इतिहास फिर से क्यों लिखा जाना चाहिए

आम चुनाव में भारतीय जनता पार्टी की भारी-भरकम जीत के साथ ही यह तय हो गया था कि अब देश में इतिहास को लेकर विवाद उठेगा. भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सरकार इतिहास को फिर से लिखने की कोशिश करेगी, जिसका विरोध भी होगा. सरकार के अभी सौ दिन पूरे नहीं हुए हैं, लेकिन यह विवाद भी शुरू हो गया और विरोध का बिगुल भी फूंक दिया गया. जब अटल जी की सरकार बनी थी, तब भी इतिहास को फिर से लिखने की कोशिश की गई थी. सबसे पहले एनसीईआरटी की किताबें बदली गईं. लेकिन तत्कालीन मानव संसाधन मंत्री मुरली मनोहर जोशी ने यह काम ऐसे लोगों के हाथों में दे दिया, जो इतिहास की किताबें लिखने में अपरिपक्व साबित हुए. वे मजाक के पात्र बन गए. जब अटल जी की सरकार चली गई, तो उन किताबों को भी कूड़ेदान में फेंक दिया गया. फिर से मार्क्सवादी इतिहासकारों ने अपना कब्जा जमा लिया. पहला सवाल यह है कि क्या इतिहास को फिर से लिखना उचित है? दूसरा सवाल यह है कि देश के इतिहास का आधार और औचित्य क्या होना चाहिए? तीसरा सवाल यह कि पुनर्लेखन के नाम पर मिथकों को सच बताना क्या इतिहास है?

---

भारत दुनिया का शायद अकेला ऐसा देश होगा, जहां के आधिकारिक इतिहास की शुरुआत में ही यह बताया जाता है कि भारत में रहने वाले लोग यहां के मूल निवासी नहीं हैं. भारत में रहने वाले अधिकांश लोग भारत के हैं ही नहीं. ये सब विदेश से आए हैं. इतिहासकारों ने बताया कि हम आर्य हैं. हम बाहर से आए हैं. कहां से आए? इसका कोई सटीक जवाब नहीं है. फिर भी बाहर से आए. आर्य कहां से आए, इसका जवाब ढूंढने के लिए कोई इतिहास के पन्नों को पलटे, तो पता चलेगा कि कोई सेंट्रल एशिया कहता है, तो कोई साइबेरिया, तो कोई मंगोलिया, तो कोई ट्रांस कोकेशिया, तो कुछ ने आर्यों को स्कैंडेनेविया का बताया. आर्य धरती के किस हिस्से के मूल निवासी थे, यह इतिहासकारों के लिए आज भी मिथक है. मतलब यह कि किसी के पास आर्यों का सुबूत नहीं है, फिर भी साइबेरिया से लेकर स्कैंडेनेविया तक, हर कोई अपने-अपने हिसाब से आर्यों का पता बता देता है. भारत में आर्य अगर बाहर से आए, तो कहां से आए और कब आए, यह एक महत्वपूर्ण सवाल है. यह भारत के लोगों की पहचान का सवाल है. विश्‍वविद्यालयों में बैठे बड़े-बड़े इतिहासकारों को इन सवालों का जवाब देना है. सवाल पूछने वाले की मंशा पर सवाल उठाकर इतिहास के मूल प्रश्‍नों पर पर्दा नहीं डाला जा सकता है.

आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी का सच यह बहुत कम लोग जानते हैं कि आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी (आर्य आक्रमण सिद्धांत) की उत्पत्ति की जड़ में ईसाई-यहूदी वैचारिक लड़ाई है. आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी की उत्पत्ति 18वीं शताब्दी में यूरोप, ख़ासकर जर्मनी में हुई. उस वक्त के इतिहासकारों एवं दार्शनिकों ने यूरोपीय सभ्यता को जुडाइज्म (यहूदी) से मुक्त करने के लिए यह थ्योरी प्रचारित की. कांट एवं हरडर जैसे दार्शनिकों ने भारत और चीन के मिथकों तथा दर्शन को यूरोपीय सभ्यता से जोड़ने की कोशिश की. वे नहीं चाहते थे कि यूरोपीय सभ्यता को जुडाइज्म से जोड़कर देखा जाए. इसलिए उन्होंने यह दलील दी कि यूरोप में जो लोग हैं, वे यहूदी नहीं, बल्कि चीन और भारत से आए हैं. उनका नाम उन्होंने आर्य रखा. समझने वाली बात यह है कि चीन और भारत के सभी लोग आर्य नहीं थे. उनके मुताबिक़, एशिया के पहाड़ों में रहने वाले सफेद चमड़ी वाले कबीलाई लोग आर्य थे, जो यूरोप में आकर बसे और ईसाई धर्म अपनाया. यूरोप में आर्य को एक अलग रेस माना जाने लगा. यह एक सर्वमान्य थ्योरी मानी जाने लगी. आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी की उत्पत्ति मूल रूप से यूरोप के लिए की गई थी. जब अंग्रेजों ने भारत का इतिहास समझना शुरू किया, तो आश्‍चर्य की बात यह है कि उन्होंने इस थ्योरी को भारत पर भी लागू कर दिया. 1866 से आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी ऑफ इंडिया को भारत के इतिहास का हिस्सा बना दिया गया. बताया गया कि भारत के श्‍वेत रंग के, उच्च जाति के शासक वर्ग और यूरोपीय उपनिवेशक एक ही प्रजाति के हैं. यह थ्योरी अंग्रेजों के काम भी आई. अंग्रेज बाहरी नहीं है और उनका भारत पर शासन करना उतना ही अधिकृत है, जितना यहां के राजाओं का. अंग्रेजों को भारत में शासन करने के लिए इन हथकंडों की ज़रूरत थी. लेकिन यह बात समझ में नहीं आती कि आज़ादी के बाद भी वामपंथी इतिहासकारों ने इस थ्योरी को जड़-मूल से ख़त्म क्यों नहीं किया? जबकि हमें यह पता है कि इस मनगढ़ंत थ्योरी की वजह से हिटलर जैसे तानाशाह पैदा हुए. वह भी तब, जब यूरोप में विज्ञान के विकास के साथ-साथ रेस थ्योरी को अविश्‍वसनीय और ग़ैर-वैज्ञानिक घोषित कर दिया गया. पिछले 70 सालों से आर्यन रेस पर कई अनुसंधान हुए. अलग-अलग देशों ने इसमें हिस्सा लिया है, अलग-अलग क्षेत्र के वैज्ञानिकों ने अपना योगदान दिया है. सबने एक स्वर में आर्यन के एक रेस होने की बात को मिथक और झूठा करार दिया है. ये स़िर्फ वामपंथी इतिहासकार हैं, जो अभी तक इस रेस थ्योरी को पकड़ कर बैठे हैं. 10 दिसंबर, 2011 को एक ख़बर आई कि सेलुलर मोलिकुलर बायोलॉजी के वैज्ञानिकों ने कई महाद्वीपों के लोगों पर एक रिसर्च किया. इस रिसर्च में कई देशों के वैज्ञानिक शामिल थे. यह रिसर्च 3 सालों तक किया गया और लोगों के डीएनए की सैंपलिंग पर किया गया. इस रिसर्च से पता चला कि भारत में रहने वाले चाहे वे दक्षिण भारत के हों या उत्तर भारत के, उनके डीएनए की संरचना एक जैसी है. इसमें बाहर से आई किसी दूसरी प्रजाति या रेस का कोई मिश्रण नहीं है और यह दावे के साथ कहा जा सकता है कि पिछले 60 हज़ार सालों से भारत में कोई भी बाहरी जीन नहीं है. इस रिसर्च की रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि डीएनए सैंपलिंग के जरिये यह बिना किसी शक के दावा किया जा सकता है कि आर्यों के आक्रमण की कहानी एक मिथक है. इस रिसर्च की रिपोर्ट को अमेरिकन जनरल ऑफ ह्यूमन जेनेटिक्स में 9 दिसंबर, 2011 को प्रकाशित किया गया. यह एक प्रामाणिक रिसर्च है. इसमें विज्ञान की सबसे उच्च कोटि की तकनीकों का इस्तेमाल हुआ है. कई देशों के वैज्ञानिक इसमें शामिल थे. यह रिपोर्ट आए तीन साल होने वाले हैं. देश के इतिहासकार क्यों चुप हैं? हक़ीक़त यह है कि भारत का इतिहास राजनीति से ग्रसित है. इतिहास की किताबों ने सच बताने से ज़्यादा सच को छिपाने का काम किया है.

