Changed Face of Terrorist

Attack in London was not a surprise at all. It was long expected and according to New York Times London “had been on the cross roads of terrorism for long”. Plus, who can forget Mohammad Gaddafi saying on the eve of Afghanistan bombing that “US should bomb London rather than Kabul”. The growing population of Islamic community in Britain had been headache for most of the government around the world, now; it is going to be big headache for British government too. I was reading an interesting column about the attacks in NY Times and the points raised by author definitely needs attention.

Looking at the terrorist profiles in London or New York attacks, we can see that majority of those terrorist are from educated, middle class or upper class families and had decent childhood. Thus, the standard picture of terrorist being poor, uneducated and hailing from isolated and fanatic community is wanting in current terrorists’ profile. Another important feature is bulk of the terrorists comes from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. Two of the above mentioned countries have per capita income very high, 12,000 and 4,500 respectively. And about Pakistan, well, it is hub for terrorist, one stop shopping mall for all terrorist, so it hardly surprising that we find Pakistani nationals regularly on terrorist list. Good example would be in last four months, in Iraq, 46 of the 55 suicide bombers were Saudi nationals.

The terrorist who blew themselves along with 55 innocent people in London were born and brought up in England. They had far more opportunities to succeed in life than their ‘brethren’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, they chose to die for some flimsy reason. That shows that the Islamic community should start reforming themselves rather blaming the rest of the world for their social backwardness. I am not saying that everyone should advance according to western standard and it would be most welcome to set the standards of development according to their society. But harming no one and killing no one for some stupid reason is something, which is an unwritten rule.

Flow is a nature’s phenomenon. Defying that and sticking to something that happened almost 1400 years does not make sense. There are number of ways to reform the system without deviating from the central path and without loosing the crux. It will be most welcome effort for whole world.

B.S. II

There seems to be inverse relationship between number of books and columns I read and blogs I write. And, that actually scares me. It points out to few things. One, either I am extremely intelligent creature, whose mental strength increases in multiple proportion of number of books I read. And as I get nearer to the absolute infinity of knowledge, my pace of writing is increasing in order to enlighten the world the complexity of being a living being on this mother earth. Or, I am plainly bull shitting. The choice is yours. I will go for second option.

I uploaded a stat counter on my blog. It keeps the count of number of unique visitors, the time they spent on my blog, their location etc. almost 80% of people spends less than 5 seconds on my blog. (Though, this percentage is decreasing.)It again points few things again. Either people do not have time to read some of the interesting topics I write about or again, I am bull shitting. In this case I will go for first option.

I realized another interesting reason behind not reading my blog. I am benevolent enough to consider that majority of the people pay attention to the things happening around them. (I know they don’t!) But somehow they are bored to read, kind of things or issues I write on the blog. Or, they are read a lot, think a lot and they simply find no time in reading or listening to what other people say. I feel that this is the precise reason why we see so much bull shitting everywhere. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC all these news channel with their biased views, instead of providing unpartisan news information to the viewers B.S. so much that, people like me have to rely on Jon Stewart and his The Daily show for reality. Sadly, there is no option here and I will rest my B.S. case here. Shalom!

(If I were you I won’t read this piece of s#*#t!)

World War - II

History channel is bombarding with programs celebrating the end of World War II for last whole week or so. The WW-II was certainly horrific. It was nadir for humanity. It consumed almost 5, 50, 00,000 lives and changed the future of the world drastically. NAZI power couldn’t become a superpower but it wounded British Empire so badly that Britain ceased to be a superpower. (And instantly attained the third world status, as the saying goes!) And, though the Cold war began, at least, the colonial era ended with the conclusion of world war.

The disturbing element of History channels WW-II programs is constant referral t the Allies member as torch bearers of freedom and democracy. Most of the allied members were definitely democratic, (barring, glaring example of Russia) I do not believe that Allied members were ‘freedom lovers’. The reason behind it is simple, the allied members had whole world shared among themselves and Germany challenged their supremacy or the delicate power balance among the powerful allies. And, the concomitant reason for waging war against Germany was to save their colonies and the ruse was the redemption and protection from the Nazi Satan.

