The Ideology of Exodus – The Fleeing of Hindus from Kairana

By Tufail Ahmad, New Age Islam

On June 9, it emerged that an exodus of Hindus has been taking place over the past two years from the predominantly Muslim town of Kairana, situated just 124 kilometres from India's national capital of New Delhi. Hukum Singh, an MP from the Kairana parliamentary constituency, has produced a list of 346 families which were forced to flee Kairana, leaving behind their homes and businesses. The immediate reasons for the exodus include extortions, murders, targeted attacks and other forms of banditry. Though these appear as acts of crime, the important point is that all of the fleeing families are Hindus.

According to a report by Zee News, which brought the issue before the nation, the town of Kairana had 30 percent Hindus and 68 percent Muslim population as per 2011 census. However, the Hindu population has declined to eight percent in 2016 while the Muslim population has risen to 92 percent from 68 percent in just about six years, as estimated by local officials. Kairana is not an isolated case. There are areas in India which are called "mini Pakistan" – not by Hindus. A Muslim locality I visited in India a few years ago, a highly educated Muslim youth told me proudly, "This area is mini Pakistan." I turned to him and asked, "Is it something good for Indian Muslims?" As realisation fell upon him, he became silent. The religious nature of the exodus from Kairana fits similar patterns of forced migrations in history.

Health of societies is defined by movement of ideas. Ideas travel across time and territories through wars, technologies and globalisation. The consequences of ideas do not register on human minds because these take place over long periods of history, often across several lifetimes. Let's explain it this way: if we lived for 200 years and more, our minds would be better equipped to grasp how the society in which we were born has changed over the course of two centuries. Since our lifespan is on an average just about 80-90 years, our mind fails to grasp the movement of ideas occurring over the course of several centuries. In the 7th century, a movement of ideas began from Mecca as a consequence of which there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today.

This movement of ideas reached Iran as a result of which today there are no Zoroastrians in Iran, originally their homeland. In the 12th century, this movement of ideas arrived in the Indian Subcontinent as a consequence of which there are no Hindus in Balochistan, there are no Hindus in Afghanistan, there are no Hindus in Pakistan, there are no Sikhs in Lahore which was a Sikh metropolis till recently. In 1947, it took a piece of ours away from us. In the 1990s, in our lifetime, Hindu Pandits were forced to flee from Kashmir. This historical template fits the exodus of Hindu families from Kairana. There are concerns that similar patterns of exclusion are happening in Malda and parts of Assam.A senior police officer who toured Malda recently tells me that cops are being treated as thugs and criminals.

As per this historical template, this movement of ideas makes it extremely difficult for non-Muslims to live in lands where the Muslim population rises to become dominant. The defining traits of this movement of ideas are: exclusion, intimidation, persecution, conversion and forced migration. For example, not a week passes when a Hindu girl is not abducted and forcibly converted in Pakistan's Sindh province. Forced conversion of Hindu girls in Sindh, sometimes carried out in order to occupy their land, is considered a pious work. The case of Bangladesh is no different where Hindus are being persecuted and systematically murdered.

But there are counterfeit liberal editors who give examples of Hindu-Muslim unity. Such examples are isolated acts of humanism, not outstanding patterns of communal behaviour that can be described as features of modern civilisation. Exclusionary religions counter pluralism. On Twitter, senior journalist R. Jagannathan tells me that religions need not change, but their adherents must change in support of pluralism. Like Islam, Christianity, being a monotheistic religion, is also exclusionary but its adherents have changed liberally, notably in America and Europe. In the United States, Christians allow their churches to be used by Muslims for Friday prayer, sometimes for a fee. However, Muslims will never allow their mosques to be used by Hindus for any ritual.

Contrast this with a common scene in the inner circle of New Delhi's Connaught Place where Hindus make way to allow Muslims to offer weekly Friday prayers on public property. The best example of exclusionary practices rooted in religion can be given from the activities of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. While we see many Hindus defending Muslim riot victims in Gujarat and many others parts of India, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind tracks riot victims and innocents lodged in prisons, and ensures first that they are believers of Islam before taking up their cases. If Hindus were to do the same before helping riots victims, they will be called bigots.

It will be against the historical template of this exclusionary practice to argue that cases like the exodus of Hindus from Kashmir and Kairana will not happen again. Currently, this exclusionary practice is enabled by the Indian state. For example, the rationale of the Indian state demands that Kamlesh Tiwari, the Hindu man held for derogatory remark against Prophet Muhammad, be arrested. Although India does not have Islam's blasphemy law, practically it enforces the blasphemy laws prevalent in other Muslim countries. For example, Kamlesh Tiwari has been languishing in prison under the National Security Act (NSA) without any court hearing. Tiwari's detention is a blot on the face of the Indian republic, as most democracies today do not allow any person, not even a terrorist, to be in imprison without charge.

