Home Blog Page 73

कांग्रेस कि भारत जोड़ो यात्रा: एक और षड्यंत्र

Nagendra Pratap Singh
-
0
कांग्रेस कि भारत जोड़ो यात्रा: एक और षड्यंत्र

जी हाँ मित्रों ज़रा सोचिए जो कांग्रेस
१:-केरल में मोपला दरिंदो द्वारा मासूम हिन्दुओ कि गई सामूहिक और हैवानियत भरी हत्या, लूट और बलात्कार का समर्थन करती है;

२:- गद्दार और हैवान कन्वर्ट मुसलिम मोहम्मद अली जिन्ना और उसके शागिर्द सोहराबवर्दि के “Direct Action Day” कि घोषणा और उस दिन मुसलिम लीग के खुनी दरिंदो द्वारा गर्भवति हिन्द महिलाओ के गर्भ को फाड़कर निकाली गई बच्चीयो के साथ किये जाने वाले बलात्कार का मौनपूर्वक आनंद लेती रही और हिन्दुओ के बहते खून का स्वाद लेती रही;

३:- नौवखालि में म्लेच्छ दरिंदो के द्वारा हिन्दुओ के कत्लेआम को आनंद और चटकारे से देखती रहती है;

४:- जिस का नाकारा नेता अपने गुरु के रहमोकरम पर अंग्रेजो के राजा के नाम पर शपथ लेते हुए प्रधानमंत्री बन जाता है और कहता है कि वो दुर्भाग्य से हिन्दू है,जिसका नेता सुरक्षा परिषद मे मिलने वाली सीट को दुश्मन देश चिन को सौप देता है;

५:- एंडर्सन नामक ईसाई दैत्य (जिसने भोपाल यूनियन कार्बाइड मे जमा कि गई MIC अर्थात मिथाइल आइसो साइनाइड का उपयोग करके एक हि रात में ३५०० से ज्यादा भारतीय नागरिकों की हत्या कर दी और अगले एक हफ्ते मै १५ हजार से ज्यादा नागरिकों को दर्दनाक मौत दे दी) को बचाने के लिए एड़ी चोटी का जोर लगा दिया और उसे बचा भी लिया;

६:- जिसके सबसे बड़े नेता ने स्वामी श्रद्धानंद के हत्यारे को अपना भाई बताकर अंग्रेजो से उसे बचा लिया;

जिन्होंने गाँधी के वध के पश्चात् एक रात में हि महाराष्ट्र में करीब ५ हजार ब्राह्मणों का कत्ल किया क्योंकि गाँधी से भारत को छुटकारा दिलाने वाला महाविर उन्हीं की जाती का था;जिन्होंने वर्ष १९८४ में हजारों सिक्खों का कत्लेआम किया और इस कत्लेआम का समर्थन किया;जिन्होंने भारत से शांति सेना भेजकर हजारों तमिल हिन्दुओ का कत्ल करवाया;

७:- जिसके नेता खुले मंच से एलान करते हैं की वो बाबरी मस्जिद फिर से बनाएंगे;

८:- जिसके नेता कहते हैं की प्रभु श्रीराम काल्पनिक हैं;

९:- जिसके नेता कहते हैं की मंदिरो में लोग लड़कियां छेड़ने जाते हैं;

१०:- जिसके नेता राम सेतु को धोखे से बेचने की तैयारी कर लेते हैं;

११:- जिसके नेता कहते हैं कि देश के संसाधनों को पहला हक मुसलमानो का है;जिनके नेता देश के साथ गद्दारी करते हुए देश की सुरक्षा एजेंसी RAW के officers की खुफिया जानकारी ईरान को दे देते हैं;

१२:- जिसके नेता कहते हैं की कांग्रेस मुसलमानो की पार्टी है;
१३:- जिसके आधे दरजन से अधिक शीर्ष नेता जमानत पर हैं;
१४:- जिसके नेता कहते हैं की हम चिन से लगी सीमाओं पर सड़क और अन्य सुविधाएं नहीं बना सकते क्योंकि चिन नाराज हो जाएगा;
१५:- जिसके नेता जम्मू कश्मीर से अनुच्छेद ३७० और ३५ अ के हटाए जाने का विरोध करते हैं;
१६:- जिनके नेता आत्मनिर्भर भारत और मेक इन इंडिया अभियान का मजाक उड़ाते हैं;
१७:- जिनके शीर्ष नेता (गाँधी परिवार) अकेले चिन की सत्ताधारी कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी से देश के विरोध में गुप्त समझौता कर लेते हैं;
१८:-जिसके नेता सेना के पराक्रम पर सवाल उठाते हुए सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक को फर्जी बताने लगते हैं;
१९:- जिसके नेताओं को हिन्दुओ कि समस्याओ को छोड़कर अन्य सभी की समस्याये नजर आती हैं;
२०:-जिसके नेता तिरंगा यात्रा को दंगा यात्रा बताने की होड़ में लग जाते हैं;
२१:- जिनके नेता जवाहर लाल नेहरू यूनिवर्सिटी मे पल रहे सांपो के भारत तेरे टुकड़े होंगे वाले मंसूबों का समर्थन करते हैं;

२२:- जिनके नेता जम्मू कश्मीर से ४ लाख हिन्दुओ के पलायन और कई हजार हिन्दुओ के कत्लेआम का आनंद लेते हैं;

२३:- जिनके नेता दिल्ली में हुए दंगो में हैवानियत की सीमा पार कर जाने इस्लामिक आतंकियों के समर्थन में आ जाते हैं;

२४:- आतंकियों के मारे जाने पर जिनके नेताओं के आँखों में आँसू आ जाते हैं;

२५:- जो याकुब मेनन जैसे इस्लामिक आतंकवादी को बचाने के लिए आधी रात को सर्वोच्च न्यायालय को सुनवाई करने के लिए विवश कर देते हैं और

२६:- जो संसद पर आतंकी हमला करने वाले इस्लामिक आतंकी अफजल गुरु के समर्थन में आ जाते हैं;

२७:-जिनके नेता मुंबई में हुए २६/११ के आतंकी हमले को जानबूझकर भगवा से जोड़ने की कोशिश कर इसे भगवा आतंकवाद का रूप देने की कोशिश करते हैं;

२८:-जिनके नेता भारत के नोट छापने वाली मशीन को पाकिस्तान की एक कम्पनी को बेच देते हैं;

२९:- जिनके नेता एनरॉन कम्पनी कि ओर से अपने देश के विरुद्ध अंतराष्ट्रीय न्यायालय में पैरवी करते हैं और भारत के लिए पाकिस्तान का वकील नियुक्त करते हैं;

३०:- जिनके नेता सेना प्रमुख को सड़क का गुंडा कहते हैं;

३१:- जिनके नेता पुलवामा आतंकी हमले को भारत के हि लोगों द्वारा किया गया हमला बताकर पाकिस्तान की सहायता करते हैं;

३२:- जिनके नेता समझौता एक्सप्रेस में हुए हमले में पकड़े गए पाकिस्तानी आतंकी को छोडकर स्वामी असीमानंद और अन्य मासूम हिन्दुओ को झूठे आरोप लगाकर गिरफ्तार कर लेते हैं;

३३:- जिनके नेता केवल वोट बैंक की राजनीती के लिए मुसलिम तुष्टिकरण कि निति अपनाकर देश के नागरिकों को बांटकर राज करते आए हैं

भला ऐसे लोग भारत को जोड़ कैसे सकते हैं। कांग्रेस का तो इतिहास हि बताने के लिए पर्याप्त है कि इसके जिस नेता ने भी सम्पूर्ण भारत के विकास की पहल की उसे कांग्रेस दरकिनार कर दिया गया या फिर उसकी हत्या करवा दी गई हमारे स्वर्गीय लाल बहादुर शास्त्री जी इसके प्रत्यक्ष उदाहरण हैं।

इस कांग्रेस ने हमेशा अपने आकाओ अर्थात अंग्रेजो द्वारा स्थापित फुट डालो और राज करो वाली निति अपनाई और अपनी सत्ता बनाये रखने के लिए मुसलिम तुष्टिकरण की निति अपनाई। आज भी ये कांग्रेस चाल, चरित्र और व्यवहार से अंग्रेजो की प्रतिलिपि है। याद रखिये मित्रों वैदिक सभ्यता के समकालीन जितनी भी सभ्यताएं थी (जैसे मिश्र की सभ्यता, मेसोपोटामिया की सभ्यता या फिर यूनानी सभ्यता) सभी को ईसाइयत और इस्लामियत ने नष्ट कर डाला, परन्तु आज तक वैदिक सभ्यता अपना वजूद कायम किये हुए है और इन ईसाइयत और इस्लामिक ताकतों के मध्य एक प्रकार का होड़ लगा हुआ है कि ये किस प्रकार वैदिकता को खत्म करके अपना वर्चस्व कायम करें। कांग्रेस और कुछ नहीं अपितु इन्ही का गठजोड़ है।