I am in no way suggesting that Germany would have liberated the world from Colonial rule. Germany was itself a colonial power. And now looking back at NAZI doctrine, we can certainly say that colonial powers were benign compared to what Nazi’s would have been, had they won the war. Actually the conquered world had no choice or they had choice between rulers who were competing to plunder them. But the allied members were in no way fighting for the world. The horrific crime the allied members did near the end of world war were equally reprehensible as NAZI war crimes. Of course the Holocaust can not be compared with anything and at the same time I am not comparing Allied nations with Nazi Germany. Because, I think there can’t be any comparison among them as all of them were in same basket. Whether Nazi’s killed insanely under the spell of racial supremacy or Allied nations killed insanely under the spell of ‘liberating people’, ultimately it was the innocent bystander who was slaughtered.

I am not a peace activist andI believe that conflict is part of the nature. But at least in WW-II there was no liberator and victor but everyone was a victim.

Selected writings of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan

It is now admitted that the Hindus at a very early time conceived and developed the two sciences of logic and grammar. Wilson Writes “ In medicine, as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace with the most enlightened nations of the world; and they attained as through a proficiency in medicine and surgery as any people whose acquisitions are recorded and as indeed was practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by discoveries of modern inquirers.” It is true that they did not invent any great mechanical appliances. For this a kind Heaven, which gave them the great water courses and abundant supplies of food is responsible. Let us also remember that these mechanical inventions belong after all, to the sixteenth century and after , by which time India had lost her independence and become parasitic. The day she lost her independence and become parasitic. The day she lost her freedom and began to flirt with other nations, a curse fell on her and she became petrified. Till then she could hold her own even ini arts, crafts and industries, not to speak of mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, surgery, and those branches of physical knowledge practiced in ancient times. She knew how to chisel stone, draw pictures, burnish gold and weave rich fabrics. She developed all arts , fine and industrial, which furnish the conditions of civilized existence. Her ships crossed the oceans and her wealth brimmed over to Judea, Egypt and Rome. Her conception of man and society, morals and religion were remarkable for the time. We can’t reasonably say that the Indian people reveled in poetry and mythology, and spurned science and philosophy, though it is true that they were intent on seeking the unity of things than emphasizing their sharpness and separation.

- Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
Indian Philosophy, Volume I

20th Century

The death toll in 20^th Century is listed below. Bulk of these casualties can be directly attributed to the ‘peace-loving’, ‘liberator’ and ‘democratic’ nations of western hemisphere.

1) First World War - (1914-18): 1,50,00,000

2) Russian Civil War – (1917-22): 90,00,000

3) Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 2,00,00,000

4) Second World War (1937-45): 5,50,00,000

5) Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe (1945-47): 21,00,000

6) Chinese Civil War (1945-49): 25,00,000

7) People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975):4,00,00,000

8) Tibet (1950 et seq.): 600 000

9) Mexican Revolution (1910-20): 1 000 000

10) Armenian Massacres (1915-23): 1 500 000

11) China War-lord era (1917-28): 800 000

12) China, Nationalist Era (1928-37): 3 100 000

13) Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000

14) Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95): 1 350 000

15) Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000

(It includes Vietnam war, Vietnam Civil war, Cambodian war)

16) Ethiopia (1962-92): 1 400 000

17) Nigeria (1966-70): 1 000 000

18) Bangladesh (1971): 1 250 000

19) Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978): 1 650 000

20) Afghanistan (1979-2001): 1 800 000

21) Iran Iraq War (1980-88): 1 000 000

22) Sudan (1983 et seq.): 1 900 000

23) Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.): 3 300 000

Source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

Mr. Manmohan Singh and Oxford

I had a very long discussion with my friend J.B. about the statement made by Mr. Manmohan Singh at Oxford. I wrote a blog denouncing him for making, what I considered as a brash statement. I thought he was indirectly eulogizing the British rule. But apparently he was not. I still stand by my statements in that particular blog, even I though I am ready apologies for misunderstanding Mr. Singhs’ statement. I agree with him (if he indeed said that! ) when he said that the infrastructure or bureaucracy British people created in India, for plundering country more systematically, helped in India in post-independence period.

British rule was worst in most of the sense than previous invaders India witnessed. Even though the damage was not visible as in case of previous invasions, the mentality that British people created is still hurting India.