भारत की सरकारी किताबों में आर्यों के आगमन को आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी कहा जाता है. इन किताबों में आर्यों को घुमंतू या कबीलाई बताया जाता है. इनके पास रथ था. यह बताया गया कि आर्य अपने साथ वेद भी साथ लेकर आए थे. उनके पास अपनी भाषा थी, स्क्रिप्ट थी. मतलब यह कि वे पढ़े-लिखे खानाबदोश थे. यह दुनिया का सबसे अनोखा उदाहरण है. यह इतिहास अंग्रेजों ने लिखा था. वर्ष 1866 में भारत में आर्यों की कहानी मैक्समूलर ने गढ़ी थी. इस दौरान आर्यों को एक नस्ल बताया गया. मैक्स मूलर जर्मनी के रहने वाले थे. उन्हें उस जमाने में दस हज़ार डॉलर की पगार पर ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी ने वेदों को समझने और उनका अनुवाद करने के लिए रखा था. अंग्रेज भारत में अपना शासन चलाना चाहते थे, लेकिन यहां के समाज के बारे में उन्हें जानकारी नहीं थी. इसी योजना के तहत लॉर्ड मैकॉले ने मैक्स मूलर को यह काम दिया था. यह लॉर्ड मैकॉले वही हैं, जिन्होंने भारत में एक ऐसे वर्ग को तैयार करने का बीड़ा उठाया था, जो अंग्रेजों और उनके द्वारा शासित समाज यानी भारत के लोगों के बीच संवाद स्थापित कर सकें. इतना ही नहीं, मैकॉले कहते हैं कि यह वर्ग ऐसा होगा, जो रंग और खून से तो भारतीय होगा, लेकिन आचार-विचार, नैतिकता और बुद्धि से अंग्रेज होगा. इसी एजेंडे को पूरा करने के लिए उन्होंने भारत में शिक्षा नीति लागू की, भारत के धार्मिक ग्रंथों का विश्‍लेषण कराया और सरकारी इतिहास लिखने की शुरुआत की. आज़ादी से पहले और आज़ादी के बाद भारत के शासक वर्ग ने लॉर्ड मैकॉले के सपने को साकार करने में कोई कसर नहीं छोड़ी. इतिहासकारों ने भी इसी प्रवृत्ति का परिचय दिया.

अंग्रेजों की एक आदत अच्छी है. वे दस्तावेज़ों को संभाल कर रखते हैं. यही वजह है कि वेदों को समझने और उनके अनुवाद के पीछे की कहानी की सच्चाई का पता चल जाता है. मैक्स मूलर ने वेदों के अध्ययन और अनुवाद के बाद एक पत्र लिखा, जिसमें उन्होंने साफ़-साफ़ लिखा कि भारत के धर्म को अभिशप्त करने की प्रक्रिया पूरी हो गई है और अगर अब ईसाई मिशनरी अपना काम नहीं करते हैं, तो इसमें किसका दोष है. मैक्स मूलर ने ही भारत में आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी को लागू करने का काम किया था, लेकिन इस थ्योरी को सबसे बड़ी चुनौती 1921 में मिली. अचानक से सिंधु नदी के किनारे एक सभ्यता के निशान मिल गए. कोई एक जगह होती, तो और बात थी. यहां कई सारी जगहों पर सभ्यता के निशान मिलने लगे. इसे सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता कहा जाने लगा. यहां की खुदाई से पता चला कि सिंधु नदी के किनारे कई शहर दबे पड़े हैं. इन शहरों में सड़कें थीं, हर जगह और घरों से नालियां निकल रही थीं. पूरे शहर में एक सुनियोजित ड्रेनेज सिस्टम था.

 बाज़ार के लिए अलग जगह थी. रिहाइशी इलाक़ा अलग था. इन शहरों में स्वीमिंग पूल थे, जिनका डिजाइन भी 21वीं सदी के बेहतरीन स्वीमिंग पूल्स की तरह था. अनाज रखने के लिए गोदाम थे. नदियों के किनारे नौकाओं के लिए बंदरगाह बना हुआ था. जब इन शहरों की उम्र का अनुमान लगाया गया, तो पता चला कि यह दुनिया की सबसे प्राचीन सभ्यता है. यह आर्यों के आगमन के पहले से है. अब सवाल यह उठ खड़ा हुआ है कि जब आर्य बाहर से आए थे, तो यहां कौन रहते थे. सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता के शहर स़िर्फ ज़मीन में धंसे हुए शहर नहीं थे, बल्कि इतिहास के सुबूतों के भंडार थे. अंग्रेज इतिहासकारों ने इतिहास के इन सुबूतों को दरकिनार कर दिया और अपनी आर्यों की थ्योरी पर डटे रहे. होना तो यह चाहिए था कि सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता से मिली नई जानकारी की रौशनी में इतिहास को फिर से लिखा जाता, लेकिन अंग्रेजी इतिहासकारों ने सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता का इस्तेमाल आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी को सही साबित करने में किया.

आधुनिक इतिहास का कांग्रेसीकरण

आधुनिक भारत का इतिहास सन् 1857 की क्रांति से लेकर 1947 तक माना जाता है. प्राचीन इतिहास जहां भारत की पहचान के लिए ज़रूरी है, उसी तरह आधुनिक इतिहास भारत की एकता, अखंडता और प्रजातंत्र को सींचने के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है. अफ़सोस इस बात का है कि आधिकारिक इतिहासकारों ने इसमें वामपंथ और कांग्रेसी विचारधारा का ऐसा घालमेल किया कि कई लोग मुख्य धारा से अलग-थलग हो गए. आधुनिक भारत का पूरा इतिहास गांधी, नेहरू, कांग्रेस और वामपंथी संगठनों तक सीमित कर दिया गया. सेकुलरिज्म और कम्युनलिज्म के चश्मे से लिखा गया वामपंथी इतिहास पर पुनर्विचार करने की ज़रूरत है. इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ आब्जेक्टिव स्टडीज ने एक किताब प्रकाशित की, जिसमें आज़ादी की लड़ाई में शामिल कई मुस्लिम नेताओं और क्रांतिकारियों के बारे में जानकारी दी गई. ये वे नाम हैं, जिनका मुख्य धारा के इतिहास में न तो कोई जिक्र है और न ही उनके योगदान की चर्चा है. मुस्लिम लीग में शामिल मुस्लिम नेताओं को आधुनिक भारत के इतिहास से निकाल कर बाहर फेंक दिया गया. इतना ही नहीं, मदन मोहन मालवीय, लाला लाजपत राय, बाल गंगाधर तिलक के योगदान को भी भुला दिया गया, जबकि वे कांग्रेस के नेता भी रहे. दरअसल, वामपंथी लेखन प्रणाली ने आधुनिक भारत का इतिहास सेकुलर-कम्युनल चश्मे से लिखा. इसमें मुस्लिम लीग और हिंदू महासभा को कम्युनल संगठन बताकर उनके योगदान को जड़ से उखाड़ कर फेंक दिया गया. जबकि हक़ीक़त यह है कि मुस्लिम लीग और हिंदू महासभा काफी समय तक कांग्रेस का हिस्सा रही. कांग्रेस उस वक्त कोई संगठन नहीं, बल्कि एक आंदोलन था, जिसमें कई संगठन शामिल थे. मुस्लिम लीग और हिंदू महासभा के ज़मीनी कार्यकर्ता और स्थानीय नेता आज़ादी के आंदोलन में किसी से पीछे नहीं थे. वैसे भी सेकुलरिज्म और कम्युनलिज्म के चश्मे से लिखा गया वर्तमान इतिहास न स़िर्फ अधूरा है, बल्कि विरोधाभासों से भरा पड़ा है. इसके अलावा इन किताबों को पढ़कर लगता है कि पूरे के पूरे नॉर्थ-ईस्ट की स्वतंत्रता संग्राम में कोई हिस्सेदारी ही नहीं थी. नॉर्थ-ईस्ट के वे कौन लोग थे, जिन्होंने आज़ादी के लिए जानें दीं, आंदोलन किया और अंग्रेजों के डंडे खाए, यह वर्तमान इतिहास में नहीं है. कांग्रेस सरकारों द्वारा चयनित वामपंथी इतिहासकारों ने इतिहास को राजनीति का अखाड़ा बना दिया. उन्होंने इतिहास के नाम पर कुछ झूठ कहा, कुछ सच छिपाए और कई मनगढ़ंत कहानियां गढ़ दीं.

यह इतिहास के साथ सबसे बड़ा धोखा था, लेकिन किसी ने सवाल नहीं उठाया. उन्होंने लिख दिया कि आर्य बाहर से स़िर्फ आए ही नहीं, बल्कि सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता का विनाश भी किया. भारत के मार्क्सवादी इतिहासकारों की सबसे बड़ी चूक यही है कि किसी ने आर्यन इन्वेजन थ्योरी को नए प्रमाणों की रौशनी में नहीं परखा. इस भ्रामक थ्योरी पर सवाल खड़ा नहीं किया. अंग्रेजों ने जो लिख दिया, उसे सत्य मानकर बैठ गए. आज़ादी के बाद भी इतिहासकारों ने इसे बदलने की कोशिश नहीं की. इतिहास में नए तथ्यों या प्रमाणों के आधार पर बदलाव नहीं किया गया, तो कुछ सवाल उठने लाजिमी हैं. यह कैसे संभव है कि खानाबदोश आर्यों के पास रहने के लिए अपना घर न हो, लेकिन वेद जैसा ग्रंथ हो. अपनी भाषा हो और अपनी स्क्रिप्ट भी. और, जो लोग सुनियोजित शहरों में रह रहे थे, जो स्वीमिंग पूल में नहाते थे, अपना अनाज गोदामों में रखते थे, जो व्यापार करते थे, उनके पास न तो कोई भाषा थी, न स्क्रिप्ट थी और न कोई धर्म ग्रंथ था. और वे इतने कायर और कमज़ोर थे कि खानाबदोश लोगों ने उन्हें उनके शहर से मार भगाया. भारतीय इतिहासकारों ने इन्हीं अंग्रेजों के लिखे इतिहास पर आर्यों और द्रविड़ों का भेद किया. बताया कि सिंधु घाटी में रहने वाले लोग द्रविड़ थे, जो यहां से पलायन कर दक्षिण भारत चले गए. अब यह सवाल भी उठता है कि सिंधु घाटी से जब वे पलायन कर दक्षिण भारत पहुंच गए, तो क्या उनकी बुद्धि और ज्ञान सब ख़त्म हो गया. वे शहर बनाना भूल गए, स्वीमिंग पूल बनाना भूल गए, नालियां बनाना भूल गए. और, बाहर से आने वाले आर्य, जो मूल रूप से खानाबदोश थे, कबीलाई थे, वे वेदों का निर्माण कर रहे थे. दरअसल, वामपंथी इतिहासकारों ने देश के इतिहास को मजाक बना दिया.