मित्रों याद रखिये “प्रामाण्यबुद्धिर्वेदेषु साधनानामनेकता।
उपास्यानामनियमः एतद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम्।।”
अर्थात:- वेदों में प्रमाणीकरण बुद्धि, साधना के रूप में विविधता, और पूजा के संबंध में नियमन का, यह केवल नियम ही नहीं बल्कि हमारे धर्म की विशेषताएं हैं।

मित्रों बहुत पहले एक किताब मैंने पढ़ी थी जिसका शीर्षक था ” The War of Civilisation ” इसके लेखक विदेशी मूल के हैं! इस किताब में इन्होने स्पष्ट रूप से लिखा है कि जब तक सनातन धर्म को मानने वाले हिन्दू जिंदा हैं, तभी तक ये पृथ्वी सुरक्षित है,क्योंकि ये हिन्दू हि है जिन्होंने कभी भी किसी भी युद्ध कि पहल नहीं की है। ये हिन्दू ही हैं जो जियो और जीने दो में विश्वास रखते हैं। ये सनातन धर्म ही है जो ” वसुधैव कुतुम्बकम” में विश्वास रखता है। विश्व का एकमात्र धर्म सनातन धर्म ही है जो सबको समान अधिकार देने की वकालत करता है।

मित्रों आगे इसी किताब में प्रथम और दूसरे युद्ध सहित अरब और यूरोप के सभी युद्धों का उदाहरण लेते हुए यह बताने की कोशिश की गई कि किस प्रकार ईसाइयत ने यूरोप में और इस्लाम ने अरब में और फिर इन दोनों ने अफ्रीका, एशिया, ऑस्ट्रेलिया और अन्य भू भागो में अपना अपना वर्चस्व स्थापित करने के लिए कई सभ्यताओं को नष्ट कर डाला, इस धरा को ना जाने कितने करोड़ मासूमों के खून से रंग डाला। ईसाइयत और इस्लामिक विचारधारा केवल और केवल स्वार्थ से भरी हुई दो अलग अलग परिपाटीया है, जो एक दूसरे की जानी दुश्मन है, परन्तु जब सनातनी हिन्दू धर्म को मिटाने की बात आती है तो ये दोनों एक हो जाती हैं और एक दूसरे की सहायता करती हैं।

मित्रों ये सच है केवल सच की जब तक सनातन धर्म अपना वजूद कायम रखने सक्षम रहेगा तब तक ये संसार फलता फूलता रहेगा और यदि दानवी विचारधाराएं हमें मिटाने में कामयाब हो गई तो समझ लीजिये पृथ्वी का अंत सुनिश्चित है।
इसीलिए हमारे महापुरुषो ने समाज का उचित मार्गदर्शन हेतु देववाणी प्रस्तुत कि जो निम्नवत है:-

।।ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात्।।
भावार्थ:-हम भगवान की महिमा का ध्यान करते हैं, जिन्होंने इस दुनिया को बनाया है, जो पूजनीय हैं, जो ज्ञान के भंडार हैं, जो पापों और अज्ञान को दूर करने वाले हैं – वे हमें प्रकाश दिखाएँ और हमें सत्य के मार्ग पर ले जाएँ।

मित्रों हमारी वैदिक सभ्यता इस धरा कि सबसे प्राचीन वैदिक सभ्यता है जो आज भी अपना अस्तित्व बचाये हुए है, क्योंकि हमारे पूर्वजो ने हमें ज्ञान देते हुए बताया कि “धर्मस्य दुर्लभो ज्ञाता सम्यक् वक्ता ततोऽपि च। श्रोता ततोऽपि श्रद्धावान् कर्ता कोऽपि ततः सुधीः।। अर्थात:- जो धर्म को जानता है वह बहुत ही विशेष और अद्भुत गुणों से भरा है और जो धर्म को अच्छी तरह से समझाता है वह और भी अद्भुत और गुणों से भरा है और जो धर्म को पूरे मन से सुनता है वह उससे भी दुर्लभ और गुणी है और जो धर्म का अनुयायी है, वह सब से अधिक अद्भुत, दुर्लभ, गुणी और बुद्धिमान है। और विश्वास मानिये की हम जाने अनजाने में आज भी इस मूलमंत्र को आत्मसात कर रहे हैं पीढ़ी दर पीढ़ी।

अत: मित्रों कांग्रेस ईसाइयत और इस्लामिक विचारधारा को अपनाने वाली उनसे भी बड़ी समस्या है, हम सनातनीयो के लिए अत: इनसे सावधान रहने की आवश्यकता है। हमें अपनी एकता को बनाये रखना है और चुपचाप इनकी छटपटाहट को देखते रहना है।

लेखक:-नागेंद्र प्रताप सिंह (अधिवक्ता)
[email protected]

The final curtain: Her Majesty the Queen is gone

Satish Tandon
-
0
The final curtain: Her Majesty the Queen is gone

One day before she left us to be among the stars, she fulfilled her last constitutional duty of inviting and appointing Liz Truss to be her fifteenth prime minister. It must have been a heroic effort for her to appear cheerful and supportive of the other ‘Elizabeth’, despite her proximity to death.

Five out of six people in the United Kingdom have not known or seen another British monarch. Her reign lasted for seventy years, from 1952 to 2022. I believe she was a beloved member of every British household, sans her physical presence.

The Queen has been a custodian of tradition, values, and the British way of life. And yet, she presided over enormous cultural, political, and societal change. For instance, there were few divorces in British society when she began her reign. We can imagine her grief when all her children ended up divorcing their partners.

Just as Diana was the Princess of the people, the Queen was the Queen of Hearts who was universally loved and admired and had unmatched grace and dignity. She was true and loyal to her husband Prince Philip and matriarch to the nation and her loyal subjects.

At the time of her birth, her country was still the greatest power the world had ever seen. But by the time she ascended the throne, more than half of British possessions and colonies had been lost, and by the end of the sixties, the other half were also gone. Britain became the sick man of Europe.

All human beings have to face the ups and downs of life. The Queen never lost her composure except once, in 1992, after a fire at Windsor Castle. All of it happened in one calamitous year. It was supposed to be a day of triumph to mark the Queen’s 40 years on the throne, but instead, it turned out to be “annus horribllis”, as she described it. After decades of exemplary, scandal-free service, she rued the 12 catastrophic months that put her record under threat.

What is my take on this? I think the British people have been lucky to have somebody like the Queen as their head of state. Unlike many other heads of state or government, she never once caused embarrassment to her country and people. I think that all of humanity deserves to be led by caring, decent, and self-effacing people like Queen Elizabeth, Barack Obama, or Nelson Mandela.

अंकिता हत्याकांड- रजाई में कोबरा लेकर सोना और फिर कोबरा के काट लेने का रोना

Sampat Saraswat
-
0
अंकिता हत्याकांड- रजाई में कोबरा लेकर सोना और फिर कोबरा के काट लेने का रोना

आज 1 सितंबर को दोपहर 3 बजे आज तक पर ब्रेकिंग चली कि दिल्ली के संगम विहार में नैना को असलम ने मारी गोली। असलम इसलिए नाराज था क्योंकि नैना 3 साल से असलम से इंस्टाग्राम पर चैट कर रही थी और 3 साल बाद जब नैना ने बातचीत बंद कर दी तो असलम ने गोली मार दी।

जहां 90% मुस्लिम बाहुल्य गांव है वहां खुलकर कहा जाता है कि मुस्लिम बनो या गांव खाली करो, बेटियों पर तंज कसे जाते है आखिर ये कब तक चलेगा।

शाहरुख ने बहुत गलत किया और उसे सख्त सजा होनी चाहिए। अंकिता का डाइंग डेक्लेरेशन भी यही करता है कि शाहरुख को सजा मिलनी चाहिए लेकिन फिर भी शाहरुख बच जाएगा क्योंकि अंकिता के मां बाप और न्यायाधीश को भी अपनी जान की चिंता रहेगी। सही गवाह मार दिए जाएंगे और शाहरुख की तरफ से झूठे गवाह खड़े करके शाहरुख को बचा लिया जाएगा। भारत की न्यायपालिका में ये कोई नई बात नहीं है। अंकिता तो मर चुकी अब लाश को क्या न्याय दिलवाओगे और चाकू लेकर घूम रहे हिंदुओं की गर्दन काटने को आतुर जिहादियों को सजा सुनाने का दम हिंदू जजों में नहीं है। लेकिन कुछ कड़वी बातें आपको समझनी होंगी नहीं तो अंकिता जैसे हत्याकांड होते रहेंगे।