Ram Janmabhumi

Less crudely, such questions are partly answered everyday by things like the city of Ayodhya, in Thailand. The Thai Ayodhya is not only sacred; it is unlikely to concede that Madurai is only a derivative of Mathura. Once however you historicize Rama, once you locate his birthplace at a particular Ayodhya at a particular point of time, either to territorialize his claim to a temple or to oppose it, you atutomatically deny or diminish the sacrednessof the other Ayodhya and, while you may serve the purpose of those who view Rama as a national leader, a historical figure and a cultural hero, you cannot sustain his stuuatus as a god who, as a god, has to exist today. If Rama is, only then is he Rama. If Rama was, he is no Rama. This is the paradox in which one gets caught when one accepts the language of either the Hindutva-hawkers or the secular fundamentalist.

- Ashis Nandy

Secularism

Whenever someone tries to write about the Islamic destruction in Medieval India, the secularists are up in arms. I really don’t care about the secularist because they are useless and they twisted the secularism in such a way that unity of different faiths, which they sought to do, is almost impossible to achieve now. But I don’t intend to write about secularism; that would be digression.

The Islamic invaders coming from Arabia were barbaric and religious fanatics. They wanted to spread their faith and kill who refuse to obey them. The destruction is real. The obliterated civilization of Zoroastrians in Iran is perfect example of annihilation and so is the Gandhar. (Present day Afghanistan)

But that was the way it used to happen in those times. Christians did the same thing in North and South America, as religious zealotry was a norm and secularism was rare, rather unacceptable. But that does not mean that we should not even talk about the destruction. Millions and millions of people lost their lives so at least we can do today is to evaluate the past and build the future in such a way that such genocides won’t happen again.

The Islamic marauders too were marauded; by Genghis Khan in 12^th century. And, even though both the victims and victors were of same religion, the genocide and annihilation done by Genghis Khan is unparallel in history. The genocide done by Hitler needed modern technologies but Genghis Khan did that with bare swords and hatchets. The sacking of Baghdad was so inhuman and barbaric that even today Baghdad grieves for its destruction.

Alas, that is not everybody thinks. Secularist made it impossible to discuss anything related to religion. We can not discuss the achievements of religion of majority nor can we discuss shortcomings of religion of minorities. Without open discussion society is increasingly becoming like stagnant water, full of dirt and mosquitoes. And, then everybody (media and “intellectuals”) show surprise at Gujrat riots, at Ayodhya riots. Where as the Ahamadabad riots in 1967 were worst than Ayodhya riots and Godhra was under curfew for six months in 1947.

Considering the media bias and intellectual blindness in India there is little chance that situation will change in near future. And, it will continue to affect the future growth of India adversely.

Invasion Theory II

Recently, Mr. Manmohan Singh babbled that British rule actually helped India. I thought I will be shocked to hear India’s prime minister saying that, but I wasn’t. It will be too naive to be shocked with this statement. The reason behind such a statement is not that Mr. Singh is Britain educated but the reason is total lack of historical perspective among the society. The problem is two pronged; first we do not take our history seriously, mostly brushing it of as ‘history’ and second, few people who take history seriously usually have no real sense of history.

As V. S. Naipaul correctly observed that, Indians need to face their wounds; the wounds of a defeated and plundered civilization. We say that we have ancient civilization. But if we ask ourselves what exactly do we know about our ancient civilization then very few people can actually answer the question. We no longer have our old universities, medicine, engineering and we are fast loosing our philosophy. We do not even speak, write or even understand Sanskrit anymore. (The way we are going, I doubt after fifty years we will be speaking even Hindi) There is no question that our civilization is old, already an antique when western civilization rose in Rome but it happened thousands of years ago. But this false sense of superiority seems to me like a poor attempt to conceal the deep wounds we had in last thousand years. The Islamic invaders followed by British crooks beheaded us so badly that we are still trying to find the logic explanation to our defeat. All of our values that lead us to dazzling heights proved completely useless against the marauding and barbaric invaders from west. Unfortunately we are still trying to pick up those values and boast the greatness of our civilization.

Out of this apathy towards our own history rose the attitude which is reflected in our Prime ministers statement. He is not to be blamed as he is mare reflection of our society. Lot of Indians do think that British rule was good. But was it really good or it was better than Islamic invaders we had for 500 years? Actually, both of them were equally bad. Both of them tried to destroy what we stand for and what we strive for. Our religion, tradition, custom, language, history, even geography is muddled because of them. They left us with no sense of direction and with no sense of ourselves..