Contrast this behaviour of the Indian state towards Kamlesh Tiwari with its behaviour towards a set of Islamic clerics led by Maulana Anwarul Haq Sadiq of Bijnor who went in public, on Indian television, to announce a reward of 51 lakh rupees for anyone who could behead Tiwari whether in prison or outside. All of these clerics are free because the rationale of the Indian state demands that Muslim thugs will not be arrested while any Hindu can be arrested for bad behaviour. I have also been reliably informed that Tiwari's arrest enjoys the support of the Home Minister of India Shri Rajnath Singh. At issue is not Rajnath Singh but the historical template that has become the rationale of the Indian state. This rationale demands that the president of India organise Iftar parties every year at the expense of the taxpayer while not organising religious events of other religions.

Until this rationale of the Indian state is defeated electorally, politically and constitutionally, please prepare for this historical template to reproduce more examples like Kairana. The question is also this: what can the Indian state do? It will be too much to expect from the current centre-right government in New Delhi. Much like the Congress governments practised secularism and quota politics, the current centre-right government believes in giving Muslims Sufism – not mathematics, economics and physics to Muslim girls from grade one through 12. This outstanding rationale of the Indian republic must be countered so that India becomes an authentic republic with zero tolerance for anyone who breaks law.

For India to establish itself as a Great Power, the rule of law is the only hope. Currently, the rule of law is routinely mauled by cops who rob poor thela walas for a weekly extortion of ten rupees. Therefore, cops are morally incompetent to secure the Indian republic for our future generations. Here is also something to do: India could invest $100 billion and more in upgrading the last-mile police stations and get foreigners to train cops in professionalism, due process and honesty.

Tufail Ahmad is author of "Jihadist Threat to India – The Case for Islamic Reformation by an Indian Muslim."

Source: newageislam

A campaign of terror: The Pakistanis may never have Kashmir, but their violence has transformed it

C Christine Fair

Feigning outrage at the killing of Pakistan-backed Hizbul Mujahideen commanderBurhan Wani, Pakistan’s civilian-led government decried his killing by Indian security forces as “deplorable and condemnable”. This group is considered to be a terrorist organisation by the United States, the European Union, and India alike. This conniption once again exposed Pakistan’s unstinting support for the zoo of Islamist terrorists that it uses to achieve its foreign policy objectives in India, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The timing of this charade is not coincidental: it is contemporaneous with mounting criticisms over Pakistani human rights abuses in Balochistan as it tries to crush any and all opposition to the infamous “China Pakistan Economic Corridor”.  Pakistan explicitly counters criticism over its activities in Balochistan with reference to Indian security force’s killings in Kashmir. This is yet another Pakistani false equivalence.

It must be said bluntly that in Kashmir, Pakistan has no legal equities. Neither theIndian Independence Act of 1947 nor the Radcliffe Boundary Commission accord Pakistan any right to Kashmir. As is well-known, the Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh only acceded to India after Pakistan dispatched irregular forces to seize the terrain by force.

As the work of Shuja Nawaz – the brother of a deceased army chief – makes clear, these were not non-state actors. In its effort to seize Kashmir through warfare in 1947-48, 1965 and 1999 and by supporting a menagerie of terrorists since 1947 and an intense proxy war since 1989, Pakistan has demonstrated that it actually has little regard for the Kashmiris themselves.

As the Pakistanis sought to exploit the indigenous uprising that began in 1989, it raised and dispatched Deobandi and Salafist terrorist organisations such as Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba respectively, precisely because they have no regard for Kashmiri culture and beliefs. Whereas their Kashmiri proxies were more reticent to kill civilians and attack sufi shrines, these terrorists have shown no compunction.

They also sustained a reign of terror against women who do not veil as they demand by throwing acid on their faces and other crimes. The consequences of this are visible to any long-time observer. When I first visited the Valley in 1991, I never saw a woman in a black burqa with niqab. Instead women wore a scarf tied behind their necks. Now the black burqa, niqab and even socks and gloves are ubiquitous even beyond the cities and towns. The Pakistanis may never have Kashmir, but their violence has transformed it.

Turning to the most recent events, it is well-known that the recent episode of stone pelting has Pakistani backing. The stone pelting has had the intended consequences of goading Kashmir’s poorly equipped and poorly trained police into killing civilians who are protesting. About 80 people have been killed in this recent campaign of Pakistan-sponsored uprising and state response.

To be clear, it is extremely unfortunate that these deaths have occurred. And indeed, the Indian government needs to find other ways of managing crowds than looking for the chimerical non-lethal weapons. If Kashmir’s police had proper riot gear and personal protective equipment, the urge to fire at stone pelters would likely diminish. This would benefit India as it would deprive Pakistan of the result it so craves. But this incident reveals more than anything that Pakistan is willing to orchestrate the deaths of Kashmiris for its own political aims.

The vacuity of the so-called concern about Kashmir is reinforced by the complete omission of any mention of the Kashmiri Pandits who were ethnically cleansed by Pakistan-backed terrorists in 1990. Why does the “Kashmir problem” only centre on Muslims in the Valley and not any of the other lawful residents of the state?