बीते एक हफ्ते से सोशल मीडिया पर हिंदुओं ने शाहरुख के द्वारा अंकिता को जलाए जाने पर भावपूर्ण कविताएं लिखीं, विचारोत्तेजक लेख लिखे और ये समझकर लिखे, लाइक किए, शेयर किए और वायरल करवाए कि अंकिता एक मासूम नाबालिग बच्ची थी जिसको शाहरुख ने जलाकर मार दिया क्योंकि ये एक तरफा प्यार का मामला था।

लेकिन अब दरअसल अंकिता और शाहरुख की तीन तस्वीरें सामने आई हैं जिनमें से दो सेल्फी हैं एक कार के अंदर की जिसमें अंकिता, अकेले शाहरुख के साथ मौजूद है और तीसरी फोटो दोनों साथ में पिकनिक स्पॉट पर हैं।

फोटो की सत्यता को जानने के लिए मैंने रांची और दुमका में तीन संवाददाताओं को फोन लगाया जिसके बाद सारी बात सामने आई। सभी रिपोर्टर्स और लोकल लोगों ने पुष्टि करी कि दोनों का पहले से ही लव अफेयर चल रहा था और इस लव अफेयर का अंकिता के मां बाप को भी पता था। दोनों अकेले में मिलते रहे थे वही फोटो अब वायरल हुई हैं।

जब ये फोटो वायरल होने लगीं तब सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्वत: संज्ञान लिया और कहा कि अंकिता की निजी जिंदगी की फोटो वायरल करने का अधिकार किसी को नहीं है और उन लोगों को गिरफ्तार किया गया जिन्होंने फोटो वायरल की थी। एक बिस्तर वाली गंदी फोटो वायरल करवाई जा रही थी जो कि फर्जी है लेकिन बाकी फोटो जो पिकनिक स्पॉट और कार की है वो सही है। ये बात सही है कि दोनों का लव अफेयर पहले था।

स्थानीय संवादताओं ने बताया कि सामाजिक दबाव में या मां बाप के समझाने पर या फिर किसी और वजह से जब अंकिता ने शाहरुख से रिश्ता तोड़ना चाहा तब शाहरुख ने पेट्रोल डालकर आग लगा दी। अब सवाल ये है कि आखिर अंकिता की दुर्दशा के मूल में क्या है ? इस घटना के मूल में है अंकिता का संस्कारों से भटक जाना और एक जिहादी के साथ अकेले में वक्त बिताना।

गोस्वामी तुलसीदास जी ने लिखा…. करम प्रधान बिस्व करि राखा जो जस करई सो तस फल चाखा यानी जो जैसा करता है वैसा फल भी पाता है। अंकिता कोई पहली लड़की नहीं है जिसको उसके किए का परिणाम भुगतना पड़ा है। हम हिंदूवादियों के लाख प्रचार के बाद भी आए दिन अखबार में छपी घटनाओं के बावजूद भी लड़कियां खुद ही गंदे नाले में नहाने को आतुर रहती हैं और गंगाजल समान पवित्र बातें उनको विष के समान मालूम पड़ती हैं।

मैं आपने और हम सभी ने अपने जीवन में ये अनुभव किया है कि मल्टीनेशनल कंपनियों में और तमाम दफ्तरों में हिंदू अधिकारी ही मुस्लिमों की भर्तियां करते हैं फिर दफ्तर की सबसे सुंदर लड़की को उस मुस्लिम लड़के को असिस्ट करने के लिए या उसके साथ टीम में काम करने के लिए कहते हैं। बड़े हिंदू अफसरों और अधिकार प्राप्त लोग स्वयं ही लव जिहाद को सुविधाजनक बनाते हैं और लड़कियों की जिंदगी बर्बाद करते हैं।

हमने और आपने भी ऐसी लड़कियों को देखा होगा जो सब कुछ जानते हुए भी ना सिर्फ मुस्लिम लड़कों के साथ बात करती हैं बल्कि उनके साथ ब्रेकफास्ट और लंच भी करती हैं। मुस्लिम लड़के ऐसे दफ्तरों में सांड की तरह इधर उधऱ हिंदू लड़कियों को घूरते रहते हैं और हिंदू बेवकूफ लड़कियां इस बात पर खुश होती हैं कि वो काफी खूबसूरत हैं इसीलिए उनको घूरा जा रहा है और बाद में वो जान से मारी जाती हैं। इसीलिए मुझे ऐसी लड़कियों से कोई सहानुभूति नहीं होती है।

कुछ लोगों ने कहा कि वो अभिषेक बनकर आया था और अंकिता को मूर्ख बना गया। मेरा ये कहना है कि वो कोई भी था अगर तुमको पसंद था तो तुमको अपने मां बाप से बात करनी चाहिए थी और उसका बैकग्राउंड पता करना चाहिए था ना कि उसके साथ कार में घूमना और पिकनिक की सैर करनी चाहिए थी। लेकिन कुछ हिंदू आजकल जैसे कमजोर हो चुके हैं और वो अपनी बेटियों पर इतनी सख्ती भी नहीं कर पा रहे हैं कि बेटी अच्छे घरों की लड़कियां फेसबुक और इंस्टाग्राम पर नंगा नाच नहीं करती हैं। अब्दुल और सलमान जैसे लड़के ऐसे डांस रील पर पहले कमेंट करते हैं और फिर इन्हीं लड़कियों को बाहर घुमाने लेकर जाते हैं और फिर पेट्रोल वगैरह कांड आए दिन अखबार में छपते रहते हैं।

हम रक्षाबंधन मनाते हैं लेकिन ये नहीं समझ पाए कि अपनी बेटियों को छूट देना ही उनको असुरक्षित करना है । बेटी बहु की कमाई खाकर जब इज्जत चली जाएगी तो पैसे का क्या करेंगे ? मल्टीनेशनल कंपनियों में जॉब का नहीं जीजा माता बनकर शिवाजी पैदा करने का ख्वाब देखें हिंदू लड़कियां ।

ये लेख लिखे और पढे जाने के बाद भी हिंदू लड़कियां फंसेंगी और ये भी कहेंगी कि उनका अब्दुल अच्छा है जिहादी नहीं है और इसके बाद हिंदू वादी लेख लिखेंगे, बजरंग दल वाले प्रदर्शन करेंगे, लेकिन कुछ नहीं होगा क्योंकि हम अपनी लड़कियों को संस्कार देने में विफल हो चुके हैं और अब हम इसका परिणाम अभी ऐसे ही भुगतते रहेंगे ।

हम सभी के घर में बेटियां हैं और हमें विशेष सावधान रहना होगा क्योंकि इस घटना में एक गैंग का भी खुलासा हुआ है जिसने बताया है कि उसका काम ही हिंदू लड़कियों को फंसाना था और इस गैंग के रिश्ते अंतर्राष्ट्रीय आतंकी संगठनों से जुड़े बताए जा रहे हैं ।

सम्पत सारस्वत बामनवाली
समीक्षक, प्रसार भारती दिल्ली

Muslim colonialism in India- A concealed topic

Dr Jadabeswar Bhattacharjee
-
0
Muslim colonialism in India- A concealed topic

Indians, rightly, have a tendency to criticize the 200 years of British evil colonialism in India, during which the British took away about 45 trillion of Dollars from the country. In this colonial narrative, we also unconsciously accept that about 550 years of foreign-Muslim rule in India was very benign, unifying, inclusive and pro-Hindus. Such acceptance is furthest from the truth.

To talk about ‘Muslim Colonialism’ at mental level, J Sai Deepak in his recently published (23 August, 2022) book ‘India, Bharat and Pakistan’ has coined the term Middle-Eastern Coloniality. Study of history shows that this Middle-Eastern Coloniality had its advent in India at the moment the first Muslim state was set up, that is, the Delhi Sultanate, in AD 1206. Let us look at a few points about this Middle-Eastern Coloniality vis-à-vis the political set-up, the economic set-up, the language set-up, and the cultural set-up.

When Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the Turkish Muslim invader of India, established Sultanate in Delhi during AD 1206, the entire Cabinet consisted of forty Turks. It was a very close political system from the beginning and it remained so for about a hundred years till the time of Khalji, when there was a revolt and a new batch of foreign Muslims came from Khalaz in Afghanistan to run the administration. In the time of Sayyid in the early 15th century, about 22 Afghan families shared all the political posts among themselves. So Middle-Eastern Coloniality, as far as the political set-up in Delhi is concerned, began like that in India in the early thirteenth century.