Within 60 years of Independence if Indian prime minister states that British rule was good then I am scared of the future. I am just hoping that Mr. Singh statement was politically motivated and he did not meant that. But even in this hope lies a defeat which I am not ready to face.

Peshawe

The Peshawe dynasty is vastly misunderstood among other dynasties in India. Instead of counting them among the best administered and bravest (They are the one who officially overthrown Delhi sultanate and won area up to Attock in Pakistan.) they are blamed for numerous things. Particularly, Marathas sulked endlessly, as they had to fight under Peshawe’s (Brahmins) supervision in post-Shivaji period.

Strong navy was ultimate dream of Shivaji and he worked relentlessly for this dream and succeeded up to great extent. He halted British businessman from establishing strong base in Kokan area and stunted the growth of Portuguese outside Goa. His ships used to wreck havoc up to Arabian Peninsula. Among the other things, Peshawe’s are blamed for not building maintaining Navy in Arabian seas. Even if we accept this blame, we should consider the reasons behind it. It was almost impossible for them to keep eye on Navy’s growth because they were concentrating mainly on expanding empire on the west and northern front. They won area up to Gwalior, and virtually stopped further invasions from west and central Asia. Plus, they were fighting with their own brethren. Holkar, Shinde, Bhosle (Nagpur) were not co-operating with them at best and fighting against them at worst. .

An important thing to note is, British established their firm base in Calcutta first as they realized that it is impossible to expand their empire from Western Ghats. So, considering Peshawe’s did grave mistake by neglecting Navy, they were fairly successful in keeping sea enemies at bay as even Portuguese remained confined to Goa and there by serving the purpose of Navy.

It is a fashion to criticize the Peshawe’s because, first, there no more Peshwe’s left and second, Maratha’s still wield power in Maharashtra. But, I don’t think that Peshwe’s were Brahmins nor Shivaji was Maratha. They were great people who worked selflessly with grand aim in mind and they worked incessantly to achieve that goal. It’s because their bravery that we still boast name of our country as Bharat and still follow our religion and our tradition. Blaming someone because of caste politics is not only an attempt to trivialize their life but also an insult to their achievements.

Thomas L. Friedman

Apparently, Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist is increasingly becoming popular in India and among Indian Diaspora. His columns now appear regularly on Indian express website and he is getting quoted everywhere, particularly with respect to his views about India. But, I am increasingly getting frustrated with him, I mean with his views. Sure, he meets with all the important people, he travels around the world, but, instead he becoming rationalist and clear thinker, he is becoming naïve and his solutions to the problem, particularly about Islamic terrorism are childish.

He always carries a sense of superiority because he is American (though, he does criticizes America) and talks as if he stands on morally high ground. He sincerely believes that America is the only savior of the world and last hope for world redemption. He thinks America is beacon of democracy and believes that only hardcore capitalism is the only answer to all the world problems.

His solution for Islamic militancy is absolutely rubbish. He seems to believe that peaceful approach will do magic with militancy, at the same though, he thinks that Iraq invasion was necessary. In his talk about terrorism, he fails to mention Pakistan and that makes me wonder whether this person is biased or plainly stupid.

His views about India are definitely positive but he believes that India is lucky country, at least in terms of its software business. And, he thinks that it was America that helped India immensely. It is truth that Indian companies earn bulk of their money from U.S. but at the same time it is hard to discern whether India needs America or America needs India more. Mr. Friedman seems to see India as if a child growing under proper care and care is provided by America.

He try to simplify every problem and there nothing wrong in projecting a problem in simplified manner but that does not mean the problem itself is simple. He almost always fails to see the complexity behind most of the issues, be it Islamic terrorism or super power status of the America.

Capitalism II

Capitalism is defined as economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

Basically, it is an economic system by people and for people. But increasingly, the word people is getting replaced by corporations. And, instead of satisfying the demands of the society these corporations are creating demand for their products, at the expense of community welfare. The strategies employed by fast food companies are fine example of demand generating tactics.