Finally, the Pakistani civilian and military leadership continue to renew their demands that all UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir be fulfilled. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, continues to opine that “non-implementation of UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Kashmir issue is a travesty of law”. She, like other Pakistanis making these insensate claims, are banking on the fact that most people have never read the hallowed resolutions.

I have and the language is clear. Pakistan was to first withdraw all non-Kashmiri persons from the area, including regular and irregular security forces. Then and only then, India was to demilitarise as well. However, India was allowed to retain enough forces to protect against further Pakistani incursions. Once both of these sequential steps were taken to the satisfaction of a UN appointed body, then the arrangements for a plebiscite were to take place. Pakistanis yammering about the non-implementation of this accord have only themselves to blame.

Turning to the issue of Balochistan on the one hand and the recent events in Kashmir on the other: both campaigns of violence are manifestations of Pakistani policy. The Pakistan army, along with the Frontier Corps and its various intelligence agencies are waging an all-out war against the Baloch to clear the province for Chinese economic exploitation. There are no estimates of the casualties or of the persons who havedisappeared. There is no accounting for the whereabouts of these myriad disappeared persons.

By law, the US is required to impose Leahy Amendment sanctions on any military unit engaging in human rights violations. The Pakistan military is waging this war with the subsidy of the US, which so far has shown nothing but pusillanimity in contending with Pakistan even though Pakistan is the root cause of American failures in Afghanistan.

Source: timesofindia

Uri attack: Both India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs, why is only India anxious?

Tufail Ahmad Sep 22, 2016 8:39 IST

The Indian mind, living in its opulence of spirituality and self-belief in all things good, refuses to see the harshness of the truth inherent in the order of the nation states. Every Indian is a yoga guru. Every yoga guru, including the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, believes that he can engineer the rise of India as a great power without suffering a wound. But the international society of nation-states is a hostile place. This hostility was on display again on 18 September, when eighteen Indian soldiers were killed and dozens wounded in an attack on the Indian Army camp at Uri, planned, sponsored and executed by Pakistan. This is a known enemy. Every Indian is an anti-Chanakya.

The known enemy attacks us in known ways and in known places. We are taught that Mahmud Ghazni launched 17 attacks on Indian cities during 1000–1027 CE, through known means, through known routes, seizing the Somnath temple in Gujarat in the final invasion. But we are not taught that each time we waited for him to do so, we did not go beyond our borders to prevent him, to tame him, to fight him, to eliminate him. In history, you wouldn't find instances when a known enemy torments an entire people so many times and they don't respond. Much like Mahmud Ghazni, Pakistan, the known enemy, torments us in Jammu & Kashmir. Each time, we have prior intelligence input. Each time, we wait. Each time, we do not engineer a response.

The 18 September attack at Uri is perhaps the worst Pakistani attack since the Kaluchak attack of 14 May, 2002 when three soldiers, 18 relatives of Indian soldiers and ten civilians were killed. On 2 January this year, the enemy stormed the Indian Air Force base at Pathankot, killing seven soldiers. It succeeded because Indian policemen in Punjab were hand-in-glove with the enemies to earn money via illicit drugs routes. Similar attacks have taken place in Jammu & Kashmir regularly. Even after the enemy invaded Kargil in 1999, the largest jihadist war in modern times executed by Pakistan, we chose to serve biryani to General Pervez Musharraf, our tormentor in chief. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs. It is only the Indian mind that feels threatened.

Pakistan the enemy camouflages successfully for modern times. It calls its state-backed terrorists "non-state actors", the world believes in this phrase. It calls its terrorists "good Taliban", it takes years to explain it to Europeans and Americans that "good" in this context means evil. It sends a writer to visit Sufi shrines of Delhi and write a book. Indians develop trust in the author of the book, Delhi by Heart, a title given by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the creator of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban. The book's purpose is to insert the author in Track II diplomacy. The enemy sends a saree to the mother of its enemy leader. The cost of the saree is: seven soldiers killed in Pathankot and the bruised confidence of 1.25 billion Indians. In warfare, camouflaging your way into the enemy's defences is a successful strategy. Pakistan does it well.

Lieutenant-General A A K Niazi, the commander of Pakistani troops who surrendered at the fall of Dhaka in 1971, had served during the World War II on the Burma front. In 1964, Niazi, then a brigadier, argued that a weak state like Pakistan must rely on a strategy of infiltration which "implies bypassing of enemy posts by relatively small parties which penetrate deep and unseen into the defences and converge at a pre-designated objective" or "lie down in the enemy area and remain there for extended periods if needed." "The adoption of these [infiltration] tactics by the lesser developed nations like ours is a compelling necessity," he added. Niazi's strategy and the jihadist mindset of the Pakistani army is detailed by C Christine Fair in her book, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War.