When the Mughal Babur invaded and established kingdom in India, he brought with him two groups of foreign Muslim people, one was Irani from Iran and the other was a Central Asian or Turani. The entire Ministry consisted of these two groups. There was no question of accommodating or giving space to any Indian Muslims or Rajput or whoever.

Next Mughal emperor Humayun was exiled by Sher Shah, an Afghan Chieftain from Bihar, in the mid-sixteenth century. When Humayun came back and occupied Delhi, he brought more foreign groups of Muslims and they alone controlled the polity. Things began to change in the time of Akbar. Because he was a young boy and he was all the time threatened with revolts by other foreign Muslim groups in India, who said that they were from more distinguished family and had divine right to sit on the throne of Hindustan.

That was when Akbar realised that all the weight in the scale was on one side, that is foreign Muslim nobles. He decided to have some weight on the other side of the scale. Being an intelligent person, he inducted two groups in the administration. One was the Rajput and other was the Indian Muslim. Akbar took Indian Muslim, because no foreign Muslim noble would choose them as their leader and Rajput was taken because they were sword arms of Hindu society.

So, the composition of ruling class in Mughal period remained 70 percent foreign born Muslims, 15 percent Rajput and 15 percent Indian Muslim. This remained unchanged virtually till the reign of Aurangzeb (AD 1658 to AD 1707). Even when the Mughal empire went into decline, this very coloniality continued.

This could be seen in the appointment of Governors in important provinces of India like Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad as late as in eighteenth century. And whom did the Mughal appoint in Awadh? An Iranian, who had come to India in 1708 and in 1722 was made Governor of the important province of Awadh.

The same thing happened in Bengal. But that was more interesting. There was a young Hindu Brahmin boy (Surya Narayan Misra) in the Deccan and one Iranian noble man adopted him and converted him to Islam. The Iranian noble served in various posts in the Mughal empire. Then he went back to Iran and when he died, his converted Muslim adopted son came back to India in 1699. In 1700 Aurangzeb appointed him the Diwan of Bengal. In 1702 Aurangzeb gave him the title of Murshid Quli Khan and he became Governor of Bengal in 1717.

In Hyderabad, the father of the foreign Muslim noble who was appointed as Governor, had come to India in the time of Shah Jahan. He claimed to be the descendent of Abu Bakr the Caliph. So, the racial prejudice and superiority of foreign Muslims in India continued. There was no doubt about the Middle-Eastern Coloniality during the Sultanate and Mughal period in India. Foreign Muslims were coming to India even as late as in the eighteenth century and getting top posts.

Coming to the issue of economic coloniality during Muslim rule in India, entire revenue was mostly coming from agriculture. In the Hindu system it was that, the ruler was to tax the peasants as much as a bee extracted honey from flowers. The taxation was not allowed to hurt the peasantry. But in the Muslim Sultanate and Mughal period the land tax was almost as much as the entire produce of the majority of the peasant community. Many foreign travellers had described the pathetic state of the exploited peasantry under Muslim rule in India. The peasants, at many places tried to run away, but the local officials of Muslim rulers brought them back.

That apart, the entire surplus of agriculture in Mughal time, was distributed among about 1600 persons including emperor, relatives of emperors and nobility of foreign origin. Each member of the foreign ruling and noble class had to keep soldiers for the service of the empire. These 1600 people spent about 50 percent of their income in maintaining the troops. And Akbar spent another 10 percent on the troops. That meant that about 60 percent of resources was spent on troops when India did not face any external threat. This was just conspicuous consumption of resources and the peasants got nothing in return even during the rule of Akbar.

In the cultural aspect, Akbar whom we revered so much, decreed that Persian be the language of administration at all levels. Even the village Patwari, who kept the revenue records, had to learn Persian language. To teach Persian language to Indians, Akbar brought many Iranians from Iran and revised Madrasa curriculum so that Khatri and Kayasth of Hindu community could learn that foreign language. This was an unfortunate aspect of Middle-Eastern Coloniality, which we fail to discuss.

The Persian language in India, under Mughal, derived its power from the state. When the Mughal empire started to decline, the Persian language also started losing support from the state. Under that situation, a new language had to be adopted. The language that was to be chosen was Hindavi (old Hindi) which was a naturally evolving local language then. But the problem of Hindavi was that it was written in Devnagri script and had a large number of Sanskrit words. With the evolution of Hindavi, an Islamized version of it was also growing up in North India from 13th century. Gradually that Islamized version of Hindavi became Urdu language by adopting a modified Persian script and substituting the Sanskrit words by Arabic, Persian and Turkish words. During the declining period of Mughal, the Muslim elites vigorously promoted Urdu in the name of fraudulent Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb to continue with their Arabic, Iranian or Turkish identity. The Mughal showed lack of interest and respect for the native Indian languages.

So far architecture was concerned, it was the rule in Mughal period that every lane, by-lane and highway should be dominated only by Mosques. The religious structures of every other community were pushed away from the public view. Man Singh, who was a friend of Akbar, was made Governor of Rohtas (in present day Haryana). In Rohtas, he bought a lot of land and wanted to build a big temple. Then the friend of the emperor got frightened that if he built a big temple the emperor would get angry. So, Man Singh built a Mosque over there and a small temple at the side. In his home state of Ambar, he wanted to build a temple in honour of his young son, who passed away. But it was built in the back lane. If one passed by, one would not even notice the temple.

With such a painful part of our history, we stupidly talk about Mughal-Rajput marriage alliances and Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb today. The Mughal always prided themselves on their Turkish ancestry. They proudly said that they were descendants of Taimur and never mentioned that Rajput blood also flew in their veins. Our today’s Taimur is also a product of Afghan Muslim, Peshawari Khatri, Bengali and Assamese Hindu blood. But his father will not accept that. Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi was proud of his Naneehal (Nawab of Bhopal), but Saif Ali Khan has been less interested about his Naneehal, which is a non-Muslim Bengali family of Kolkata. The Muslim colonial mind-set in India has not changed even today.

The whole issue of Jizya and Pilgrimage Tax also needs to be re-examined here. In the time of Shah Jahan, a very important Sanskrit scholar, Gavindacharya, came to Shah Jahan’s court and successfully made the emperor remove the Pilgrimage Tax which Hindus had to pay to visit Prayag. If Akbar was secular and removed all those taxes on Hindus, why did Gavindacharya have to come to Shah Jahan?

Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, the voluminous Islamic Law Book, was compiled during late seventeenth century at the initiative and support of Aurangzeb. Besides 300 Islamic scholars of South Asia, 200 Islamic scholars from Iraq and Hejaz were engaged for years to compile the 30 volumes of the work. Fatawa-e-Alamgiri tried to permanently make the Indian Muslims a people of non-Indian superior community. Aurangzeb was the last Mughal emperor to force the Muslim Colonialism in India in a big way including destruction of Hindu temples, forced conversion and reimposition of Jizya on Hindus. Unlike British, Muslim rulers of India had no “Home”. So, they exploited the majority Hindus and utilized resources to build mosques, burial tombs, forts and palaces across the country. Muslim rule in India had good administrative mechanism to serve the interest of the empire, but no developmental concept for benefit of common Indians.

Right from the first Muslim invasion of India by Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni in AD 1001, all Muslim invasions and rules in India were closely connected with the spread of Islam. The contempt for local Hindu Kafir was loud and clear among all Muslim invaders and rulers of India. The large group of Pasmanda Muslim in India today was the outcome of Muslim colonialism in India. However, the vastness of country, big size of population, deep and expanded jungle area and aversion of Hindus towards Islam could not make it possible to completely Islamise India. Thus, India remains a Hindu majority country even today.

All the famous foreign Sufi Saints, who came to India, were Jihadi in intent and action. Interestingly the four famous Sufi saints in India, Moinuddin, Fariduddin, Qutbuddin and Nizamuddin were all Afghans. They came with the Muslim invaders to India. They promoted foreign Muslim invaders and rulers of India and were engaged in conversion of local Hindus. When coaxing failed, they did not hesitate to resort to violence and treachery. It was ‘Momin’s Burden’ in India to convert sub-human Kafir to Islam. The statements and expressions of much-publicized secular Amir Khusro about the Hindus were full of contempt, sarcasm and hatred. The Islamic names of thousands of localities in India today carry the bad memories of the Muslim colonialism in India.

In conclusion, it can be said that two contrasting socio-religious views and two contrasting thought traditions were existing side by side in the entire mediaeval Muslim period of India and there is no evidence that the two met each other at any point. The royal and noble men and their family of Sultanate and Mughal empire spoke foreign languages, ate foreign cuisine, wore foreign dress, observed foreign religion, custom and tradition. They never got Indianized. They rather forced their foreign attributes in Indian society.