I do not claim to be a master economist and there is fair amount of
probability that I am completely wrong here. The tactics employed by
fast food companies (Americans spend $110 billions on fast food
annually, more than they spend on education!) that augmented their
sales to colossus level in comparison with their business in 1980's,
should be thoroughly scrutinized. These companies did not pay any
attention to the healthy diet, in the name of cost cutting; they pay
extremely low to their employees. They add artificial flavors for some
kind of addictive taste. Also, these companies focus themselves to
children. If a child is addicted to fast food then the fast food
company earns a life time customer. In the book Fast Food Nation, the
authors made a valid point; generally a child associates particular
taste of food to a particular incidence. That is the reason; we always
have nostalgic feeling about mom's food. So, with proper
advertisement, if a child is enticed to fast food outlet and if he
spends happy time there with his or her family then the child will
associate that particular taste with happy family time.

The scary part is, this research is done by fast food companies and not by
author. Manipulating communities demand is probably rampant in every
industry. I quoted fast food industry because I read the book about
it. But cosmetic industry is probably, another fine example of such
tactics. Such kind of capitalism is certainly harmful to the society. Ironically, the cure of this problem is hard to find as society is itself generating the perpetrator.

Capitalism

Being an economic major I am supposed to believe in capitalism and free market economics. But I am increasingly getting skeptical about these policies. I am not turning communist or socialist, but any thing in excess is bane. So, capitalism in excess is harmful to the society. The monotonous way with which U.S. and western powers continue to advocate capitalism scares me. One thing, in last two hundred years or so Europeans have created havoc across the world, so it is hard to believe in them now. Second thing, the guiding principal of current of form capitalism; greed is good, if followed, will lead to systematic destruction of the societies across the globe and not to tell, of environment too.

If the resources of the globe are constant, that means supply is constant and demand for these resources is forced to increase continuously then the strain on the supply will cross the threshold at some point and at that point, either strongest (that is western countries) will seize those resources and rest of the world will be left in lurch or quest to fulfill the demand will lead to total destruction of environment. The logging of rainforest, disappearance of coral reefs, more and more species are joining the extinct list, (at least one specie vanishes every day) over fishing in seas and in rivers, increase in barren land due to excessive crops, tremendous strain on fresh water supply, decrease in ozone layer, decrease in Ice shield in North and South pole etc. The list is long and new things keep on adding.

Apart from these obvious environment degradation, the living standard of most of the people is decreasing rapidly (I have listed few facts in a prior blog.) and wealth is getting accumulated in few hands.

I am not completely against capitalism. The effects of communism are horrendous and we can not allow communism to take hold again. But I strongly believe that, models of capitalism should change according to countries, societies and people. The form of capitalism in US does not guarantee success in other countries. Extremities always meet at the end. Communism tried to use same economic model for all situation and forced such policies on all kind of people. U.S. and western countries are doing same thing albeit, with capitalism.

Biased History

I like history, I should have been history major but I really doubt I would have learned more in history classes than what I am learning or understanding now. Not to chide the history stream but I am rather skeptical of streams like history, political science etc, as I am very puzzled by consistent rift between the ‘liberal’ outlook of the curriculum and actual outcome it, generated through student.

Discussing history with anyone invariably ends with the sentence that interpretation of history changes according to the person. And I refuse to buy this argument. History is like a fact book. Facts can not be interpreted because that is why they are called as facts. Interpretation may be considered as a best mean to reach the end or decipher the reality when historical data is not completely collected. But when complete data is available, interpreting history is nothing short of criminal act. Sadly that is what we usually witness and, explain it with the argument that winners write the history. Of course, winners definitely write the history but fortunately they almost never succeed to wipe off the real history and it is up to the current generation to find the facts and learn it.

Such examples, where history is not only miss-represented history but also miss-understood history are numerous. I can understand the presenting history that suits the invader or ruler but conveniently misunderstanding history is a crime. I think such a behavior stems from either sheer dumbness and laziness to understanding the reality or incapability of facing the deep wounds suffered by society as a whole.

History is extremely important for any society. History actually defines who we are; it tells us what we aim at and shows the pitfalls in our quest to attain the aim. It is utterly foolish to ‘live’ in history but reaching opposite spectrum by completely denying or denigrating history is foolish too. Polluting the history or accepting the polluted history will make our quest more arduous or in worst case completely throw us off the track, forcing us to live like a headless body.

A good Chemistry Question

A good question for Organic Chemistry students –:
State the constituents of Burger King strawberry milk shake?