Pakistan has always used this strategy of infiltration and guerrilla warfare either during the Operation Gibraltar that led to the 1965 war, in Kargil in 1999, on 26/11 in Mumbai and later through the attacks by the Indian Mujahideen in parts of India, and consistently, persistently and aggressively through past nearly three decades in Jammu & Kashmir. The behaviour of the enemy is familiar; its strategy is known to us. Even if India were to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan, the nature of the enemy is such that it will begin targeting other regions of India. Despite knowing this enemy, India's strategy to counter it is not ready, not known, not effective, not consequential. But the enemy, like Mahmud Ghazni, will strike again and again. This tactic has Islamic lineage.

In his book, Pakistan Mein Tehzeeb Ka Irtiqa, Sibte Hassan (1912-1986), an Indian-Pakistani Marxist who graduated from the Aligarh Muslim University, narrates how Muhammad bin Qasim was not the first Islamic invader of India. The Islamic attacks against Sindh and Balochistan had begun as early as during the era of Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of Islam who ruled from 634 to 644 CE. The first attack, which Sibte Hassan says was without consent from Umar but authorised by a local governor in Bahrain, was led by Mugheera ibn Abi Al-Aas and targeted against a port at Debal, near Karachi. Usman ibn Affan, the third Islamic caliph who ruled from 644 to 656 CE, considered an attack on Sindh by land. At that time Makran, a part of Balochistan, was already ruled by a Muslim governor.

When Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (reigned 661–680 CE) – the first ruler of the Umayyad dynasty – became the caliph, he sent several military expeditions: led by Abdullah bin Sawwar Abdi, by Rashid bin Umru, by Sanan bin Salmah (all names as per phonetics). All of these military raids ended in defeat. Sibte Hassan writes that when Hajjaj bin Yousef became the Governor of Iraq in 694 CE, he finally made up his mind to conquer Sindh and selected his son-in-law Muhammad bin Qasim to lead the invasion. Qasim registered many victories during 712-715 CE. The Muslim conquerors before Muhammad bin Qasim and after him have not stopped in their glories because Islam requires Muslims to conquer all the lands. The Quranic verse 8:39 commands: "And fight them until there is no fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah…" The word fitnah is translated as mischief but in Islamic literature, it means everything that is not Islamic. Similarly, the word "fight" in this verse is actually: Qatelu-hum, whose accurate meaning is "kill them."

The Kashmir conflict today is rooted in Pakistan's religious identity. The Kalima, or the words proclaiming one's faith in Islam, reads: La Ilaha Illalah Muhammad-ur-Rasoolullah. Its actual translation is: there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger. But in Pakistan, Islamic clerics have translated it differently as reflected in the wildly popular slogan among Pakistani people: "Pakistan ka Matlab kya (What is the meaning of Pakistan), the chorus: La Ilaha Illalah Muhammad-ur-Rasoolullah."Nowhere in the Islamic world, Kalima is translated this way. Unless Pakistan's identity undergoes some radical transformation, it is unlikely that it will not view itself as the vanguard state of the Muslim Ummah. In Pakistan, the common understanding is that Pakistan has two types of borders: geographical and ideological. The ISI, which creates, nurtures and shields terrorist groups, considers itself as the ideological guardian of Pakistan, the second state to be established in the name of Islam, the first being Medina.

People of India must reconcile to the idea that the jihadist attacks in Kashmir will continue as long as Pakistan retains its identity in its current form. However, the Indian state needs to evolve a 100-year strategy against this known enemy. The strategy must be for India to behave like neighbours behave in our villages. When your neighbour hurts you, you shun eye contact and refuse to attend their wedding. When a neighbour encroaches onto your land, you push back. When your neighbour occupies your land, you break their nose. There is a slight distinction in the case of Pakistan. This enemy is not trained to sit idle, not even in its glories, not even in Ramzan. While India's strategy must be to empower Balochs, Sindhis, Kashmiris and Pashtuns, a successful strategy must be to break up Pakistan by striking at the heart of the enemy: the Punjabi elite, right in Punjab, across the shared international border.

Former BBC journalist Tufail Ahmad is a contributing editor at Firstpost, and executive director of the Open Source Institute, New Delhi. He tweets @tufailelif 

Source: firstpost

American Progressives also typify others: Olmsted and Pollock

There are striking parallels between the seemingly progressive yet deeply prejudiced views of leftist American intellectuals of the 19th century and today.

by Kausik Gangopadhyay

Sene One: Mid Nineteenth Century 

Abolition of Slavery is a landmark event in American History. At the peak of American Civil war, President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery as a strategic move to win the war through the Emancipation Proclamation (1863). Planters in the Southern states of America used to justify slavery on the ground of supposed racial inferiority of the Negros and need of Slavery as an institution for the benefit of the Negros. But what was the role of progressive American intellectuals of that era regarding abolition of slavery?

The voice against slavery was gaining ground in the preceding decades. This may give the reader an impression that progressive intellectuals sympathetic to abolition of slavery believed in equality of all races, as opposed to those conservatives who supported slavery as the right institution for upliftment of blacks. Such an understanding, however, would be deeply flawed.