Unlike the British, the invading Muslim ruling class and nobles did not leave India as they either had nowhere to go or were better off in India. So, by staying back in India, after the advent of the British, they had not done any favour to Indian Hindus. With the failure of Sepoy Mutiny of AD 1857, they steadily came together and created Islamic Pakistan in 1947. Many of their cohort members still live in India with Islamic mind-set of Ghazwa-e-Hind. The large section of Pasmanda Muslims in India is also ready to take the role of foot soldiers for that Ghazwa and Muslim colonialism in India continues even today.

So, to talk of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb is to ignore what contested and painful memories Indian Hindus have of Sultanate and Mughal periods. But the so-called secular Nehruvian intellectuals of independent India white-washed those painful facts of our past. Ashrafism, which still prevails in India, in a concealed manner, even after about three hundred years of fall of Mughals, is a burning reminder of Islamic colonialism and apartheid in today’s India.

The Nehruvian Mediaeval Indian History, written in independent India, has been traitorous. It created a fake and utopian history of Muslim rule in India. Nehruvian Indian history shamelessly glorified Muslim rulers for no good reason. Nehru wanted to Islamize India at the cost of Indian civilization, culture, history and heritage. After the death of Patel and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and ouster of Ambedkar, there was no national level leader in India to challenge Nehru’s pathological mind. And the fraud of Hindu-Muslim unity and Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb was peddled by Nehruvian historians of India to unsuccessfully whitewash the Muslim colonialism in India.

[The article has been developed from the content of the speech of historian Dr Meenakshi Jain, which she delivered during the last week of August 2022, on the occasion of release function of author J Sai Deepak’s new book (“India, Bharat and Pakistan”). The author of this article has also added his input in the appropriate places of the article].

Sanatani libertarianism vs freebies

Neerajan Saha
-
0
Sanatani libertarianism vs freebies

According to Advocate J Sai Deepak, any ideology that has not originated in this land is necessarily antithetical to this land. This is the most important warning and framework for a discussion on reconciling free-market principles, libertarianism, and the idea of “small government” with Sanatan Dharma, based on this land’s history of resistance to foreign ideas.

First, let us analyze what is Libertarianism and whether it is harmonious or antithetical, and to what degree to Bharat and Sanatan Dharma. Libertarianism essentially is the polar opposite of the socialist/Ashokan “nanny State” or, as is known in more respectful terminology, the “welfare State”. Therefore, effectively, libertarians are opposed to the idea and demand that the State be the all-encompassing caring, loving parent who is always there for his/her child every step of the way, regardless of the child’s own choices and decisions.

The intended/unintended consequence of such an arrangement is that the State has almost complete power and authority over every matter concerning the daily actions of its citizens because with great responsibilities, come great powers. Bharat’s tryst with an almighty welfare State has given us ample data to reject the idea because of the semi-irreversible damage it did to its economy and the way it carried forward the baton of dehumanization of its citizens post Independence up until 1991.

We started getting the first sniff of libertarianism since 1991 as one no longer had to stand in queues, beg, borrow and steal for licenses or wait anywhere between 6 months to a few years for basic commodities like a radio or a two-wheeler. That regressive mindset of governance has not been done away with completely but, seems to be getting decommissioned gradually, without ruffling too many feathers.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is synonymous with the idea of a “small government”, which is fiscally conservative and leaves the markets free to operate as they please which ends up giving normal citizens more liberty to lead their life the way they wish to with dignity and without having to go to the local party’s office to get things done. The gist of this school of thought is: “the market will take care of it”.

If one analyzes the economic causality of any situation, one will see, that the market does take care of things better than the State. The fundamental reason is, that the State is an unaccountable faceless entity, whereas, a private firm providing a particular service is accountable every step of the way because it fears going out of business. The State never goes out of business. Only its CEOs and CFOs, so to speak, keep changing. Therefore, the State lacks the incentive to allocate resources efficiently. A political party’s only job is to come in control of the State using any number of ways to proselytize citizens to make them think that, their party is better than the other party.

Critically, this nature of “Rajneeti” which translates to “policy of governance” and not “politics”, happens to be analogous to the general Abrahamic nature of present times. Politicians are secular equivalents of missionaries going door to door telling people, “You are in darkness, and I have the ‘light'”.

This form of a political system results in a sympathetic way of looking at humans instead of empathetically. Sympathy is antithetical to respect. Sympathy is the notion that the “victim” is in a tough spot and has no way of getting out of it unless the saviour gives him a hand. The prior sentence may as well have been the summary of Abrahamism. Therefore, this saviour complex is inherently Abrahamic in nature and opposed to Dharma, which along with the Indic ways of societal harmony, stands on the pillar called respect.

Respect for that same “victim” in the same situation would cause one to listen to the victim’s predicament, understand the gravity of the situation, and appeal to the victim’s inner strength to stand up and fight and at best, construe a framework wherein the victim is empowered to get out of the situation and to not be a victim again. This is where the trifurcation between Libertarianism, Dharmic governance, and “welfare” begins.

The solution to any problem according to welfarists, seems to be to throw money at it. Suffice to say, they do not use their own money for throwing around. They use the State to force people, under threat of imprisonment, to come up with the money that they intend to throw around at problems either not faced or not even considered to be a problem by the people paying that money. Here, they start creating unintended consequences of incentivizing counterproductive behaviour that further dehumanizes the very people they wish to uplift. While for some, that is the intended consequence because a population in perpetual need of welfare is the fixed vote bank that will vote for anybody coming up with the biggest welfare announcements.

Other than the fact that this welfarist mindset is applied not just to the avenue of “freebies” but to a plethora of other situations, the most significant consequence is that the people in need of the welfare, remain so for the rest of their lives. Anyone may be born in an economically disadvantaged situation but curiously, the more the welfare mindset of a society, the more the chances of the families there remaining poor for generations. The common welfarist argument that “the poor are getting poorer” is devoid of data on specific people and is based on overall population data of the number of people under a certain income level, which includes immigration of poor people from other countries. With a variety of employment opportunities, a poor person does not stagnate in an economic class, as is the case in nations where welfarism is looked down upon.

It is in instances where employers are threatened with unimaginable numbers of licenses, “responsibilities”, and other laws that force them to pay less, not hire or downsize, that the citizens stop experiencing upward economic mobility. Therefore, the hypothetical victim’s poverty and sub-human welfare-dependency stem from the fact that the freebie given to him has come from impoverishing potential employers who could have hired him and paid him enough to lead a life of self-respect. Of course, the secret sauce to the discipline of being in employment for years, saving responsibly, which then leads to the person’s economic upliftment is also their family values but that is outside the scope of this essay.

Welfarists think they are creating an atmosphere of philanthropy and charity. In other words, they want the government to ensure that people are “moral” citizens. Although welfarists more often than not, are opposed to the idea of culture, religion & Dharma and thus end up creating a society where no morality exists, they show an incomparable faith in the government to manipulate human behaviour, thus ending up giving it powers beyond what it should wield. There are two other significant problems created by this framework of governance.

Firstly, a large number of government officials, think tanks, and academics are kept on permanent payroll on public money to collect data and distribute the welfare, all of whom have a direct financial incentive to not eradicate the problem because they will be out of a job the moment they solve the problem. Additionally, it means the tax “acquired” from people is not just for solving the problem but includes the salaries of the people in the middle, which also creates the need to have “contacts” to get facilities from the government that one has already paid for (the tax). Secondly, from the perspective of the “victim”, receiving monetary help from the State is equal to money simply falling from the sky as opposed to actual philanthropy. Simply because, charity is received from a person, or a face, to whom one feels gratitude, perhaps hopes to return the favour one day, if not vowing to never be in the situation ever again.

On the other hand, the government is a faceless entity to whom a person feels no personal attachment. As with lottery winners, the money simply disappears with time, no matter how large the amount, because managing money happens to be a separate skill set altogether. Therefore, taking people’s money without their consent, and throwing it in such bottomless pits is both bad for the nation’s economy as well as the person receiving it, because he is disincentivized to pursue other avenues.

Another shameful example of an unintended consequence of operating from a mindset of sympathy is that most students who get into institutions out of their intellectual league because of reservation, drop out because they cannot keep up with the rest of the students who get in based on their past performance in exams which predicate their knowledge, learning pace and most importantly, knowledge retention skills.

Not only does this create avoidable dropout statistics, but it also negatively affects the life of the student who would have done well in the institution but could not get in because he was not from the right social group and as well, the life of the student who got in, because she could have done better in a scenario where her academic peers are her intellectual equals.

For welfarism to work, the population under the government cannot be too diverse, or too big, and the government officials must be honest citizens. This is where Libertarianism offers the better alternative because with profit as the basis for the functioning of every societal institution, one’s inherent honesty or loyalty to the citizens is not a big factor. Quality of service becomes the foremost priority, devoid of which, the service provider goes out of business, adding to the fact that competition among multiple firms to provide the same service incentivizes innovation and also reduction of prices, both of which are absent when the government decides to provide the same service.