Answer –
A typical artificial strawberry flavor, like the kind found in a Burger King strawberry milk shake, contains the following ingredients: Amyl Acetate, Benzyl Isobutyrte, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amylketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4 methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphtyhl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, vanillin and solvent…

Michael Jackson

1) I do not know his name but I saw his case on Spike TV. This guy was already a suspect for Marijuana dealings. He was caught by cop for speed limit violation. He resisted arrest and can you guess how long he was sent to jail? Any guess……well 60 years with little or no chance of parole.

2) I saw this case again on Spike TV. This guy was a cop himself. Off duty, he was detained by cops for an extremely trivial traffic violation. Supposedly, this guy did not give indicator while changing lane. Obviously, he was furious for his detainment and refused to show his license. The cop on duty tried to arrest him and this guy resisted arrest. Verdict, lower court sentenced him for 7 years, he went further to Supreme Court, citing racist treatment. (The cop on duty was white and the state was Florida) the case is pending but in the mean time he was suspended from his police department.

3) The third story is of another black person who was a child prodigy. A pop icon of 80’s who attained the star hood in his early teens. In 1992 ( or 93?) Michael Jackson was charged first time for sexually molesting a young male child. The case was settled out of court, with molested child getting undisclosed amount as compensation. He continued to share his bed with young male children. But according to him there is no molestation, whatsoever. He had a bad childhood so he wanted these children to enjoy as much as possible. Indeed, a saintly objective. He was charged again in 2005 on 10 counts, ranging from sexual molestation to intoxicating young children. Government prosecutors provided all possible testimonies and evidenes to jurors. In spite of that Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges. Reason, evidence wasn’t enough. Yeh ,right !

Oh by the way in all three cases the suspects (or victims, at least in first two cases) were blacks.

Michael Jackson’s lawyers played the race card well. They made jurors guilty of punishing a black person but at the same time made them reluctant to convict a white person.

- Jay Leno in Tonight Show.

( This quote does not make any sense with respect to the blog but I still quoted it, because, its funny!)

Invasion Theory

The passivity with which foreign invasions are studied makes me sick and angry. Particularly in India, where Islamic invasions since 8th century and Christian proselytizing invasions since 17th century had profound and destabilizing effect on the society. Invasions are not easy business. One king trying to win more kingdoms or one religion trying to proselytize more people is some of the childish explanation to invasions that conceals the barbaric and disastrous effect of the reality.

My point is that, irrespective of the time of invasion and invaders, the basic pattern of destruction remains relatively same. There seems to be certain common thread that runs through all mayhems. There are two basic ways of destructions; ironically in this age of categorization and choices, even destructions can be categorized.

One of kind of destruction is complete annihilation of the civilization like Spanish Inquisition or Arab Muslims wiping out Zoroastrian civilization. In both cases the invaders not only changed the language, religion, customs, myths & legends of conquered people but they virtually changed the race by marrying them or by other means. The Incas Maya’s and etc of south and Central America are museumised, and Zoroastrians are dwelling in a tiny population in India after loosing their land and heritage in 7th century.

The second type of invasion, though similar to first type of invasion on the onset, but is subtler in numerous ways to conquering the society. Good example is British rule in India. With huge land and huge population under their control, their (Britishers) standard methods of changing race (the way they did in Scotland) or native populations genocide (like in North America and Australia) were useless. So, they adopted different method. First they tried to change the language and they were successful up to certain extent. Second they changed the way Indians used to work. With constantly referring Indians as “lazy natives” etc, (Obviously, lot of other methods were used but I am just giving you an example.) they induced a sense of inferiority complex among the society. They divided the society on the basis of caste, clans and most importantly on the basis of religion. Rest of the destruction is left to native to do. The natives themselves start disliking what their heritage, their history even their skin color and they do everything that is possible to distance themselves from their own culture.

What Britishers couldn’t achieve in 100 years of rule, is now, frantically attained by Indians themselves. It is a fashion, a status symbol to talk in English. A person is considered almost an illiterate if he can’t understand English. Among the Hindus’, it is necessary to distance oneself from religion, in order to be seen as progressive. Imitation of western culture is best possible innovation. From, the way to dress to the way to soap operas and films are made, replication of western ideas is paramount in order to succeed.

In post WW-II world, the role of religion in obscuring diverse cultural identities declined considerably as globalization and capitalism is doing that role in much slicker way and with considerably less resistance. It is up to the native people again to defend themselves and save their heritage and culture. The odds are against them but the battle is worth a fighting.