भारत का प्राचीन इतिहास विवादों से घिरा है. इस विवाद की जड़ में इतिहास लेखन प्रणाली है. भारत का इतिहास मूल रूप से भाषाई अध्ययन पर लिखा गया है. भारत जैसे देश में जहां पुरातात्विक अवशेषों और स्थलों का भंडार है, वहां के इतिहास लेखन में पुरातत्व को नज़रअंदाज़ किया जाए, यह उचित नहीं है. दरअसल, यह राजनीति का हिस्सा है. देश की सभी इतिहास लेखन संस्थाओं, विश्‍वविद्यालयों और अनुसंधानिक संस्थाओं पर वामपंथी इतिहासकारों का क़ब्ज़ा है. एक स़िर्फ पुरातत्व विभाग है, जहां वामपंथियों का क़ब्ज़ा नहीं हो सका है. यही वजह है कि भारत के नामी-गिरामी इतिहासकार पुरातात्विक सुबूतों को सुबूत नहीं मानते, अनर्गल दलील देकर उन्हें दरकिनार कर देते हैं. यही वजह है कि प्राचीन भारत का इतिहास आज भी वही है, जो अंग्रेजों द्वारा लिखा गया था. कुछ सतही फेरबदल ज़रूर किए गए हैं, लेकिन उसका चरित्र आज भी मैकॉले द्वारा स्थापित मापदंड पर कायम है. जिसका सार यह है कि भारत में जो कुछ प्राचीन है, वह बुरा है, असभ्य है और शोषक है. यह इतिहास लिखे 150 साल हो गए हैं. इस दौरान विज्ञान का विकास हुआ है, नई खोजें हुई हैं. ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणों के परीक्षण के लिए तकनीक मौजूद है. दुनिया भर में बहु-विषयक दृष्टिकोण के साथ इतिहास लेखन का काम हो रहा है, लेकिन भारत के वामपंथी इतिहासकार भाषाई अध्ययन को ही एकमात्र सत्य मानकर इतिहास का गला घोंट रहे हैं. वे रूढ़िवादी बन गए हैं. जो कोई उनके द्वारा लिखे इतिहास पर सवाल उठाता है, उस पर वे एक गैंग की तरह हमलावर हो जाते हैं.
हक़ीक़त यह है कि देश-विदेश के कई पुरातत्वविदों, भौतिकशास्त्रियों, भूगर्भशास्त्रियों, खगोलशास्त्रियों, वैज्ञानिकों, गणितज्ञों और इतिहासकारों के लिए सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता रुचि का विषय बन चुकी है. भारत ही नहीं, बल्कि दुनिया भर में अनुसंधान हो रहे हैं, किताबें लिखी जा रही हैं. ऐसा इसलिए, क्योंकि सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता की खुदाई से मिली जानकारियां हैरान करने वाली और अविश्‍वसनीय हैं.

वामपंथ बनाम दक्षिणपंथ 

यह देश का दुर्भाग्य होगा कि पुनर्लेखन के नाम पर मिथकों और इतिहास का घालमेल कर दिया जाए. आज के युवाओं को यह स्वीकार नहीं होगा कि हमारी किताबों में यह लिखा हो कि स्टेम सेल तकनीक का विकास महाभारत काल में हुआ था और मोटरकार का आविष्कार वैदिक काल में ही हो गया था. 21वीं सदी के भारत को ऐसे इतिहास की ज़रूरत नहीं है, जिसमें यह लिखा जाए कि भारत में महाभारत काल में इस तकनीक का उपयोग होता था. कुंती का बेटा सूर्य के समान तेजस्वी था. गांधारी जब दो साल तक गर्भधारण नहीं कर पा रही थीं, तो उन्होंने गर्भपात कराया. उस दौरान उनके गर्भाशय से बड़ी मात्रा में मांस निकला. ऋषि द्वैपायन व्यास ने उस मांस में औषधियां मिलाकर उसे एक ठंडे टैंक में रख दिया. बाद में उन्होंने उसके 100 टुकड़े किए और हर टुकड़े को घी से भरे 100 अलग-अलग टैंकों में दो साल तक रखा. दो साल के बाद उसी से 100 कौरवों का जन्म हुआ. ऐसी कहानियां कथावाचकों के लिए तो ठीक हैं, लेकिन इतिहास की किताबों में इनकी कोई जगह नहीं है. भारत का प्राचीन इतिहास वैसे ही गौरवशाली है. जो सुबूत उपलब्ध हैं, वही हमें दुनिया की सबसे पुरातन और अग्रणी सभ्यता साबित करने के लिए काफी हैं. इसके लिए यह ज़रूरी नहीं है कि इतिहास की किताबों में यह लिखा जाए कि वैदिक काल में भी मोटरकारें थीं, जिन्हें अनश्‍व रथ कहा जाता था. सामान्य तौर पर रथ को घोड़े खींचते हैं, लेकिन अनश्‍व रथ बगैर घोड़ों के दौड़ता था. इसे यंत्र रथ भी कहा जाता था और यही आज की मोटरकार है. या फिर हम पुष्पक विमान के बारे में यह बताएं कि उस जमाने में ही भारत में हवाई जहाज का आविष्कार हो चुका था.

भारत का इतिहास वैसे ही गौरवशाली है. भारत का प्राचीन काल हर दृष्टि से दुनिया में अग्रणी रहा है. ज़रूरत इस बात की है कि इतिहास को प्रामाणिक सुबूतों के साथ लिखा जाए, ताकि उस पर कोई उंगली न उठा सके. अगर संघ और उससे जुड़े कुछ लोग पिछली बार की तरह इतिहास के नाम पर मिथ्या को सच बताने लगेंगे, तो ऐसे इतिहास की वजह से भारत पूरे विश्‍व में उपहास का पात्र बन जाएगा.

इतिहास में रुचि रखने वाले किसी भी व्यक्ति के लिए यह आश्‍चर्य का विषय है कि जब ग्रीस, रोम और एथेंस का नामोंनिशान नहीं था, तब यहां के लोग विश्‍वस्तरीय शहर बनाने में कैसे कामयाब हो गए, टाउन-प्लानिंग का ज्ञान कहां से आया और उन्होंने स्वीमिंग पूल बनाने की तकनीक कैसे सीखी? अफ़सोस इस बात का है कि भारत के लोग जब अपने ही इतिहास को पढ़ते हैं, तो उन्हें गर्व की अनुभूति नहीं होती है. इसका कारण यह भी है कि देश के महान इतिहासकारों ने इस ढंग से इतिहास लिखा है कि जो एक बार पढ़ ले, तो उसकी इतिहास से रुचि ही ख़त्म हो जाती है. यह भी एक कारण है कि इतिहास को फिर से लिखा जाना चाहिए. वैसे अब तो और भी नए सुबूत आ गए हैं. सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता से जुड़े 700 से ज़्यादा पुरातात्विक स्थलों की खोज हो चुकी है. भारत में राजस्थान, गुजरात, हरियाणा, पंजाब आदि राज्यों में नई खोज हो चुकी है. इनकी वैज्ञानिक जांच होनी चाहिए और जो भी वैज्ञानिक तथ्य सामने आते हैं, उन्हें इतिहास की किताबों में शामिल करना चाहिए. फिर से इतिहास लिखने की ज़रूरत पड़े, तो लिखना चाहिए. इतिहास लिखते समय यह ध्यान रखना ज़रूरी है कि नया इतिहास बहु-विषयक दृष्टिकोण लेखन प्रणाली से लिखा गया इतिहास हो. विज्ञान द्वारा प्रमाणित साक्ष्यों पर आधारित हो. प्राचीन इतिहास को मिथकों और धार्मिक मान्यताओं से दूर रखने की ज़रूरत है.
इतिहास कोई आसमानी किताब नहीं है, जिसे बदला न जा सके. नए साक्ष्य, नई खोज और नई तकनीक की वजह से हर व़क्त हमें भूतकाल के बारे में नई जानकारियां मिलती हैं. विज्ञान और तकनीकी विकास की वजह से कई राज से पर्दा हटाया जा सकता है. इन साक्ष्य, तकनीक और सुबूतों के आधार पर इतिहास को बदलना ही सही इतिहास का सृजन करना है. भारत में आज़ादी के बाद से इतिहास लिखने का काम शुरू हुआ. लेखकों ने कॉपी और पेस्ट करके पुरानी बातों को नए अंदाज और नई दलीलों के साथ परोस दिया. किताबों को ऐसे लिखा गया कि यदि कोई एक बार पढ़ ले, तो फिर उसकी इतिहास के बारे में जानने की इच्छा ही ख़त्म हो जाए. इतिहासकारों ने भूतकाल के बारे में बताने से ज़्यादा छिपाने का काम किया. जो बताया, उसमें भी राजनीति और विचारधारा का घालमेल कर दिया. इतिहास घृणा करने की वस्तु नहीं है. वामपंथी इतिहासकारों का दोष यही है कि उन्होंने इतिहास को ही घृणित बना दिया. भारत एक राष्ट्र नहीं, राज्य नहीं और न ही किसी ऐसे-वैसे भूखंड का नाम है. यह दुनिया की सबसे पुरातन सभ्यता है. यहां हिंदू, मुसलमान, सिख, ईसाई, बौद्ध और न जाने कितने धर्मों को मानने वाले लोग रहते हैं. इतिहास ऐसा होना चाहिए, जिससे हर भारतवासी को गर्व हो, जिससे आपस में भाईचारा और एकता का संचार हो और जो हमारा हौसला बुलंद कर सके कि हम मानव विकास के मानदंडों पर दुनिया में अग्रणी रहे हैं. एक ऐसा इतिहास लिखा जाना चाहिए, जो मिथकों या धार्मिक कथा-कहानियों पर नहीं, बल्कि सत्य और सुबूतों पर आधारित हो. भारत में इतिहास को फिर से लिखने की ज़रूरत है. इतिहासकारों को नए साक्ष्य, सुबूतों, विज्ञान और तकनीक का इस्तेमाल इतिहास लेखन में करना चाहिए. मनगढ़ंत बातों के लिए इतिहास में कोई जगह नहीं होनी चाहिए.