Here, the history of Bharat gifts us Sanatani Libertarianism. The “Kautilyan State”, as described by Kautilya in the 2300-year-old seminal treatise on governance and economics, the Arthashastra, is a strong sovereign State (while being ever suspicious of government employees), but sticks to creating frameworks, that facilitate a lifestyle of dignity and freedom, without handing out special treatments based on the suffering of one’s ancestors or their current financial condition, and without treating the environment as just another resource to be exploited.

The only instances of freebies were that people with special intellectual contributions to society were not to be charged for salt and while traveling in ferries. Kautilya describes a large number of job opportunities as well as entertainment avenues ranging from consuming art, alcohol, to prostitution, which was also State-sanctioned and took place in State-maintained institutions (being an era before the advent of Victorian hypocrisy).

Here, the welfarist would argue that the “Kautiliyan State” is heartless for not having elaborate freebies for everyone in need while the libertarian would argue that there was no need for the State to take care of these things as the market could have done it. Here, the libertarian’s implied end goal is that there be no State and everyone magically live happily ever after without conflict, also known as Anarcho-Capitalism.

This idea of a borderless society has no real-life use because it is dependent on everyone else in the world following the idea word for word. The welfarist argument is based on more patronizing premises. The welfarist assumes that any person who is not as wealthy as the wealthiest person around him is surely leading a life of shame and no worth. The welfarist projects his world view of jealousy on every non-wealthy person (interestingly, the translation of the words “jealousy” and “violence” are interchangeable in Indic languages, which is, “Hingsa”).

Therefore, Sanatani Libertarianism, the Bharatiya option simply adds “providing frameworks of entrepreneurship without trampling on nature” to the list of the otherwise standard libertarian position that a State, if existent, should stick to protecting life, liberty, and property.

China makes inroads into Taiwan again- What does this Imply for India?

ainesh28
-
0
China makes inroads into Taiwan again- What does this Imply for India?

Abstract:

Increased Chinese intervention in Taiwan has not disrupted the balance of international order, but also changed the diplomatic course of regional titans like India. Given how the world’s largest democracy shares a rich history of long standing commitment to principles of dialogue and negotiation, that form the very foundation of its calibrated foreign policy, such constraints could arguably raise potential eye brows over its geo-strategic existence in the subcontinent.

With its gradual shift from the “One China Policy”, India envisions greater ties with Taiwan through shared understanding across different spheres of international co-operation.

However, social and economic implications in view of the Chinese brainchild of “ Belt and Road Initiative”, is likely to bring about a profound bearing on its policy in Taiwan. This article examines all the aforementioned aspects with an insightful touch, and puts forth propositions in the larger Indian context.

Broader Chinese Hegemony An Introduction :

Chinese motives, have always raised numerous eyebrows across the world. Interpreted in the light of the present scenario of a pandemic stricken atmosphere, such perspectives have been further amplified. In what is explicitly referred to as, “The Wuhan Virus”, though a lot is still under speculation, there is no doubt that, the very monumental presence of China, has diminished, owing to the resultant constrained diplomatic relationships, especially with the West.

Two years have passed, ever since the pandemic wooed us into an array of uncertainties, however nothing seems to have changed for the Chinese. On the 23rd of January, 2022, the Chinese Air force breached the Taiwan air space, by sending over 39 missiles into its air identification zone. Notwithstanding the several warnings from the Taiwan’s Defence Ministry to the People’s Liberation Army, incursions were ramped up even further to denigrate the very sovereignty of the nation.

Out of the 39 war planes that flanked into the zone, 34 were fighter jets, one being a bomber and the other four comprised war planes and intelligence gathering planes, respectively. To a lay individual, this may seem strange and unique on a cursory glance, however it isn’t. Moreover, this is not the first time, China unleashed it’s perilous prospects in Taiwan. In October 2021, over 150 planes were dispatched making incisive inroads into Taiwan’s national security, coinciding with the “Chinese National Day”, considered a key national holiday.

Such actions are said to have been executed across the Strait between the mainland of Taiwan and China. Quite strikingly, such claims seemed have cast aside by the officials of the CCP, who in turn accused Taiwan of repeating the same activities on a much wider scale, during the course of the visit of Keith Krach, a senior US official.

Chinese stand on Taiwan:

Over the years, China has hailed Taiwan, as an integral element of its nation, thereby stifling all sorts of international endeavors to interfere. Chinese Foreign Minister has put forth that “ There should be no expectation from China, to compromise on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Such blistering remarks seemed to have etched a trail of destruction, and Taiwan has had to play the victim.

Despite whole hearted promises, made by the Biden administration to stake all for the welfare of Taiwan, in order to combat the growing upheaval, triggered by ghastly Chinese ambitions in around the subcontinent, no substantive actions could be channelized. On the political front, China has never failed to impress the world by its prowess of meddling in the internal issues of any nation. Similarly in the case of Taiwan, it tried to flare up armed rebellions among the citizens, and also prodding opposition leaders into electoral malpractices, for the need of a government, which would cater to its whimsical policies.

Not surprisingly, this was exactly manifested in the 2018 elections. The present government of the CCP under Xi Jinping, has never spared any effort to historically clamp down on the ambitions of self determination, as amplified by local activists of the region, arguing in favour of the stretch of Chinese hegemony.

Premising such dastardly attacks on historical sources, it has virtually ensnared the innocent citizens into submission.

Impending implications on India:

Indian stand on this so called “One China Policy”, has rather been on the passive side. In order to restrain the successful takeover of a thriving democracy by an authoritarian state, she along with the international community, should take gigantic strides towards the restoration of normalcy in this region.

Despite inactive diplomatic ties since 1995, both India and Taiwan have endeavoured to maintain constructive electoral practices, with representative offices held between the two, as de facto embassies. If China were to successfully capture Taiwan, perhaps a grave threat would loom over the balance of power in South East Asian politics. It would seem to fuel China’s monopolistic ambitions across the subcontinent, thereby thwarting India’s image as a potential global contender at large.

Building on this, it is imperative that India streamlines her geopolitical stature, in the South East Asian region to fruitfully deal with the Chinese threat. Moreover, it should also develop conducive relations, not only with Taiwan, but also it’s neighbouring countries to gain support for the Taiwan issue, by exploring prudent diplomatic options.

Quid Pro Quo: An instrument of strategic realignment in Indian Foreign Policy of the Modi era

hrithiksingh
-
0
Quid Pro Quo: An instrument of strategic realignment in Indian Foreign Policy of the Modi era

The phrase of Quid pro Quo though used extensively in economic literature as ‘an agreement between two or more parties in which there is a reciprocal exchange of goods or services’, but here it is used to reflect some of the recent principles and policy positions which were taken by the Government of India, which has led to a strategic realignment of the Indian foreign policy in context to global issues.

Whether it is the Russia-Ukraine conflict, buying of discounted Russian oil despite western sanctions, engagement with the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the closer defense relations with countries of the South China Sea, all of them are signs of realignment in New Delhi’s strategic consideration in context to global affairs. This departure from long-standing self-imposed idealism and underrated response to a more pragmatic and proactive response is noteworthy. Many Indian scholars who have welcomed this approach of policymakers publish a lot of literature in this regard. This internal realization of quid pro quo as the basis of a successful foreign policy is the foundation of a New India, a leader of the 21st-century global order.  

Along with this interest and issue-based strategic alignment of India with both west and the eastern powers, the realization of the importance of aggressive strategic communications both within the country and abroad to counter fake news & propaganda by our adversaries is the only way forward to meet the objectives our strategic autonomy in this highly polarized geopolitics. One can surely observe that India learned this hard way, after realizing that its ethnoreligious and regionist faultlines are easily exploitable. Whether it is Jihad in Kashmir or the CAA & Farm protests, each of these issues has highlighted how focused and targeted communication can lead to civil unrest and anarchy.

Both Pakistan and China have used the information domain as a ‘grey zone of warfare’ to augment their strategic objectives in countering a stronger India. In the case of Pakistan, this responsibility is undertaken by an Army-controlled institution, which is Inter-Services Public Relations, i.e, ISPR but in the case of China, this is more compartmentalized. They have different policies and institutions that carry out information warfare in different domains like foreign affairs, media, defense, etc.

Their tried and tested ‘wolf worrier diplomacy’ may be attributed to such aggressive and assertive diplomacy which has emboldened the power of China. But in recent times, this approach has yielded suboptimal and disastrous results on the global stage. The Chinese flagship global and multilateral initiatives like the OBOR are not only facing bottlenecks due to financial misappropriation of the Chinese banks and financial institutions but also a very severe opposition in the aligning and partner countries due to their ambiguous nature.

