that he would never appease any particular community like congress or other opportunistic political parties. Religious symbols and cultural symbols or symbols of our heritage must be clearly differentiated.  The culture and heritage of north eastern states are unique and therefore such cultural heritage not only deserve appreciation but and must be preserved. Therefore wearing headgear of north eastern states is meant only as respect to the culture and heritage of north eastern states. But the scull-cap is more of religious practice and identity of a particular religion. Wearing scull-cap is not wrong but not wearing the scull-cap need not be seen as against such practice. On the contrary wearing the scull-cap just for political mileage is nothing but minority appeasement and not honest respect to any religion.

Indian politics is dominated by dividing societies and minority appeasement. Even the comment of the congress man about Modiji not willing to wear scull-cap itself meant to polarize the society and is an act of minority appeasement.

Modiji is a leader of exemplary virtues and qualities. Modiji always values the cultural heritage of our nation and promote the heritage of India as one of the global attractions and tourism. But a person of such stature Mr. Sashi Tharror is so mean and silly and is engaged in petty politics and politics of minority appeasement.

We may not able to blame Mr. Tharoor because he represents nothing but the culture and value systems of the party that he belongs to. His party is known for dividing the country through such petty politics.

Modiji is a unifying force. He promotes the concept and philosophy of one India. The essence of mission one India promoted by Modiji is aimed to nullify religious and caste division that prevails today thanks to congress party. Time has come India must emerge as a county with one cultural identity and feeling and India should not be allowed to remain as a mixture of different regions with regional interest and divisions.

Development of India should not be allowed to degenerate due to regional politics devoid of nationalism. Indian has suffered the worst when regional parties join together and formed an alliance as well as the history of UPA I and II where compulsion of coalition has buried the fame and dignity of India due to allegations of several scams.

Modiji is the unifying force and he is the only leader in the contemporary time has taken the cultural heritage of our India to unify various religions and castes. Modiji promote YOGA not just for healthy and fit India but he wish to use YOGA as a tool to unite entire India.

The concept of one India, one tax and one election is not just a wish of Modiji but is a scientific fact. Once such practice is implemented, huge revenue the government is incurring almost every month towards conducting different state elections can be avoided. Once the election is over, only governance alone will the happen and not politics for the entire 5 year term.

Indians must differentiate the ideologies of people like Sashi Tharoor and the party he represent and a leader like Modiji, his ideals, value systems, untiring mission to develop India and achieve Sab Ka vikas.

People should not fall prey to those petty politicians whose only aim is to please the dynasty, appease minority and divide the country. Indians must own India and must stand with Modiji to develop the country and build New India.

Shah Faesal: Victim of Free Speech or politician in making?

Aniruddh Desai
-
0
Shah Faesal: Victim of Free Speech or politician in making?

Shah Faesal is an Indian civil servant from the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In 2009, he became the first Kashmiri to top the Indian Civil Service Examination. He is much glorified youth icon for Kashmiri Muslim youth. By becoming an IAS officer he had paved the way for others in the Valley to follow his footsteps. But, his recent tweets and comments lay bare what’s inside his mind, alas!

Free Speech Champion?

An orientalist hatemonger hidden behind the veil of an educated, literate and moderate Muslim who calls India ‘Rapistan’.

Action was taken against him for his this ill remark of the country he lives in, and more importantly, was serving to. For which he tried to defend himself by putting another tweet.

Sarcastic tweet, really? From his above mentioned tweet, it is evident that he was only talking about India and no other country. Because neither he mentioned any other country nor ‘stan’ is used as a suffix after entire South Asian region which comprises many sovereign and independent countries. Does he think we Indians are fools like Aazaadi brigade?

Well, I’m of a view that action should have been taken against him when he asked for a foreign intervention in Kashmir, which is problematic to the ongoing, recently stalled, dialogues between concerned parties, those are, India and Pakistan. And which is unlawful as per ‘Shimla Agreement‘.

Let’s come to the point now. His supporting any government’s any policy would what the State least expect. His dissenting against any government policy, if by due process, could have been welcomed. But he chose the other, nasty I’d say, way to dissent, by going public, which is a breach of law.

Let’s see what the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 say.

“7. Criticism of Government.- No member of the Service shall, in any radio broadcast or communication over any public media or in any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in his own name or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion,—(i.) Which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government; (ii.) or which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and any State Government; (iii.) or which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any Foreign State: provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to any statement made or views expressed by a member of the Service in his official capacity and in the due performance of the duties assigned to him. (GOI Instructions: D.P. & A.R. letter No. 11017/9/75—AIS(III), dated the 2nd March, 1976.)”

While his tweet calling India ‘Rapistan’ tarnishes image of our country being labeled ‘Rape Capital’ of world, his another tweet asking Elon Musk to intervene in Kashmir issue is a breach of law under clause (iii) of All India Service Conduct Rules. Shah Faesal embarrasses relations of India and Pakistan by asking for a third party intervention in Kashmir dispute.

A Politician In Making ?

His stand on Article 35A would have brought him more trouble had he still remained in service.

While there’s no dispute with Kashmir being integral part of India, Shah’s Twitter bravado viz Article 35A is an act of ostentatious behaviour, maybe, as a part of preparing ground for his debut in politics?

Everyone is in the knowledge of how politics is played out in Kashmir Valley since the times of Sheikh Abdullah. For Mufti and Abdullah dynasties, I’ve coined a term, which is, ‘Nationalists In New Delhi, Separatist In Sri Nagar’. If elaborated this phrase says politicians of Kashmir Valley when in power recites poems of motherland and sovereignty of India, but when they are out of power, they sing separatist songs to impress and win over Hurriyat votebank which paves way back to power.

Every sane and aware mind is in knowledge that in the name of saving preposterous ‘Kashmiriyat’, all Valley based politicians have done is political blackmailing. While in power they pledge to work for estranged and marginalized Kashmiris to bring them into mainstream society, but while in opposition they pledge to bring them ‘Aazaadi’, a separate autonomous State of Kashmir, independent from India and Pakistan.

I just wanted to know that, is this the same case with Shah Faesal too?

1...691692693...889Page 692 of 889