Partition

India-Pakistan partition always puzzles me. There are numerous theories behind this largest ever human migration, but each and every theory seems to be wrapped in the dark mist of mystery. Even after 50 years the blame game continues and it still has potential to create substantial commotion across the borders. Thinking about this painful historical event, I stumble upon couple of questions and facts that are hard to ignore and yet never correctly answered or quoted in media or remembered by general populace.

First, I strongly believe that Jinnah was the sole architect of the partition. Gandhi strongly opposed to partition; one, because partitioning country is exactly what Britishers always wanted and second, partitioning means Gandhi’s extensive Muslim appeasement policies failed to bridge the gap between Hindus and Muslim. Though, Mr. Nehru’s role seems to be ambiguous, British politicians had stated goal of creating India, Pakistan and Princestan. Though their efforts to create Princestan failed due to Sardar Patel, Britishers were more than happy in dividing country in two parts (or three parts) and they rightly gauged that Jinnah was the right card, perhaps a card of ace.

Second, with this blame game seems to be continue for eternity, I always think of Britishers as happiest people and laughing at India and Pakistan, because no one seems to blame British crooks for partition. British government is not only responsible for this partition but also for horrendous human rights violation and thousands of deaths during and after partition. Even though in power, it seems like a purposeful effort not stop the Razakar’s in Hydrabad, Kolkata and in North West Frontier and in Lahore.

Third, Gandhi was killed by a “Hindu fanatic” because the killer thought that Gandhi was responsible for partition. Though, it is hard to believe that Gandhi was responsible for partition but at the same time Gandhi can’t cleanse himself of partition either. If he was most revered and influential person during that period and indeed, a leader of whole nation and if he is hailed as a person who single handedly brought British empire down then he should owe the responsibility of partition too. For example, Mr. Nehru was responsible for early development of India at the same time he was also responsible for China debacle. Similarly Gandhi may not be directly responsible for partition but as a leader he should owe the responsibility as he clearly failed to grasp the reality behind the partition and even though he was greatly pained by incessant killing, his pain would not bring back those lost lives.

Partition can not be blamed on a single person nor can it be pin pointed on single incident. That event was waiting to happen and host of things can be cited as reasons. The recent ruckus over Mr. Advani’s comments on Jinnah, forces us to ask; is it still worth to create controversies about Partition? The answer is yes. I believe it is actually imperative for us to further explore the issue as partition was not only large forced human migration in human history but it irrevocably altered the geography, history and future of Indian subcontinent. Partition is not a history and it will be criminal to forget it by saying let bygones be bygones. The implications of partition are visible even after 60 years. We ought to explore issue of partition further till we find out the truth.

Some coool facts

1) The personal assets of Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Warren Buffet exceed the combined GDP of world’s 41 poorest nations.

2) Each of the 400 richest Americans saw their wealth increase by an average of $940 millions each year over the period of 1998-99, while the net wealth of the bottom 40% diminished by 80 percent between 1983 to 95.

3) Off the US’s total assets, 1% of Americans own 95% and 80% of the households take home a proportionately smaller amount of the national wealth than they did 20 years ago.

4) “Between” 1960 to 1993 the gap in per capita income between the developing and developed world tripled, from $5,700 to $15,400.

5) In 1900 the per capita income of America was nine times more than Ethiopia, today it is 45 times.

6) In 1960 the income gap between the top 20% of the people living in the richest countries and the bottom 20% of the poor worldwide was 30-1, in 1990 it was 60-1 and in 1995 it was 75-1

7) In 1993 the poorest 10% of the world’s people had only 1.6% of the wealth of the richest 10 % of the people, the poorest 57% of the worlds’ people had about the same income as the richest 1% and richest 10% of the US population, which is 25 million people had combined income than poorest 43% of the world’s people or about 2 billion people

Freakonomics

It will be amazing, if it is true. I do not have any data to support my argument; still I will put forth my idea. My idea stems from the book I am reading and the name of the book is Freakonomics. According to the author, the Roe vs. Wade case had a very drastic impact on the sudden drop in the crime rate in mid-90. That seems either too naive to liberals or offensive to conservatives. The argument is that the children born to single or poor or teenager mother have more probability of having un-happy life. These children are more prone to crime and uneducated life. Now, as these children were not born, the whole new generation of underprivileged children did not come to existence. As the generation born in mid-70’s entered late teens in 90’s, the crime rate fell as this generation was born to more educated, responsible and well to do parents.