This core issue of mistrust in Chinese initiatives and deeds has been primarily due to its nefarious intention and not its tarnished image as a gross violator of Human Rights, especially in the case of Uyghur Muslims. Its growing ambitions in Indo-Pacific and sovereign claims on disputed territories like the area along the Line of Actual Control in Laddakh, Senkaku Islands of Japan, or the entire region of south china sea has seen a small but gradual push back from the respective countries where the escalation have been propelled by the Chinese Aggression.

Such unprovoked aggression with bandwagons of propaganda by the wolf worriers in the information space has led to a turnaround in the sentiments and goodwill of China. The countries have gradually realized this debt-trap enslavement of smaller and island nations is part of their strategy popularly dubbed the ‘Chinese Marshall Plan’. This doctrine of buying influence through developmental debts has resulted in critical attributions like ‘Modern-day Economic Imperialism of Communist China’ and whatnot. Many such strongly worded but true slurs have been barraged over china after the fallout of Covid-19 where its meek and conspicuous response lead to a continuum of catastrophe that ravaged the world. 

However, the counter-response of many countries against such a bullish approach may be a smidgen in the art of diplomacy but recently, the US took the lead to call out the bluff of Chinese threats and warmongering, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went ahead with her visit to the Republic of China aka Taiwan. Despite a fierce campaign in media and military drills in Fujian Province (which is very close to Taiwanese Island), the visit happened and China was left red-faced.

A similar pushback was given by Indians too, not like one in Galwan but in Sri Lanka. There was a spat between Indian and Chinese diplomatic missions in Sri Lanka over the docking of the Yuan Wang 5 ship at Hambantota Port. Yuan Wang 5 is one of China’s latest generation space-tracking ships, used to monitor satellite, rocket, and intercontinental ballistic missile launches. India registered its diplomatic protest with Sri Lanka over its docking, but after much back and forth Lankans approved and Qi Zhenhong wrote a piece for Sri Lankan Guardian on the 26th of August titled “From One-China Principle to ‘Yuan Wang 5’: Let’s Join Hands and Resolutely Safeguard Our Sovereignty, Independence and Territorial Integrity”.

Without naming India directly, a lot of attributions were made to which a strong and befitting response was made by the mission’s Twitter handle, one such tweet stated, “Opaqueness and debt-driven agendas are now a major challenge, especially for smaller nations. Recent developments are a caution. Sri Lanka needs support, not unwanted pressure or unnecessary controversies to serve another country’s agenda.”

In Geopolitics war of words between nations is very common but here the important underpinning is the tone and tenner in which the rebuttal is given. This unusual shift from a dolloping response to a more cogitative and aggressive one has now become a new normal in the Modi Era of Indian diplomacy. Since 2014, the proactive approach towards the burgeoning issue of geopolitics has become a hallmark of the realignment in Indian Foreign policy that has made world powers accept India as a major player in almost all issues of global eminence.

This realignment of policies shaped around its practical viability for serving Indian interests, always and everywhere, with no compromise on sovereign and strategic matters, is a testament to India’s growing self-confidence in its own choices and capabilities.

Since Dr. Jaishankar took charge as India’s Foreign Minister, he has invigorated this resolve. His defense of India’s Oil purchases from Russia during the joint press conference of the 2+2 ministerial dialogue in Washington DC is nothing short of setting the tone which resonates with India’s First Doctrine. His honest way of outrightly speaking unvarnished truth about India’s position on various issues has undergirded the trustworthiness of Indian commitments and policies.

The fundamental difference between China’s wolf worrier approach and India’s assertive diplomacy is clarity, ingenuity, honesty, and reliability. It is due to these inherent and characteristic differences, India’s Strategic Realignment with various bilateral and multilateral groupings based on the quid pro quo principle has been successful where its strategic autonomy to charter its course has remained the same.

Though challenges exist especially in the information space which leaves a gateway of ‘grey zone warfare’ but a persistent realization and adequate policy revision may give the desired objectives of a New India.


Writer’s Bio:
Hrithik Singh (also known by the pen name Gaurav Rajmohan Narayan Singh), an acclaimed Debater, a Writer, a Poet and a Blogger. He is the Vice-President of a student led NGO Embryonic Foundation, Lucknow. As a debater, he has taken part and been meritorious in many Formal Summits, Youth Parliaments and Model United Nations, including the prestigious National Youth Parliament, organized by the Government of India. Along with this, he even participated in various events like Yuva-Sammelan of Vivekananda Youth Forum (organized by Ramkrishna Mission, Indore, 2018) and Vishwa Hindi Sammelan (Bhopal, 2015) organized in the field of Social Service and Hindi Literature. He still continues to devote himself to his concept of nation-building and has been frequently writing on the issues of international relations and economics. Currently, he has finished his undergraduate degree in Economics and an Advance Diploma in Functional Hindi and Journalism from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

India: A geopolitical and a geostrategic player?

oktayd506
-
0
India: A geopolitical and a geostrategic player?

China’s economic rise and modernization process, which began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, not only made it a prominent actor in the international system in the 2000s, but also attracted attention to East Asia and the Asia-Pacific region in general. In short, in the last thirty or forty years, there has been a power shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific region, led by China in particular.

Naturally, the architect and the leading actor of the current order, the United States (US), has built its future vision on the Asia-Pacific and the recently highlighted Indo-Pacific region rather than the Atlantic, the Middle East or any other region since the 2010s. Basically, the essence of both strategies is to shift the global strategic weight from the Atlantic to the Pacific region for the US.

In this respect, with the ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy initiated during the period of President Barack Obama, the US not only strengthened the San Francisco alliance system it established after the World War II in the region, but also tried to improve its relations with new partners. While the US’s relations based on the bilateral alliance system consist of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines, Vietnam and India stand out among new partners.

Moreover, it has supported the development of relations between its allies and partners. Similar political initiatives continue in the vision of the Indo-Pacific, which was announced during President Trump and continued under Biden administration. However, among all these political initiatives, India is the most critical and strategic country for the US. The main reason that makes India important in the regional strategy of the US stems from its geopolitical position because India, as a country with the potential to be a great power in the southern sub-region of Asia in the US strategy, is intended to be revealed as a counterweight to China.

The US clearly sees China as a rising power trying to change the status-qua in the Asia-Pacific region. therefore, for the last few years, it does not define China as a strategic partner, as it used to, but as a strategic competitor or systemic rival. Factors such as China’s geographic, economic, military, and population size leave little choice for the US to find as a counterbalance or hedging actor against China.

In this context, US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Gilday said in a seminar organized by the Heritage Foundation in Washington on Thursday, august 26, 2022, “India will be crucial partner for America in the future, playing a key role in countering China. India presents China with a two-front problem.” These statements, in fact, reflect the significance of India’s geopolitics in the US strategic calculations. In the eyes of the Americans, India can act as an important second front in its rivalry with China or in the event of a possible conflict, keeping China’s attention from focusing only on Taiwan or the Pacific region.

So, would it be the right approach for India to align with the United States and turn to a bloc policy against China? First of all, India currently has a weak profile among the countries in the region, in particular among ASEAN countries. If it wants to develop its profile within the framework of “Look East” policy, its alignment with the US, which is an extra-regional power and moreover, perceived as an interventionist power, will not raise its profile amid the countries of the region. On the contrary, it can have the opposite effect as it can be seen as a move that forces them to choose sides in the regional rivalry between the US and China.

In addition, it is both an opportunity and danger for India that the US deployed its 60 % of its naval presence in the Pacific, strengthened its allies and developed partnerships in the region. it is a fact that although the two most important actors of this century’s international relations are the US and China, India is the most strategic country of this century due to its geostrategic importance in the competition of these two countries. Therefore, India’s position in the US-China competition will not only determine whether it will be the third great power next to the US and China, but also will determine the course of global relations.

Why should India align with the Us on the issues such as the East and South China Sea disputes or Taiwan, which are of little geopolitical concern to India? Such a misalignment would not make India the third major power in the future. Therefore, it is essential for India to remain neutral in the US-China competition and to maintain strategic partnerships with both countries.

It can be argued here that the border problems between India and China may create problems in maintaining the strategic partnership. However, it should not be forgotten, can the US be an actor that can contribute to the solution of India’s border problems with China? No way because from Washington’s point of view, India should remain an actor that will create a big headache against China and the parties should not be able to solve the problem/ as long as the existence of the problem is in the interest of Washington, it is out of question for the US to be a part of the solution. Therefore, the starting place and the ending place of the solution are the dialogue and negotiation table between New Delhi and Pekin.