Source: http://www.chauthiduniya.com/2014/08/itihaas-fir-se-kyoun-likha-jana-chahiye.html#sthash.YJ7MD9pb.hjKNXQeb.dpuf

IT Dept. files police complaint against NDTV's ex-employee Abhisar Sharma & 2 serving IT officers for threatening its officials

IT Dept. files police complaint against NDTV's ex-employee Abhisar Sharma & 2 serving IT officers for threa... by pcwedsndtv

How NDTV’s Claims about “Love Jihad” Don’t Add Up

BJP UP party president Laxmikant Bajpai addressing party working committee (source:PTI)

Rupa Subramanya 

(With inputs from Saurav Chatterjee) 

Recently, NDTV’s Sreenivasan Jain and Niha Masih published two stories, with the following provocative headlines: 

“Love Jihad? BJP's Claims for Uttar Pradesh Don't Add Up”  

and

  

“How Crime Data Contradicts Communal Spin to UP Rape Cases”. 

Unfortunately for Jain and Masih, incomplete data analysis — in particular, a basic conceptual error in how to interpret their own data — mean instead that their claims don’t add up, and constitute a form of spin all their own.

But this didn’t stop those sympathetic to their findings from sharing them widely and uncritically — without, apparently, checking if Jain and Masih’s analysis made sense. 

Is it true, as some in the UP unit of the BJP seem to allege, that Muslim men exhibit a greater propensity to commit violence against women, such as rape, than Hindu men? 

The difficulty in assessing this claim is that official statistics of violence against women do not report the religious affiliation of perpetrator or victim. So it’s impossible to either confirm or refute the claims made by the BJP in any statistically meaningful way given the publicly available data.

This is how the first of the two stories by Jain and Masih explains the above: “…unclear on what basis the BJP has made that claim, given that the data of violence against women….is never compiled on the basis of religion of the accused”.

Then, they give us official UP police data on rapes in Meerut in 2013, which, of course, are not coded by religion. 

Note that there’s a careless error here, since they claim the data showing 389 cases of rape registered last year were in Meerut district  — when in fact it the UP police data show that the number for Meerut district is 109. 

Their number seemed so out of line with previous years, so I checked the U.P. police data (Table 65, p. 228).

In fact, the number 389 refers to Meerut range, which comprises six districts. The Meerut zone includes three additional districts, which brings the total up to 506.

This seems like a rather elementary error and one wonders how it wasn’t picked up by simple fact checking.

The more basic problem is what they conclude: “There is nothing to suggest that minorities are responsible for these high numbers.” 

This contradicts what they earlier tell us — correctly — which is that it’s impossible to identify the religious affiliations in rape cases. 

How, then, can they assert that there is “nothing to suggest”…? There is also nothing to suggest that minorities aren’t responsible, given the absence of religion-wise data. 

As worded, their claim is misleading and incomplete.

A more accurate way to report this is to simply say there’s no way to assess the BJP’s claim, one way or another, with publicly available data.

Then, they tell us that they have managed to construct data to answer the question. 

In particular, Jain and Masih claim to have reviewed police data covering January to August of 2014. In the first piece, they offer us data from Meerut district only, and in the second, they give us pooled data for all nine districts comprising Meerut zone, which I analyse below.

But since religious affiliation is not reported, how did NDTV get this breakdown? 

Presumably, they inferred religious identity from the names of alleged perpetrators and victims. All NDTV tells us in their second piece is:  “We specifically asked for it, to check political claims. This is a time-consuming and sensitive exercise that should be avoided.”

It’s not quite clear to me what this means.

I’ve asked both Jain and Masih on Twitter to share details of their methodology, so one could independently assess if their coding method is accurate or not. Neither one has replied to me. In fact Jain has blocked me! 

Thus, there’s no way to verify the data — in particular, the coding of perpetrator and victim by religion. We are simply asked to take their word that the coding method, which they don’t reveal, is accurate.

Let’s leave that aside and assume for the sake of argument that their data are completely accurate. Do they support the story that Jain and Masih try to tell?

According to NDTV’s pooled data, reported in the second piece, there have been 334 rape cases from January to August of this year in the Meerut zone. In 25 cases, Muslims are the accused and alleged victims are Hindus. There are 23 cases of Hindu accused and Muslim alleged victims. In 96 cases both accused and alleged victims are Muslim, whereas in 190 cases, the accused and alleged victims are Hindus. 

Jain and Masih draw attention to the fact that “the highest number” of incidents are Hindu against Hindu violence — as if this tells us something meaningful. But they reveal instead a basic fallacy in how to interpret their own numbers — which, as I will show shortly, actually undermines their own story!

The fundamental error that they commit is in failing to perform a basic statistical adjustment to the raw numbers, an adjustment necessary to draw any inferences. 

Specifically, what they fail to do is to adjust the raw numbers to show us the percentage of crimes committed by each community and then compare the adjusted numbers to each community’s share in the total population. 

This very basic statistical adjustment— something a high school student could do — is vital for the following reason.

Claims around “love jihad” boil down to claims comparing the propensity to commit crimes across two communities, not to claims comparing raw numbers — very obviously, since the populations shares of the two communities aren’t equal.

If Jain and Masih had wanted to check whether these claims about the propensities to commit rapes differed between Hindus and Muslims, they had the data at their fingertips — but failed to use them correctly.

What they should have done was to compare the propensity rates in their own data to data on the population shares of the two communities.

If, for example, community A comprises x% of the population, but commits more than x% of rapes, then there is prime facie evidence for a great propensity to commit rape by members of that community than would be implied by their share of the population.

Ideally, even this propensity rate should be subject to further statistical controls — as I discuss later — but, at a bare minimum, it is necessary to convert raw numbers to propensity rates to say anything at all meaningful.

The difficulty is that the 2011 census data on district wise breakdown by religion is not yet publicly available. The best we can do is to use data from the 2001 census, which is accurate only if there have not been major changes in population shares since then.  A further wrinkle is that two of the present 9 districts comprising Meerut zone didn’t exist in 2001, as they were carved out later. 

However, with the data we have available, this is the best we can do.

With these caveats in mind, it is possible to compute population shares for the Meerut zone, using district wise data on each of the individual districts, and weighting appropriately by the size of each district to obtain a final weighted average. That exercise gives us 69% Hindus and 29% Muslims. 

Of the total crimes committed (i.e., whether against someone from one’s own or the other community), we can easily calculate from Jain and Masih’s own data that 64% of attacks are by Hindu men and 36% by Muslim men.

Putting it all together: Hindus comprise 69% of the population in Meerut zone but commit only 64% of the total number of rapes. Muslims comprise only 29% of the population but commit 36% of rapes.

This shows us that Hindus actually have a slightly lower propensity to commit rapes and Muslims have a slightly higher propensity, compared against their respective population shares.

It is important to note that we cannot say if these differences are statistically significant, since we have no way to put confidence bounds around the relevant ratios we are comparing. The difference in magnitudes is at least noteworthy.

There’s a further interesting nugget one can extract from Jain and Masih’s own data, which again they fail to do, and again it goes against the story they’re trying to tell. 

If you break down crimes within each community to those committed against members of the opposite community, Jain and Masih’s own data tell us that in 11% of cases where the attackers are Hindu, they’re attacking someone of the opposite community. By contrast, in 21% of cases where the attackers are Muslim, Muslim men are attacking women of the other community.

This means that Muslims who commit rape have almost twice as high a propensity to attack someone of the opposite community than Hindus who commit rape — as contained in NDTV’s own data, when their raw numbers are converted to propensity ratios — as one must do to say anything statistically meaningful. 

This is the relevant information in their own data — not Jain and Masih’s illogical reference to the “highest number”.
 

This is certainly an inconvenient implication of Jain and Masih’s own data, in a piece trying to debunk claims that Muslims have a greater propensity to commit rape against Hindus — when their own data, correctly interpreted, tell exactly the opposite tale.

It’s important again to note all of the caveats, given the understandable sensitivities on a subject which has become politicised. 