Frederick Law Olmsted was a versatile personality of that era. He was a farmer as well as a landscape architect, journalist, social critic and public administrator. He was commissioned by the New York Times editor in 1852 to prepare a series of articles about Slavery in the south. His famous book, The Cotton Republic (1861), was based on these articles which presented an all-encompassing picture of slavery. Eminent personalities of that era, including Karl Marx, were influenced by Olmsted's views. What were Olmsted's views exactly? He was firmly against slavery — not primarily because of exploitation of the slaves but mostly on account of the supposed inefficiency of the slaves who, in his understanding, accomplished one third to one half as much work as did “the commonest stupidest domestic drudges at the North.”

It is not Olmsted alone but other contemporary progressive intellectuals of the United States of the time such as Cassius Marcellus Clay and Hinton Rowan Helper had similar opinions, which formed the core of anti-Slavery argument of those times.

Do their arguments make sense? Absolutely Not. Eminent economic historians of the twentieth century—Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman—analysed American slavery in their book Time on the Cross (1974) for which Fogel was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences. Their data-based work did dispel many popular false perceptions about slavery, in particular, the myth of Negro slovenliness. The Negros were definitely more hard working and more productive than free white labourers. 

Fogel and Engerman further explain,

 “The antislavery critics...conceived of blacks as members of an inferior race...Most expected that freed Negroes would have to be constrained in various ways if an “orderly” society was to be maintained.”

No wonder, “one of the biggest biological crisis of the nineteenth century” happened right after abolition of slavery when at least one quarter of the four million former slaves got sick or died between 1862 and 1870. (Jim Downs, Sick from freedom; 2012)

Scene two: Early Twenty-first century

 A large number of American academics probably do not recognise Indian civilisation anything worthy of cognisance. The present West—American society being certainly at the forefront—is the product of the European renaissance in the Middle ages, which awakened the scientific exploration and risk-taking ventures of the West. At the heart of this revolution, argues Peter L. Bernstein in his book Against the Gods (1998), lies the Hindu-Arabic number system developed by the Indian civilisation and passed over to the West by the Arabs.

 Sheldon Pollock is a scholar and a leading expert on Sanskrit. Pollock, a chaired professor in a reputed US university, is the editor of the Murty Classical Library of India, a project launched to translate many volumes of Indian classics into English. This shows identification of Pollock with the cause of Indian civilisation. Rajiv Malhotra's book, The Battle for Sanskrit (2016), summarises Pollock's views on Sanskrit and Indian culture. Pollock considers Sanskrit a Brahminical project and source of oppression in India. Sanskritic hegemony, Pollock feels, deprived India of all creativity. The Ramayana, according to him, is a socially irresponsible book.

 Sanskrit connotes to the language of the cultured people by etymology. But Sanskrit is not really an exception; in civilizational projects, languages often evolve from the high culture of society and their names are indicative of this feature. For example, Mandarin is the imperial lingua franca of China (the language of the bureaucrats); Hebrew and Turkish are two artificially revived languages of the twentieth century by the cultural elites of the respective nations. Nevertheless, two most prominent compositions of Sanskrit, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are both composed by authors belonging to the subaltern classes (left liberal terminology wise)—Valmiki was a highway robber and Vyasa illegitimate Child of a boat-woman. These epics form the heart and the soul of Indian culture. What can be better proof of the fact that Sanskrit integrated the masses of India?

 Pollock is—very crucially—factually wrong too. He considers circa 260 BC as the birth of writing in India, overlooking the extensive evidence of writing found in Harappan sites (second or third millennium BC). Moreover, days when Sanskrit was India's lingua franca, India was one of the most advanced country of the world in terms of science, technology and economic prosperity. It is quite naive to insinuate that Sanskrit is responsible for Indian inferiority (the claim of Sheldon Pollock).

Progressive Typification

 The world-views of two leading progressive scholars of two very different generations show a similar pattern. Indeed, two examples are, by no means, sufficient to make a complete evaluation of the American progressives. However, they may bust some myths about American Progressives and their world-view which is often projected as neutral to race and religion.

 A. Olmsted was for abolition of slavery but strongly believed in inferiority of the Negroes. Pollock is associated with promotion of Indian civilisation but strongly believes in inferiority of Indian civilisation.

 B. Olmsted was factually wrong and prejudiced to consider the slaves as slovenly; but he pretended to be objective. Pollock's worldview has also factual inconsistencies as explained above. He is supposedly objective; so it does invoke the question: does he nurture deep prejudices in his psyche?

 C. Olmsted wanted Negroes to be constrained in an orderly society; he could not imagine a complete equality of the races. Pollock wants to send Sanskrit to museum as a dead language. He is utterly against revival of Sanskrit. Parity of Indian civilisation to its western counterpart is an unacceptable idea for him.

 D. Though slavery was no progressive institution, slaves did survive as second class inhabitants in American society with receipt of almost 90% of payment made to the free workers (Fogel and Engerman, 1974). There was no systemic genocide by slave-owners. However abolition of slavery caused Negroes to perish in unprecedentedly large numbers during 1860s. Likewise, American conservatives are no friends of Indian culture. Indian cultural studies—while being dominated by western academic discourse—can survive without any state patronage from them. But it is difficult to conclude the same with Pollock as gatekeeper for Indian culture. Such a “friend” of Indian culture would probably end up being catastrophic.