Finally, unless China’s pressure in India increases and India has no choice but to align with the US, it should not be included in the US’s Indo-Pacific vision and contribute to the formation of a kind of bloc politics. Moreover, in the early years of the Cold War, India remained neutral in the rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, becoming one of the leading countries of the Non-Aligned Movement under the leadership of Prime Minister Nehru and embracing the five principles of peaceful co-existence. Since then, it has continued this policy and has not entered into an alliance with any country.

In the current rivalry between the US and China, if New Delhi takes place in the US’ vision of Into-Pacific, it will only reflect its geopolitical importance in US strategies. However, what is more important for India will be its geostrategic importance in the competition between the US and China. This is only possible if India remains neutral. It cannot be possible for one side to be a “balancer” or “hedging actor” for the other in the US-China rivalry. The most ideal is to play the role of balancer of balance by using its geostrategic importance.

India @ 75th year of Independence– My view

sparth
-
0
India @ 75th year of Independence– My view

India just turned 75th year since its independence from years of British colonial administration. It’s time we Indians wear the badge of pride for our cultural heritage, magnificent diversity, resilient democracy and for our astonishing achievements in the realm of science and technology, arts and literature, and in world economies.

Prime Minister Modi, in his Independence Day speech emphatically assured the nation on his priorities towards making India into a developed country by the time it turns 100th year of Independence.

His lambasting corruption and nepotism as nation’s deep seeded malaises that are crumpling India’s growth trajectory reassures Indians of the current government’s priorities in the right direction. 

Recent anti-money laundering raids on unscrupulous businessmen and politicians further substantiated his intentions towards fighting against corruption. These are definitely welcome events and I sincerely hope the momentum continues till the systems get cleaner.

Indian economic liberalization started in 1991 with dismantling of License raj and welcoming foreign investment, generating immediate results from considerably reducing poverty to integrating India with its global peers. Although the economic progress continues for the next decades, the stereotypical “Slumdog Millionaire” depiction of poverty-stricken India didn’t change much.

Indian society remained stratified within regional, religious and economic apportionments, with corruptions and moral degradation splintering Indian societies. Many Indians, including me, started feeling suffocated with rampant injustice and looking for opportunities in western countries for career progression and comfort living.

However, for the last few years, starting 2014, the perceptions about India started changing in the eyes of many hard-working honest Indians, both living in India as well as overseas. 

Indian Union Government pushed for stringent reforms to revive economy, from GST implementation to increasing FDIs to making transparent governance and strengthened defense infrastructure. On socialistic side, the administration did an impressive account in implementing bold but long-overdue steps, from revoking article 370 to integrate J&K with the India to passing NRC and CAA bills in the parliament.

Modi’s flagship “Make in India” scheme to revive India’s manufacturing sector and to make India the chicest investment destination for the world. Top world-class companies started their manufacturing units in India, with the most recent entry of Apple Inc. for iPhone 14 manufacturing in India. 

India under Modi, moved up significantly in ease of doing business ranking, from 142 in 2014 to an impressive 63 this year.

India leaped past its colonial ruler UK, to bag the prestigious tag of 5th largest economy in the world, per GDP figures. 

During pandemic times, India came out to contribute India made vaccine to multiple countries in the world.

In almost every sphere, I see India is increasingly emerging as a stronger, mightier nation and an impending economic superpower that we Indians are longing to experience.

About the Author:

Partha is an IT consultant, working for an MNC in Ontario, Canada, with a penchant for writing on social and Political issues across the world.

Horror of Love Jihad strikes India again but sickular left ecosystem dumbstruck

Saurav Dutt
-
0
Horror of Love Jihad strikes India again but sickular left ecosystem dumbstruck

A despicable case of grooming jihad has infuriated India after a Hindu woman was set ablaze by her Muslim neighbour: a man who stalked and harassed her, deciding to burn her alive after she repeatedly turned down his romantic overtures.

The liberal ecosystem within India is not dissimilar to the United States or other western political theatres which are remarkably quick to buckle under cries of Islamophobia if suspects, assailants, perpetrators of any crime happen to be Muslim.

Despite its pluralism, and the fact that the majority religion (Hinduism) lives peacefully with the minority religions of Islam and Christianity, there are frequently shrill cries from media, academia and the chattering classes whenever any aspect of Hindu culture is seen to usurp Islamic hegemony.

The concept of Love Jihad (or grooming jihad) is seen as conspiratorial, abjectly hate fuelled against Muslims in particular, fascistic and further ‘proof’ that India has long been sliding into a Hindu dominated ethnostate that seeks to crush and erase all Muslim citizens within its 1.6 billion population. The fact that Narenda Modi and Donald Trump got on like a house on fire was further proof to them of this. Quite why this hasn’t happened since 2014, when the ‘brown Hitler Narenda Modi’ ascended to the premiership seems to escape the ambit of their conspiracy theories.

Yet the horrific case of one Ankita Kumari is remarkable for the callous indifference the Islamic perpetrator has shown towards his victim; it is also notable for the gaping silence from the Indian liberal class which usually hurries to blame Hindus for victimising Muslims yet are notably slow to leap to conclusions when the roles are reversed.

Ankita Kumari from Dhumka in Jharkand had been stalked and harassed by one Shahrukh Hussain for over five years, a craven obsession that began when she was a child. His attempts to lure her were persistent, utilising mutual connections in a Muslim dominated area where she lived to win her over. She remained steadfast in her objection against a romantic relationship and refused him every time. While his attempts to groom her did not impede his resolve or zeal, what really set him off when was the kaffir Ankita dared to chastise him for his abhorrent behaviour.

On August 23, at around 4 AM, Hussain poured gasoline on Ankita from her bedroom window and set her ablaze. She woke up horrified to find her body engulfed in flames, screaming in pain to alert her family as Hussain slipped away in the darkness. Doctors at the Phoolo Jhano Medical College Hospital reported she had suffered 90% severe burns and while she held on for four days-in excruciating pain-she eventually succumbed to the attack at 2:30 Am on Sunday.

In an upsetting video that has gone viral, Ankita declared that Shahrukh Hussain had threatened to kill her the night before, informing her father of this fact and wishing that her assailant perished amidst as much pain as she was experiencing. The brutality of this attack sits against the backdrop of an Indian judicial system and liberal ecosystem that is reluctant to victimise Muslims even if they burn victims alive. To punish such an individual sits uncomfortably with the secular image that the world’s largest democracy seeks to amplify to the world at large, a nation which western press outlets frequently and unabashedly accuse of degenerating into a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ or Hindu dominated ethnostate that proactively victimises its Muslim populace.

Shahrukh Hussain is fulfilling the role of an Islamist thug that sought fit to destroy the ‘kaffir’ who dared turn down his romantic overtures. That she was a Hindu was a particularly galling insult. The hate and bigotry that Love Jihad exemplifies makes liberals squirm whether it is in India, New York, or in Rochdale or Telford in the United Kingdom. A video of Hussain’s arrest has gone viral on social media, showing him clearly smiling with no indication of the gravity of the crime he has committed or the brutality in which it was carried out; this is unsurprising because Ankita was nothing less than a kaffir to him before she was set ablaze and after rejecting him was worthy of retribution.

In India those few press outlets that have bothered to report this hideous crime have been careful to obscure the identity of Hussain as well as that of Ankita given their respective religious backgrounds, with the tentpole media house India Today even misleadingly representing Shahrukh Hussain as one ‘Abhishek’ a Hindu first name. In India if the faith of the perpetrator happens to be Hindu and the victim a Muslim or Christian, the left wastes no time in whipping up hysteria about how minorities are being ‘persecuted’ and that ‘rising intolerance’ is afflicting the nation, regardless of the fact that those crimes were devoid of any religious element.

We have seen examples of brutality meted out to Hindus for daring to question any orthodoxy promoted by Islamists, mostly centred around the recent controversy around BJP government spokesperson Nupur Sharma (now in hiding lest she suffer the same fate as Salman Rushdie) for daring to offer remarks against the Prophet Muhammad in a television news debate. Those who dared to offer support, to ‘like’ or share comments that were outwardly partisan to Sharma were swiftly dealt with my Islamist murder gangs (Kanhaiya Lal and Umesh Kohle being just two murders).

Time will tell how the Indian media and judiciary handle the perpetrator but don’t expect to see the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times and other outlets to replace their outright hatred of Modi and the so-called new ‘direction’ of India to be replaced with accurate reportage about what has happened here; and if they do prepare to read the obfuscated version that sidesteps the identity and religion of the jihadist who committed this act of terror against a kaffir who dared to disrespect him.

Saurav Dutt is an Author, Political Commentator and Human Rights Activist. He can be found on Twitter on @sd_saurav.

1...727374...889Page 73 of 889