First, we’re going by NDTV’s data — which there’s no way to verify independently. 

Second, we’re using population data from the 2001 census on Hindu and Muslim population shares, which might well have changed in the intervening years.

Specifically, if Muslim share of the population were actually higher today in the Meerut zone than in 2001, it would attenuate the discrepancy in the propensities I earlier calculated. If however, the Muslim share has gone down, that would magnify the discrepancy. 

Since population shares can change due to different rates of fertility, mortality, and migration, we simply have no way to know whether or in what direction population shares might have changed until the new census data are released. 

Note that this would not affect the comparison of propensities to attack members of the opposite community, since these are based on shares of crimes — contained in Jain and Masih’s data — not population shares.

The further caveat — and this is important — is that that even propensity ratios do not allow us to make statistically sound causal inferences, since there could be other factors besides religion driving those differences.

For example, if Muslim women are more likely to be cloistered within their community than Hindu women, which seems plausible, then part of the propensity difference may just reflect a different level of access to the other community, not a different intrinsic level of intended violence against the other. 

What one would really need to do is to perform a multiple regression analysis, including all of the factors that economists and demographers normally take to be drivers of violence against women, and then see if there’s some residual effect that the difference in religion picks up. Even this can’t conclusively establish causality, for the well-known reason that regressions show us correlation, not causation. 

The truth of the matter is we simply don’t have the quality of data, or data analysis, to conclusively either confirm or refute claims that one community or the other has a greater propensity to commit violence. The hype comes when Jain and Masih claim to have debunked the BJP’s claims using “cold hard facts” — when, as I have shown, they exhibit a basic failure in how to understand and interpret their own facts.

So in this pair of pieces by Jain and Masih, what’s the “truth”, and what’s the “hype”? You decide.

Rupa Subramanya is co-author of Indianomix: Making Sense of Modern India (Random House India,  2012). On Twitter: @rupasubramanya 

Saurav Chatterjee is on Twitter @p_adic_Saurav

Jihad, Secularism and Hindutva – An American view of Indian politics

One of the best things about Hindutva is the breaking-away from the West, in favour of a true Indian resurgence.

It can be infuriating trying to discuss Indian politics with my friends here in the USA, particularly when they find out that I am a supporter of Narendra Modi and the BJP.

The confusion comes from the fact that domestically, I generally support Left-Wing and/or Libertarian policies, while in India, the BJP is considered to be Right-Wing.  One of the primary issues here is terminology, and how words are used in different contexts in American or Indian usage.

To begin, the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in a political context come from the era of the French Revolution, with the supporters of the Revolution sitting on the ‘left wing’ of the French National Assembly, and the supporters of the King, the Church, and ‘keeping things the way they were’ sat on the ‘right wing’.  So generally, the ‘Left’ seeks progressive change, while the ‘Right’ seeks to either stop the change, or move things back to ‘the way they were’.

In the USA, we have a fairly short history, and it begins with slavery and a lack of rights for anyone who wasn’t a White, Christian man.  And frankly, a lot of people in this country think we would be better off if we went back to that era.  I, on the other hand, am not one of them. Furthermore, those are tricky usages for India, because defining the “Golden Age” of India is less simple, particularly when “India”, as a nation, is quite young, but the people of India have a long and rich history stretching back millennia.

Here in America, the ‘Right Wing’ is so intertwined with the Christian world view that it is impossible to dissociate it from the Republican Party. In India, Hindutva has a similar connection to the Right, but the difference between the ideologies is so vast that they become incomparable. Christian Nationalism, for example, is based on the exclusivism of Monotheism. Monotheism is incompatible with Pluralism, because it is not simply the belief in a “single God”, but rather it is a belief in a “single Way”. It is inherently intolerant, and does not abide competition. Hindutva, on the other hand, is a Pluralist ideology, as Dharma is not shaken or frightened by the existence of different paths to the gods. This does not necessarily imply the kind of namby-pamby universalism that many seem to equate with modern Hinduism, but rather an understanding of the divine that is outside of the comprehension to monotheists. As I like to say, “The only false religions are those that imply the existence of false religions”.  Take that as you will.

And that brings us to the singular issue in world politics today — Islamic Extremism.

In America, the Right is opposed to Islamic Extremism because it is Islamic. What American Right-Wingers fail to realise is how much their world view aligns with the very ideologies that they oppose.  This is no more evident than when dealing with the concept of ‘Sharia Law’.  In the USA, our Muslim population is negligible. They account for only a tiny percentage of the population, have almost no representation in Government, and are mostly made up of fairly moderate, law-abiding men and women. But there is a pathological fear of ‘Sharia Law’ in this country. The Republicans have even passed legislation to ensure that it cannot be integrated into our domestic laws. More than two dozen US States have voted on or considered legislation banning ‘Sharia Law’, and Republicans have even authored a study entitled, ‘Shariah: The Threat to America’. Of course, as both a non-Muslim and a rational human being, I am opposed to ‘Sharia Law’ being instituted in the USA, but is it really an issue?  We might as well ban the imposition of North Korean totalitarianism too as it has just as much likelihood of becoming the law of the land, which is to say: None at all.

And yet the comical irony is that the same people who fear ‘Sharia Law’ push for the addition of ‘Biblical Law’, based on Christianity, to American laws. A quick examination of the two competing ideologies shows that they are, in many respects, quite similar. No, Christianists in the USA are not generally advocating stoning or beheading those who do not follow these Biblical precepts… but the precepts themselves are basically identical, just with the name of ‘Jesus’ in place of ‘Muhammed’. In the USA, being opposed to both ‘Sharia Law’ and ‘Bibical Law’ is called ‘Secularism’, which has a wholly different meaning in India!
So when American Right-Wingers oppose Islamism, it is not really from an ideological perspective, but rather from a disingenuous one. The American Right-Winger says, “I oppose the forceful conversion of people to Islam, because it is Islam, not Christianity”. On the other hand, the Indian Right-Winger says, “I oppose the forceful conversion of anyone”.

When I take a look at the news, I see members of ISIS beheading an American, and I see both sides, Left and Right, in America calling for the destruction of ISIS.  But the main difference is that the Left generally opposes Islamists on ideological reasons, while the Right generally opposes Islamists on religious reasons, which is why they disagree in regards to the Israeli situation, which has a different set of ideological issues as play.

But frankly, the only truly moral position is the one that I see promoted by the BJP and Narendra Modi, as it is the most philosophically and intellectually consistent one.  It is unfortunate that it is not a position that is really available in American politics.

In point of fact, during the writing of this article, I decided to peruse the requirements of joining the BJP.  As an American who has adopted Hinduism, I certainly have a particular interest in the affairs of India, and view the party as the most likely to promote my own viewpoints.  I noticed that, in order to officially join the party, one has to affirm a few statements, such as a commitment to “Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava”, an egalitarian society, and non-discrimination based on caste, sex, or religion.  In contrast, I see no such requirements for admittance to any of the Indian or American political parties that I examined in comparison.

Yet here in the West, our media tells us that the BJP are crazed Hindus who commit riots and kill Muslims. How many times have I had to explain to my American friends that, no…Narendra Modi did not start a riot to kill Muslims, and no, the BJP is not comparable to the American Right.

In fact, one of the key distinctions between the American Right and the Indian Right is in reference to materialism. The Republicans, the chief party of the American Right, have embraced materialism to such a degree that selfishness is often seen as a “virtue”. They praise Ayn Rand and her Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies, while simultaneously reconciling these beliefs with Christianism.  It would be funny if the irony was not lost on their adherents.  They deride anyone who does not believe in unfettered Capitalism and selfishness as some kind of “Communist” or “Socialist”, even though they are unable to differentiate between the terms.  Of course, this flies in the face of the fact that some of the wealthiest Western businessmen in the world happen to be American Left-Wingers (Ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.).  Only an uneducated buffoon would consider such people exemplars of ‘Communists’.

And even the real hardcore Communists that one finds in America are quite different in comparison to those found in India. They tend towards either atheism, personal spirituality, or other minority religions… but would be appalled by the Christian Maoists who terrorise India’s North-East, or the Communists who defend the allowances for ‘Sharia Law’ in Indian civil law. When I tell friends about ‘Muslim Personal Law’, and how defending it is called ‘Secularism’ in India, they usually think that I’m joking, or that I’m spreading some ridiculous conspiracy theory. In the West, ‘Secularism’ means quite the opposite, and refers to the ‘Separation of Church and State’, which really compares more to ‘Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava’! They do not understand how the meanings of words have completely different meanings in Indian politics from American politics, or even Western politics in general.

But I digress. The importance of describing American politics is not to convince Indians to support Americans. It is to ensure understanding for both sides of where allies and enemies can be found. There is a reason that America’s first Hindu member of the House of Representatives, Tulsi Gabbard, is considered to be a “Liberal” or “Left-Winger” by American standards, but would likely find a home in the Indian Right if she were in the Lok Sabha.  In America, the “Right” is inseparable from Christianity, as in Islamic states, the “Right” is inseparable from Islamism.

And really, one of the best things about Hindutva, in my opinion, is the breaking-away from the West, in favour of a true Indian resurgence. The West has brought many innovative technological advances to the world, but at the expense of a materialist view that everything can be reduced solely to its monetary value. If there is any one piece of advice that I, as a Westerner, can give to my Indian friends, it is to stop taking advice from Westerners. It is time the rest of the world started taking advice from India.