Source: pragyata

Decoding Barkha Dutt’s open letter to Prime minister

BY KANIMOZHI / OPEN LETTERS / 02 MAR 2016

There are a number of open letters as well as, their counter letters that have been written after JNU Row. Out of all the letters that have been written recently, only three are my favorites, which have been listed below:

1. Open letter to Raj Deep – By Vivek Agnihotri
2. Open letter to Rahul Gandhi – By Mrinaal Prem
3. Open Letter to Barkha Dutt – By Vande Mataram

After I had seen numerous open letters, I realized that I am the only person that has not only, not written an open letter but has also not responded to any of the unlimited open letters available. It is probable that none of the letters was addressed to me, but normally those responding to such open letters are not exactly the people the letter was directed to, but third parties.

Today, many are writing open letters, as if they are sending a “whatsapp” forwarded joke message to the Prime Minister of country like India, which is known for its laid back bureaucracy and red-tapism. Since it costs them nothing, they write open letters and expect immediate responses to their open letters; possibly with the assumption that even if the prime minister does not respond to such open letters written, at least, he will send a smiley or a pictorial message as a rejoinder to their letter.

As a response to the open letters addressed to the Prime Minister of the nation with the population of 1.2billion people, third parties write counter open letters who somehow assume the role of the prime minister. I, therefore, decided never to write an open letter nor to assume that a particular letter is addressed to me and respond.

But still, my enormous desire for open letters could not stop. To quench my desire for open letters, I started rehearsing and reading all those letters again with the decision that I will not write an open letter which is long; with the intention that a busy person like the prime minister may be able to read and respond at least in the form of smiley or pictorial message.

Consequently, I decided to decode and simplify one of the letters addressed to the Prime Minister by Ms. Barkha Dutt, who seems to be the best journalist as per to the major opposition parties in the country. She, generically, seems to be representing the hundreds of opposition parties but also the 1.2 billion people.

The actual Barkha Dutt’s letter to the prime minister can be read from here.

We now get down to “Decoding Barkha’s Dutt Letter addressed to the Prime Minister” to make it easy for all those who are reading the letter, including the Prime Minister himself if he at all he decides to read her letter.

For this, I use the dictionary from my favorite, R. Jaganathan. As I consider him the master of decoding speeches and open letters too, other than providing financial advice day & night to the Government of the day. I mean, the advice in the night will be 100% different from what he provided in the day. I love to call him as my Guruji, but ever since the Congress’s innovation of Afzal Guru ji, I stopped using Ji. And we are again distracted from the “decoding process.”

Actual Headline of her letter is as follows:

 “A letter to PM Modi from Anti -National Sickular pressitute”.

Deciphering the Headline:

This is a clever distortion, a thorough attempt to narrow down the argument by painting positive things which is obvious and which everybody can agree on. This is what others refer to as anti-national, since the issue you tabled is different from the main topic. Those few who are against JNU slogans are against the fundamental right of “speech”.

Example: “I am for a uniform civil code and if that makes me communal, I accept”

Having decoded the subject of the letter, we now Decode the Letter in one go.

Dear Prime minister,

We both are equal, we both started our career together – you as the General Secretary and I as the Reporter. While you were trying to manage the affairs of the party even without being fluent in English, I mastered the art of managing the entire military. I have not only given input to the past government to solve all the problems of the Indian military, but also have the solutions to the problems which you personally could not solve, be it OROP or Defense Procurement. This signifies that I am the most patriotic person in the entire universe.

Also, I am the best, be it in my part-time job of reporting or full-time job as a consultant to the government. I can be an adviser or critic from The South of Tamil Nadu to Kashmir. Don’t trust my competitors, my service is readily available for you to always see and hence collect. Irrespective of the fact that my friends are teasing me and telling me that I should not provide you any advice. Yet, I am still willing to offer my services.

Additionally, I have always been thinking that you are more inclined towards the center instead of left leaning like the past government, which was my assumption. But with the action your government has taken at JNU, I am totally convinced. Since all your men are completely under your control, we could in no way influence them, unlike previous NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, yours made our lives miserable.

Even during 26/11, when several people were killed by Ajmal Kasab and his friends from Pakistan, the previous UPA government was so accommodating. Not only that they allowed us to access to all their data, but also, the ministers of UPA were accommodating. The interesting part was that each of them was speaking in different languages which enabled us to create so many conspiracies and interesting stories which also led to an increase in our TRP coupled with a mount in my salary too. Your government, on the other hand, has made my job quite difficult. Interestingly, they all speak a single language, leaving us with lesser opportunities to create interesting stories or conspiracy theories and hence, the downward slope in our TRP.