(Bryon Morrigan is a lawyer living in Florida.  In addition to his law degree, he also holds a master’s degree in Ancient History, and also formerly served in the US Army as a military intelligence analyst.  His novels ‘Acheron’ and ‘The Desert’ are available at most online booksellers.)

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

Source: NitiCentral

Indo-Pak talks: Advantage India, now build on it

Modi-Sharif
The past week witnessed intense and heated debates on Prime Minister Narendra Modi government's decision to call off foreign secretary talks with Pakistan. After weeks of Saree, shawl and letter diplomacy, India called off talks with Pakistan because Pakistan's high commissioner to India Abdul Basit went ahead with his talks with Hurriyat. This despite Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh calling up Basit and urging him to build on the positive environment created when the two prime ministers met in Delhi during PM Modi's swearing in, and not meet Hurriyat leaders.

PM Modi's step has been described as bold by some, fickle & politically confused by some others. Some say PM Modi has set the bar too high.

In my opinion PM Modi has not set the bar high by saying either talk to Govt of India or Hurriyat. This is the least India should expect of Pakistan. Setting the bar high would be seeking action against Pakistan army and ISI officers who were directly involved in 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks (named by Headley in the Chicago court) and closing down the ISI team that operates to inflict a thousand cuts on India before resumption of dialogue.

PM Modi took a step that several prime ministers and governments in the past debated, but none had the guts to take. It had been hurting India to see heads of state and government of Pakistan and officials come to India and remain closeted with the Hurriyat leaders at the Pakistan High Commission. India did fret and fume but was forced to look the other way.

India has made it very clear. If Pakistan is interested in dialogue then it has to be with the Government of India and the government alone. Hurriyat leaders are a bunch of sulking have beens and former terrorists, who many say are paid by both intelligence agencies of India and Pakistan. Nor are they elected representatives of the people of J&K. So why give them legitimacy by letting them talk to Pakistan and become a party to the process.

Lets discuss some of the issues/objections raised by Pakistan and some in India.

1. IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR OVER TWO DECADES: So just because a wrong has been happening for over two decades does not mean it has to continue happening. It is after all in over three decades that the nation has elected a government with a clear majority and that government and the emboldened diplomatic Corps are well within their rights to set right a wrong precedent.

2. VAJPAYEE AND MANMOHAN SINGH TOO PERMITTED IT: Again just because Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh permitted it does not mean Modi should permit it too. And then Modi is neither Vajpayee nor Manmohan Singh. A senior diplomat told me the era of weak kneed and meek diplomacy was over. There are new rules of the Game. It is not just India's responsibility to create the right environment for talks. Pakistan should be equally keen to talk and create the right environment. And talking to Hurriyat is doing just the opposite.

3. PAKISTAN IS COMMITTED TO KASHMIR CAUSE: The Simla Agreement clearly spoke of J&K being a bilateral issue. There is no question of Hurriyat becoming the third party. India will independently talk to its citizens. Pakistan will restrict itself to talking to government of India for forward movement. Should Pakistan have issues with this, the J&K issue can and should be put in deep freeze.

4. INDIA WILL BE FORCED TO CLIMB DOWN AFTER NEXT TERROR ATTACK: So India must continue to talk to Pakistan because of the terror threat? Does that mean Pakistan holds a gun to India's head? Lets get a couple of things clear here. Pakistan is a state sponsor of terror. Six decades of talking to Pakistan and three and half wars have not stopped terror. There is no guarantee or evidence that talks have prevented terror attacks, including 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. India has to strengthen its internal security apparatus and create/strengthen the capacity to inflict costs on perpetrators of terror. Inflicting costs on perpetrators of terror is an effective counter measure.

5. REGION IS A NUCLEAR FLASH POINT: This is interesting conversation over Red Wine and Kebabs in the track II circuit but there are ample checks and balances and measures of deescalation in place. Look at evidence on ground. Kargil, Parliament attack, Akshardham temple attack, 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, LoC firing and shelling...none of this led to escalation. There are Red Lines. the armies and governments have war gamed it. So not talking to Pakistan at foreign secretary level will not lead to a nuclear flash point and neither will the next terror attack and inflicting cost on perpetrators.

6. INDIA NEEDS PAKISTAN IN AFGHANISTAN: With or without friendly ties with Islamabad, Pakistan has in the past and will continue to target Indian interests in Afghanistan. All the attacks on the Indian embassy in Kabul, Indian medical team and the Indian mission in Herat were directly traced back to Pakistan. Government sources even have names and ranks of ISI officers who master minded the attack. The information has been corroborated both by Afghan and Western intelligence agencies. So all India needs to do is strengthen its defences in Afghanistan and create capacity to inflict cost on Pakistan. When Pakistan realises it is not cost effective to spread terror and that Pakistan will bleed too, it will be compelled to mend its ways.

7. TALKS TO ENCOURAGE TRADE AND PEOPLE TO PEOPLE CONTACT: The responsibility of creating the right environment for talks is not India's alone. Pakistan government should be as keen for peace with India and it is high time that government of Pakistan realises, not talking to Hurriyat is the least Pakistan can do to create the right environment.

8. LoC WILL HOT UP AGAIN: The 10 years of Ramzan ceasefire since 2003 (sought by Pakistan and accepted by India) has been good both for India and Pakistan. All along the 200 kms of international border, 770 kilometres of line of control and 110 kilometres of actual ground position line (AGPL) at Siachen glacier, the Indian army is both numerically and equipment wise superior to Pakistan. While Pakistan has the capacity to inflict some damage on India, if the commanders on ground are given a free hand, India can and has in the past forced Pakistan to sue for peace and seek a ceasefire. So it is in Pakistan's national interest to ensure LoC does not hot up beyond a point.

9. FREEZE ON DIALOGUE WILL HURT: There is no freeze on dialogue. India and Pakistan continue to have High Commissioners in each other's countries. They are regularly in touch with the ministries of external affairs of both countries. The hotline between the director generals of military operations (DGMO) is operational. All channels of communication are open. Only dialogue is not being escalated to the level of the foreign secretaries, then foreign ministers and then the heads of government.

10. INDIA SHOULD STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN: India should only look after its national interest. Let Pakistan strengthen its democracy. It is neither India's responsibility nor duty to strengthen either Nawaz or Zardari. India will talk to who so ever is in power in Pakistan. And there is no evidence on ground to suggest there was a check in terror or anti India activity in Pakistan with a civilian leadership at the helm of affairs. Kargil and a series of terror attacks with civilians heading government in Pakistan are cases in point.

The way I look at it, its advantage India. New Delhi needs to build on it.

Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-indo-pak-talks-india-pakistan-relation-inflation-india-pakistan-trade-jammu-&-kashmir/1/378902.html

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-indo-pak-talks-india-pakistan-relation-inflation-india-pakistan-trade-jammu-&-kashmir/1/378902.html

झारखंड में ‘लव जेहाद’ की शिकार बनी अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर की शूटर

तारा शाहदेव

झारखंड की राजधानी रांची में 'लव जेहाद' का एक सनसनीखेज मामला सामने आया है. पीड़ि‍त तारा शाहदेव एक अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर की निशानेबाज हैं. तारा के मुताबिक इस साल 7 जुलाई को उनकी शादी शहर के रेडिशन ब्लू होटल में रंजीत सिंह कोहली नाम के एक व्यक्ति से हुई थी. लेकिन शादी के बाद से ही उस पर जानवरों की तरह अत्याचार होने लगे. तारा को जब पता चला कि उसके पति का नाम रंजीत सिंह, नहीं बल्कि रकीबुल हसन है, तो उस जुल्म की इंतेहा कर दी गई. तारा पर जबरन धर्म परिवर्तन करने का दबाव बनाया जाने लगा. इस मामले में स्थानीय पुलिस ने एफआईआर दर्ज की ली है.

  7 जुलाई को हिन्दू रीति-रिवाज के साथ तारा और रंजीत की शादी हुई थी. शादी के दिन अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर की शूटर तारा बेहद खुश थी, उसकी शादी एक निजी कंपनी के मालिक रंजीत से हो रही थी. लेकिन शादी के एक महीने बाद ही हालत ये है कि तारा ठीक से चल भी नहीं पा रही है. पति ने उसे किस हद तक प्रताड़ित किया है यह तो तारा के शरीर के जख्मों को देखकर ही अंदाजा लगाया जा सकता है. उसकी तमन्ना थी कि वो शूटिंग में देश का नाम रोशन करे, लेकिन उसके अपने पति ने ही उसे अपने पैरा पर खड़ा होने लायक भी नहीं छोड़ा. असल में तारा की दिल दहला देने वाली कहानी झूठ, फरेब और मक्कारी की घिनौनी दास्तान है.

तारा का आरोप है कि उसके पति ने उसे बंदूक की नोंक पर रखकर जबरदस्ती उसके साथ फिजिकल रिलेशन बनाए. असल में तारा को अपने पति की हकीकत तब पता चली जब उनके घर इफ्तार पार्टी का एक निमंत्रण आया. शादी के बाद तारा के ससुराल में एक दिन झारखंड के एक मंत्री हाजी हुसैन अंसारी की तरफ से इफ्तार पार्टी का निमंत्रण आया, इसमें जनाब रकीबुल हसन खान के नाम का संबोधन था, जिसे देखकर तारा चौंक उठी. इसके बाद हकीकत परत दर परत खुलती चली गई.

अंतरराष्ट्रीय ख‍िलाड़ी तारा चोट के निशान दिखाते हुए

तारा ने बताया कि उनके बीच दरार तब और गहरा गई जब 9 जुलाई को उसके पति ने 20-25 हाजियों को घर बुलाया और उस पर जबरन धर्म परिवर्तन के लिए दबाव बनाया. इस दौरान विरोध करने पर उसे न सिर्फ बुरी तरह मारा गया, बल्कि कई बार कुत्ते से कटवाया भी गया, ताकि वह डर से धर्म परिवर्तन कर ले. यही नहीं जुबान खोलने पर उसके भाई को मरवा डालने की धमकी तक दी गई. रक्षाबंधन के दिन वो किसी तरह रांची के किशोरगंज इलाके में स्थित अपने मायके गई और मौका पाकर कागज के टुकड़े में अपनी व्यथा लिखकर मेज की दराज में छोड़ आयी. उसे लगा था कि किसी की नजर पड़ेगी तो वे उसकी मदद के लिए आएंगे. लेकिन यहां भी उसकी किस्मत दगा दे गई.

आखि‍र 17 अगस्त को उसने घर में काम करने वाले एक नौकर से मोबाइल लेकर अपने भाई को अपना दुखड़ा सुनाया. इसके साथ ही उसने अपने भाई से कहा कि वह पुलिस लेकर ही उसके घर आए. तारा को डर था कि उसका भाई अकेला आया तो ऊंचे रसूक वाला उसका पति उसके भाई को किसी मामले में फंसा देगा. तारा के अनुसार उसके पति रंजीत उर्फ रकीबुल की राजनीति और न्यायिक हलकों में अच्छी पैठ है.

तारा की रंजीत से मुलाकात होटवार स्टेडियम में हुई थी, जहां वो शूटिंग की प्रैक्टिस के लिए अक्सर जाया करती थी. यहीं पर रंजीत ने तारा को सबके सामने पसंद करने व शादी का प्रस्ताव दे दिया था. 14 जून को रंजीत कुमार कोहली ने उसे घर पर डिनर के लिए बुलाया, इसके ठीक एक दिन बाद 15 जून को एक दोस्त के निमंत्रण पर तारा उसके घर डिनर के लिए पहुंची. वहां रंजीत भी पहले से ही मौजूद था, उसने तारा को अंगूठी व कंगन पहना दिया और शादी की तारीख तय करने की बात कही. इसके बाद 20 जून को दोनों की सगाई हुई और सात जुलाई को दोनों विवाह बंधन में बंध गए. लेकिन उसे यह पता नहीं था की मेहंदी का रंग उतरने के पहले ही उस पर सितम ढाने का सिलसिला शुरू हो जाएगा.



FIR के बाद से रंजीत कुमार कोहली उर्फ रकीबुल अपने मां के साथ फरार है. हालांकि पुलिस फिलहाल इस पूरे मामले में फूंक-फूंककर कदम उठा रही है और ज्यादा बोलने से कतरा रही है. मामले के खुलासे के बाद झारखंड में खेलों से जुड़े संगठनों ने सीबीआई जांच की मांग की है. वहीं नकली हिंदू बनकर शादी रचाने के मामले में हिन्दू संगठनों ने भी सड़क पर उतरने का मन बना लिया है.

Source: http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/jhanrkhand-shooter-tara-shahdev-new-victim-of-love-jihad-1-777268.html

और भी... http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/jhanrkhand-shooter-tara-shahdev-new-victim-of-love-jihad-1-777268.html

Noted Journalist Madhu Trehan exposes 'Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand'

August 22, 2012 

Adhik Bhadrapad Shukla 5, Kaliyug Varsha 5114

Madhu Trehan

Rarely has an article befuddled me as much as Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand’s article, ‘Making history, not repeating it’, in The Indian Express (August 17).

The first paragraph describes the violence in Azad Maidan: “...a Muslim mob behaved in despicable fashion — torching OB vans, attacking media persons and the police, molesting women constables, snatching arms from the police....” Then the authors laud Mumbai Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik for not acting against the violent mob. The article continues, “But do allow for the possibility that responding in a most ‘un-police-like’ fashion to extreme provocation, the city’s police commissioner, Arup Patnaik, may have opened a happy chapter in the otherwise unhappy Muslim-police relationship in the metropolis.”

Let’s replace some of the words in the first paragraph with substitutes and see how it plays.

Replace “Muslim” with “Hindu”. Would the authors have written the first paragraph if the mobs were Hindus? Is the law to be adjusted according to the religion of the miscreant?

There is shocking footage of Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik ordering Deputy Commissioner of Police Ravindra Shisve to release a rioter who is being arrested. The video link has been blocked on YouTube but can be seen on Twitter links. This is how Twitter transforms from social media into political-info media.

The footage shows PC Arup Patnaik shouting at DCP Ravindra Shisve who holds a (should I say “alleged”?) goon (pleading for mercy) by the collar, “Tumhala koni hyala pakdayala sangitla (Who has told you to catch him?)” Patnaik then threatens to have the DCP suspended.

“You take directions from the commissioner. You are not SP of Sangli. You are DCP here. You will not fall out of line or you will be suspended, stupid,” Patnaik bellows.

Am I missing something because I am not a Mumbaiker? No, because there are questions raised in Mumbai’s Mid Day newspaper (August 16, 2012). Some of the questions: “Why did Commissioner of Police Arup Patnaik force a DCP to release an apprehended rioter from the spot? If speakers incited the protesters with hate speeches, why are they still roaming free?”

The Setalvad-Anand article then reads: “Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray is most unhappy that the police commissioner did not issue a blanket shoot-to-kill order. But the latter’s exemplary restraint is precisely what peace-loving Mumbaikars need to thank him for. Instead of repeating history, Patnaik has tried creating one.” Why is Bal Thackeray’s emotional temperature relevant in this? I really don’t care much about Bal Thackeray. A fact checker would ask: How did they gauge his emotional state? It is a mystery. The gloating over Bal Thackeray’s mental state stoops to the lowest denominator of one-upmanship.

The authors continue: “Thankfully, Patnaik, who was a deputy commissioner of police when Bombay burned (1992-93), has not forgotten either. It’s his act of remembering, and reminding, that prevented yet another bloodbath and ensured that the situation did not spin entirely out of control last Saturday.”

Every community is scarred by wounds that cannot be picked up selectively as a response justification. A fact checker would ask: How do the authors know that Patnaik’s mind “remembering and reminding” was his reason for asking his DCP to release a goon? A slight understanding of how India works would tell you that the order to do exactly that had come from political bosses.

More pearls: “As things stand today, the Mumbai police are the injured party, while the city’s Muslim leadership, such as it is, is compelled to do all the explaining, apologising, forgiveness-seeking, appreciating the role of the police.”

The authors seem to believe that there is a moral high ground in becoming the “injured party”, possibly from a habit of victim-self-righteous-politics. No security force should ever be reduced to an “injured party”. Their morale to protect our nation could hardly be triggered by the satisfaction — let them run riot, but hey, now THEY will have to explain, apologise and seek forgiveness! Is there any dot of understanding about how demoralising it was for the police force?

The authors conclude: “But the police commissioner’s remarkable restraint has opened up an opportunity to heal wounds, open a new chapter. It’s an opportunity Muslims must grab with both hands.”

“Muslims must grab with both hands”? They expect the same mobsters to be so moved to soft emotion that they will grab hands and sing Hum Honge Kamyaab some d-a-ay? A Bollywood screenwriter would say: Yeh realistic ending nahin hai! Badlo!

We have all read about the controversy magnet Teesta Setalvad. I believed she worked hard for what she believed in: getting justice for victims of violence in Gujarat 2002. But, with Teesta it was difficult to keep up with the spiralling versions of each issue. Even then, I gave her the benefit of a busybody do-gooder. Now this article puts a complete end to that assessment.

What motivates social activists? Let’s play with humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow’s Humanistic Theory of Self-Actualisation (the “Hierarchy of Needs” theory and self-actualisation). First, it starts with the need to help others and it is altruistic. With a bit of success and acknowledgement of the good work he/she is doing, the activist becomes a hero. He/she gains followers and is surrounded by sycophants. Any challenging views are dismissed. The final stage takes place — the activist falls in love with himself/herself. Now this activist who started with altruistic reasons, has become a danger to society. The activist is so taken in by his/her Jungian Hero Archetype bordering on the Martyr Archetype, that anyone else’s opinion or perspective is held in contempt. Because the Archetype is so enthralled by his/her own sacrifices to the cause, to make them worthwhile, blind faith in one’s self is essential. If he/she admits he/she is wrong on any point, it means a lifetime of service has been wasted.

Gujarat 2002 upset and shook me up. Many Tweeters have sincerely tried to convince me that Narendra Modi was not responsible. I, sincerely, have not been convinced so far, since I have seen stories with evidence and footage that show the opposite. But an article like this one by Setalvad-Anand is enough to turn me into what is called an Internet Hindu. India cannot afford to have different rules of engagement based on people’s religion, caste or gender. I believe that is enshrined in our Constitution. Destroying the Constitution for a vote-bank is worse corruption than black money. An incendiary article by Setalvad-Anand can do as much damage as violence in Azad Maidan. To paraphrase Arun Shourie: This is bending over backwards.