Furthermore, our TRP has come down to 3%.This is because your government does not have a conscience. It only concentrates on filing cases against us and sending us notices.  Since there is no support from the government, we – the like-minded people – tried to lobby, so that our TRP could go up. But to our greatest surprise, your government rejected it. My friends refused to support me in pretention because you told them not to help me in increasing my TRP. I came with the idea of taking support from the lawyers to increase our rating, yet they refused to accept my proposal. But your refusal to support our business as well as your refusal to increase our influence with the corporate, our business almost liquidated. To me, this is against our channel.

We assume, Mr. Prime Minister, which you are aware of our hardship and therefore, you need to do something. It is not only my channel that has this problem, but also other channels except “Times Now” that broadcasts exclusive Dogs barking shows and government-funded channels. All the others channels will be forced to close, if your government refuses to support, just like previous ones. Then again you did not inform us about your visit to Pakistan, due to which we could not get the advantage of 24/7 coverage. It was only a Pakistan TV channel that milked your entire visit. Same with the case of your visit to Kashmir several times, only Pakistani viewers are interested in Kashmir related news so their TRP increased.

After our best efforts we are able to convince some motor mouthed members of your party, all that news they could create for us are about Beef and Demons. Do you agree that news on “cooking beef” and “worshipping demons” is not something people are interested in? When we report news on those subjects, no one views it. We need news that people will watch and a situation whereby our TRP increases. Even when Kanhaya Kumar was being dragged and pulled, our cameraman was not given proper access to show whether he was bleeding or had broken legs or hands.

What kind of police force do you have Mr. PM? … could not even break his leg. Our TRP would have gone up not only locally, but the image would have made both national and international headlines. We need to be reporting the abuse of power so that we can get donations through NGO route. In the previous UPA government, we had a Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh who was not able to give us an exclusive interview as he can’t speak at all. But even now, we do not have hope on Prime Minister – a one to one interview as we know that for sure, will not be given by you. Help us Mr. PM … Support an increase in our TRP.

We know your love for the nation; we also love the nation and also want the nation to become richer so that, we can improve our business by numerous blackmail options we routinely do. But, to our disappointment Mr.  Prime minister, all those news coming from your government is not TRP worthy. After persuading for long, your party members were willing to help us, but all that they could do is to hit a couple in Maharashtra in Mumbai. What can we do with this kind of stupid news? We need news like that of CWG or 2G.

During the previous government, not only did we get all the support to increase our TRP, but also support to make additional income through Ms. Radia and many others.  The previous UPA government allowed us to make enough money, honored me by giving several awards but even asked all the school going students to study about me. But to my dismay, I was told that you will be removing even those lessons about me from the Syllabus.

I am getting older, so before my retirement, I need to make a reasonable amount of money. I also intend to start my own business up. I also published a book that only very few have purchased. Please be kind enough, help us! If you help us, I will try my best to support you. I don’t have money to buy diamonds for you though. If you make up your mind that you are not helping me after reading this letter, well, God help you. I pray to God and I believe that the government that will support me will be in power in 2019.

Dear Prime Minister, India belongs to people like us, not you. People like me have built this country over a period of 50 years of hard work, and we have built a strong eco system. Whatever you may try, our eco system will fail you, and 2019 will be ours.

Yours truly,

Anti-national Presstitute Barkha Dutt.

Post Script (This is from me, not Ms. Barkha Dutt):

I don’t expect any response from either the Prime Minister or Barkha Dutt, or anyone who has excellent skills in writing an open letter – including those who have written the above 3 letters. I don’t mind if you abuse me with written comments here or on my twitter account, I will not read them. I am requesting for a small open letter from those who are planning to write in future, so that I will be able to decode faster.

Source: opindia

Varanasi is as old as Indus valley civilization, finds IIT-KGP study

Jhimli Mukherjee Pandey | Feb 25, 2016, 11.49 PM IST

Kolkata: It's a perfect example of science meeting faith and technology buttressing myth. A detailed study conducted by IIT-Kharagpur - using GPS, one of the latest tech tools - could well turn the clock back on Varanasi, indicating that the holy town has been a continuous human settlement since the days of the Indus Valley Civilization, around 6000 years ago.

The project, funded by the Union ministry of human resources development (it has released Rs 20 crore just for the first phase), has even attracted the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The PM made it a point to explore the project's progress on Sunday at Varanasi, when he met the IIT-Kgp faculty members and inquired about its possibilities and scope.

The results that have come from a detailed geo-exploration (exploration conducted through GPS technology) conducted by seven IIT-Kgp departments, tracing the different stages through which civilization progressed, and how Varanasi has been able to maintain continuity as a living civilization, unlike comparable seats of human settlement in the world. The researchers have dug 100-metre-deep boring holes all over Varanasi to conclude that there is evidence of continuous settlement at least till 2000BC. There are enough indications that by the time the data collection is over, there would be enough to prove that this date can be pushed back to about 4500BC.

The oldest part of this civilisation has been traced to the Gomati Sangam area of Varanasi, as indicated by the underground layers that have already been tested.