The writer is content director at newslaundry.com. The complete article with video links will appear on www.newslaundry.com

Source : Indian Express

Letter To A Fiberal Terrorist-Sympathiser

There are any number of Fiberals in India (Sagarika Ghose, Kavita Krishnan, Rana Ayyub, Barkha Dutt etc) whose love and concern for the good treatment of terrorists often overflows. We have also known many to file appeals for mercy or for clemency. I therefore thought reproducing this letter would help bring these Fiberals a great deal of relief in their aim to provide proper care of "misguided elements" who carry out acts of terrorism:

A Canadian female libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She demanded a response to her letter correspondence. She received back the following reply:

National Defense Headquarters

M Gen George R. Pearkes Bldg., 15 NT

101 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa , ON K1A 0K2

Canada

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa. You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself; we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defense, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A.R.K. for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to divert one terrorist and place him in your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint! It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommend in your letter. Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.

We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.' Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. Please advise any Jewish friends, neighbors or relatives as your house guest might get agitated or even violent, but we are sure you can reason with him. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a sub human form of property thereby having no rights, including refusal of his sexual demands. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will "recommend" as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter.

Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. You take good care of Ahmed and remember we'll be watching.

Good luck and God bless you.

Cordially,

Gordon O'Connor

Minister of National Defense

PS: This letter is a hoax and not real but it provides enough food for thought for the Fiberals should they wish to take on such responsibilities. 

Source: http://www.mediacrooks.com/2014/08/letter-to-fiberal-terrorist-sympathiser.html

Exclusive: A propaganda war by Maoists and Arvind Kejriwal’s half truths

AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal during a press conference in New Delhi on Friday. PTI

New Delhi, Aug 22: Even as the removal of Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service Officer of 2002 batch with a controversial past, from the post of Chief Vigilance Officer of All India Institute of Medical Sciences kicked off a controversy resulting in an attempt by a fledgling Aam Aadmi Party to jump on the bandwagon with Arvind Kejriwal holding a press conference in the Capital over the issue, there are several interesting details which are emerging that indicate that it has become a ‘propaganda war’ fuelled by the Maoist sympathisers.

According to sources, a doctor who is known to be a close sympathiser of the Maoist outfits and is currently posted in AIIMS, has played an important role in chalking out the ‘media strategy’ which portrayed Chaturvedi as a crusader in certain sections of media after order of his removal from the post of CVO came. The said doctor is known to be well networked in the media and appears to be playing an important role in the ongoing episode where attempts to drag names of certain BJP leaders are more than obvious.

It is interesting to note that in the past allegations have also been levelled against AAP for its proximity to Maoists with several Maoist sympathisers already in its ranks. It may not be coincidence that AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal held a press conference on this issue in the Capital on Friday afternoon. The indications are that this could all be a part of the ‘propaganda war’ .

Meanwhile it is interesting to note that the officer at the centre of the current controversy had a controversial past. As a probationer in the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy at Dehradun Chaturvedi was served with several show cause notices for indiscipline and misconduct during 2003-04.

During the year 2004, Rakesh Jagania, a fellow probationer from the scheduled caste community alleged that Chaturvedi abused and assaulted him. The district magistrate of Dehradun ordered the Academy to conduct an enquiry which found him guilty of assault.

During the year 2009, when Chaturvedi went for a training course to IIM Ahemdabad, he indulged in gross indiscipline on account of which he was denied the certificate of participation. The Academy authorities also brought this to the notice of the Chief Secretary Govt. of Haryana.

In 2011, Chaturvedi’s wife and father-in-law levelled allegations of demand for dowry and mental torture and sent a complaint to then Director of the IG National Forest Academy Dehradun. No action was initiated on the complaint but Chaturvedi’s marriage ended after sometime with a divorce.


Interestingly, Kejriwal didn’t mention the controversial past of the said officer in whose favour he held a press conference. Sources in the government said that the media outcry on removal of Chaturvedi came as a surprise even as names of BJP leaders and the Minister for Health and Family Welfare were being dragged in the controversy. Sources further added that so far the indications are that the government would not take back its decision to remove Chaturvedi.

Source: http://www.newsroompost.com/exclusive-propaganda-war-maoists-arvind-kejriwals-half-truths/

Al-Qaeda plans final jihad for India: Intel report points to terror recruitment drive targeting nation's Muslims

Al-Qaeda is at the gates, and there are enough jihadis within already.

Intelligence agencies say the terror network is making inroads into India, sowing the seeds of a "final war" across the country.

Information gathered on al-Qaeda's India plans points to a mobilisation of its resources for jihad.

The ideological goal of the group, as detailed in the report, is chilling: Ghazwa-e-Hind, or the final battle in India.

+3

Tribal militias from Pakistan (in photo) are prime candidates for the Ghazwa-e-Hind

Ghazwa-e-Hind refers to an indoctrinated view of a final apocalyptic war in which India will be conquered by a jihadi army. All soldiers of this army are guaranteed a place in heaven.

This term is freely used in jihadi circles and on the web, but is considered bizarre by others.

Sources say the security establishment has been on the trail of launch-pads being set up within the country, and is also in touch with its counterparts in West Asia in order to crack the growing network.

An intelligence report on India being used a hunting ground for global jihad reveals al-Qaeda's diabolic roadmap.

To begin with, the terror group that was created and led by Arab fighters now has recruits from Kashmir-centric groups.

+3

"Not only Kashmiri groups but Taliban and al-Qaeda affiliates have stakes in the larger scheme of Ghazwa-e-Hind where India is regarded as next battleground in the 'End of Times' battle. This ideology is likely to be used to drive Taliban and al-Qaeda affiliates into Kashmir," says an intelligence report.

The al-Qaeda nexus with Kashmir-centric groups indicates it has a readymade jihadi framework in India.

There is other proof too of al-Qaeda using its nexus with Indian groups to spread its ideology.

An online English publication of al-Qaeda called Azan which is not available to the general public but is circulated through changing e-mails and encryption tools is being downloaded by Kashmiri groups.

Sources say this only underlines the trend of terror groups within India getting attracted to the al-Qaeda and global jihad ideology.

Agencies fear that the Azan tactic of spreading the terror group's ideology could spawn anonymous and isolated modules that will be difficult to detect but potent enough to carry out big attacks.

Intelligence reports also state that groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban have declared they will open 'offices' in Kashmir.

It has been revealed that a Taliban flag was hoisted at a point overlooking Srinagar last year, and the walls of Hari Parbat fort were painted with slogans like 'Welcome Taliban.'

Sources say there is an urgent need for the home ministry and intelligence agencies to understand the threat.

"Indicators need to be monitored to prevent the situation from worsening," said one official.

Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm, Al Sahab, released a video recently, titled 'Why is there no storm in your ocean?' The report states that the video and transcripts were posted on several jihadi forums.

The videos have speeches asking youths from Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and South India to join the global jihad. Incidentally, these are the areas where young men were recruited by the Indian Mujahideen (IM), India's homegrown terror group that has become synonymous with bomb blasts in public places.

With the IM facing a major setback because of a series of arrests, including that of its top leader Yasin Bhatkal, sources say Indians fighting in Iraq for terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are part of larger scheme.

Many more recruits are getting attracted to the global jihad that can later be used to wage war against India.

There are also distinct inputs on al-Qaeda running a separate terror module in India as the homegrown terror outfit IM is making efforts to go global and establish strong links with groups like al-Qaeda, Taliban and Hizbut Tahrir.

There is also evidence of al-Qaeda keeping a close watch on activities in India. The charge-sheet filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against Bhatkal says that organisations al-Qaeda and the Taliban are helping IM.

It also mentioned that the investigation revealed that some IM members are fighting on the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border.

NIA has said in the charge-sheet that Riyaz Bhatkal, a top IM commander based in Pakistan, travelled to tribal belts on the Af-Pak border to establish contact with al-Qaeda.

"After the meeting, which was very fruitful, Al Qaeda gave specific tasks to the IM for execution and agreed to train their cadres in terrorist activities," the charge-sheet says.

Pakistan Taliban have a keen interest in J&K

By Mail Today Bureau in New Delhi

The withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan has already fuelled concerns in the Indian security establishment about its implications on Jammu and Kashmir.

The volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan border is expected to explode into further chaos with jihadists expanding their reach to conflict spots such as J&K.

The intelligence agencies have assessed that around 800 militants, mostly foreigners, are ready to cross over the Line of Control (LoC) to spread terror in J&K.

+3

The Army says infiltration attempts have become bolder

With the coming Assembly election in the state, the militant activity is likely to increase. The LoC itself had remained volatile during much of last year, when frequent ceasefire violations were reported.

Even this year, the situation has not improved, though the two countries have initiated steps to normalise the ties.

Sources said the Pakistan Taliban have a keen interest in J&K.

Further, the Pakistan army has not subsided its efforts to push through militants across the LoC.

All the ceasefire violations are linked to the infiltration bids, said officials.

More than two dozen militant camps are still said to be active in Pakistan- occupied Kashmir.

The army has noticed that infiltration attempts have become bolder and the terrorists showed high level of training and carry sophisticated communication equipment to stay in touch with their handlers.

The recent encounters with militants have indicated that their combat techniques have improved drastically.

Most of the camps are located around Muzaffarabad in Kashmir. Another cluster is located in Kotli facing Poonch and Rajouri.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2694949/Al-Qaeda-plans-final-jihad-India-Intel-report-points-terror-recruitment-drive-targeting-nations-Muslims.html#ixzz3BLabilRn