It is perhaps time to take a re-look at India's history. IIT Kharagpur is about to make an explosive announcement. It is ready to put the clock 6000 years back on Varanasi, bringing it at par with the Indus valley civilisation, if not older. What's more, the seven departments of IIT Kgp, that are working on the project, are tracing the different stages through which the civilisation has progressed and has yet been able to maintain its continuity as a living civilisation, unlike comparable ancient civilisations around the world.

The project, which is completely funded by the union ministry of human resources development, has attracted the attention of none less than Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who made it a point to explore its progress on Sunday at Varanasi, when he met the IIT Kgp faculty members and inquired about the possibilities and the scope of the project.

The results that have come from a detailed geo exploration through the GPS conducted through 100 metre deep bore holes all over Varanasi shows continuous settlement history till 2000 BC. The indicators are that at the end of data collection, this will be put back another '1500 years to establish the final habitable antiquity of Varanasi at 4500 BC.

The geo-exploration, that is being conducted jointly with the British Geological Survey, has already established the existence of Naimisharanya, a forest that finds mention in the Vedas and in the Kashipurana. This forest was considered mythological all these years.

The researchers are also trying to set up a riverine route from Kolkata to Varanasi to Prayag (Allahabad). "Since ancient times, people used this route but the advent of the railways stopped it. We are trying to re-establish that route," said Joy Sen, a senior faculty member of the school of architecture and planning, who is also the chief of the project that has been christened Sandhi. The other departments that are involved in sandhi are humanities and social sciences, computer science, information technology, electrical, electronics and telecommunications and oceanography. The riverine route will be developed to carry tourists, said sources.

Separate heritage trails leading to the five oldest ghats - Asi, Kedar, Dasashwamedh, Panchaganga and Rajghat - are also being created. "We are tracing the ashrams of ancient yogis and spiritual leaders of all religions that dotted the lanes leading to the ghats. Some of these are extinct now, some dilapidated. We will reclaim and restore as much as possible," Sen explained.

A large part of the project, which began in August last year, aims at creating a green rim and reclaiming the greenery and waterbodies that dotted the entire zone from Sarnath to the campus of Benares Hindu University. Efforts are on to remove encroachment and illegal constructions so that the earlier ecosystem is reclaimed as far as possible. "Varanasi has been the seat of all religions and their holy men, who will all be represented elaborately in the project. Efforts are also being made to establish special zones in areas that are dominated by old age homes and shelters for widows," Sen added.

Language, music and iconograohy play a major role in Sandhi. Old texts like Kashipuran or Skandapuran, Mahabharata and Ramayana and the Buddhist text Anguttaranikaya are being re-read for descriptions of Kashi and Kashiraj that were considered mythological all these years.

"We are encountering surprises every day. What was thought to be lore or myth is gradually getting established as history, and that is our biggest achievement," Sen said.

Top Comment

Indian civilization is without the shred of a doubt, one of the most ancient in the world, and what is perhaps unequivoc... Read MoreVijay S Kumar
Source: timesofindia

The MHRD is completely funding the project and has already released Rs 20 crores for it.

Mohanlal Pens Emotional Blog on Nationalism, Slams Activists

Lamenting the current situation at JNU and the ongoing discourse on freedom, Malayalam film star Mohanlal has written a blog titled ‘What’s the point of us living when India is dying’.

The actor began his blog by saying that a few days ago, he saw the picture of Lance Naik Sudheesh’s four-month-old daughter being shown her father’s dead body, a daughter who the soldier had never seen.

In the same newspaper I read about the fight in our universities on what love for the nation is. Fights in assemblies, bar scam and other news stories too were there. I felt sorrow and shame at the same time.

 Mohanlal, Actor

Mohanlal said that as soldiers die for the nation, there can be nothing more shameful than citizens discussing what freedom and patriotism is.

The actor, who has received the honorary rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Territorial Army of India, also questioned the ‘hypocrisy’ of an average citizen who sits within the comforts of his or her house and criticises armed forces.

We cover ourselves in thick blankets at the first sign of chill in the weather. We have hot water to brush our teeth and take a bath. It is after utilising these comforts that we go to universities and offices and discuss about our soldiers, abuse them and question them.

 Mohanlal, Actor

He then said that while the common citizen enjoys these comforts, the soldiers spend their time mostly in solitude thinking about the families they left behind, the children they didn’t see even once.

I read that even Pakistan was ready to help us retrieve bodies of soldiers in Siachen. Did we show even that much respect to them?

 Mohanlal, Actor

He said that like a son or daughter cannot abandon their aged parent, we cannot distance ourselves from the nation.

Our country is the soil we stand on, the sky above our heads, the air we breathe, the water we drink and finally the piece of land that we will become one with as we die.

 Mohanlal, Actor

Stating that while he was not interested in the current discussion, the attitude of some left him disturbed, so he urged parents to speak to their children about what the nation means.

He concluded by saying that debates and discussions are essential to a democracy, but only if they will strengthen the democracy.

Any discussion that does not help us strengthen the freedom we have attained is meaningless and is an insult to the nation.

 Mohanlal, Actor

Source: thequint