The debate here is not whether abortion should be legalized or not, but it is a factual academic research.

I am trying to apply same logic to the effect of aggressive affirmative or reservation policies that were enforced in 1990’s in India. These affirmative policies irrevocably altered the landscape of Indian politics. The society stand divided as the genie of affirmative action became tool for politicians to create vote banks. I am completely anti-affirmative policies. I do believe that the backward communities need a help to come with rest of the society but when the quota system crosses the 50% or 60% limit then it defeats the very purpose of its inaction and becomes crutches.

But, there is silver lining to this policy. Intelligent people, who couldn’t get admissions in good colleges, only because they are upper caste, started working harder. The admission benchmark went up and best started coming out of the students. Plus, students started in different states where there is either less stringent affirmative policy or there are more colleges. Most importantly students started migrating to US for higher education. The boom in Indian economy, that made middle class to afford higher education abroad came hand in hand with computer boom in US, that created insatiable appetite for computer educated and English speaking engineers. Result; sudden spurt in Indian software industry.

There are host of other reasons for growth in software industry, like complete non-interference of Indian government. But this negatively positive impact of affirmative action should not be overlooked. May be the number of people by their caste will be good statistics to prove or disapprove this theory.

B.S.

What is this fuss about Quran discretion? It is ridiculous. Duh! Those people are freaking terrorists, murderers and they are not in Guantanamo beach for holidays. How come one should treat those animals humanly? I mean, these people are not even animals they are beyond that; they are savages like saitans’. They do not think twice about killing innocent people but when in jail, they expect to be treated according to Geneva Convention and need their human rights to be protected, simply outrageous. And the funny part is that these terrorists and their brethren in host of the Islamic countries get agitated over the supposed discretion of their holy book. Excuse me, but when Sunnis bomb the Shia mosques then Quran get burnt too. (One minor point, bunch of people usually get killed in such attacks too!) But, that is not a sin, such a disrespect of Quran is understandable because it is done by Muslims.

All this politically correct crap makes me sick. It does not solve any problem but actually complicates already complicated situation. But I do not any see discontinuation of such bullshit in foreseeable future. It ain’t going to stop in no way!

The Real Butchers.

During the recent controversy over Saddam’s semi-nude photos getting published in tabloids, one thing that stuck me was constant reference of Saddam as butcher of Baghdad. I am not exactly a Saddam fan but I certainly do believe that he was much better than some of the past and present ‘friendly’ and ‘allied’ members of US. My point is not to list the names here, it requires a separate column, but I want to raise a valid and a very point about US and UK’s direct participation in actually butchering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people during last ten years of war and sanctions and during Iraq’s eight years war with Iran. It makes me wonder whether the whole world is really blind or just dumb. We are living like parasites, just sucking our way through life, oblivious to the surrounding.

Iraq was one of the most advanced nation in the middle-east in 1979 when Saddam came to power. Secular in nature, Saddam’s Baath party had roots in Syria and was founded by a Christian named Michel Aflyak. With Iran revolution on the horizon, US backed Saddam’s party in Iraq. Though there was no direct support of US to Saddam’s power seizure, the intricate web of defense deals became backbone of US-Iraq relations during later years. In eight years war between Iran and Iraq, which killed almost a million people on both side, US actively participated by supplying all kinds of weapons including chemical weapons (remember WMD) to Iraq. This unholy nexus of US-Iraq is well documented and within the knowledge of public hemisphere. But then, Saddam was a friend, ally and business partner of US and thus a pure and a holy person.

Fast-forward the scenario to 1991, when Saddam suddenly become a Satan and his nation became an empire of evil. During 1991 gulf war, US used all the weapons in the arsenal barring nuclear weapons. They killed almost 200,000 Iraqi civilians. The ‘allies’ taught lesson to Saddam for his mischief but the real losers were civilians. The newly coined term ‘collateral damage’ can not explain such colossal civilian loss that can be only being rivaled with wholesome destruction of Tokyo or Munich during onset of WW-II. But the real story begins after the ‘resounding’ US victory over Iraq. The sanctions imposed by US and UK (oh yes! By UN too.) killed far more people than the actual war. According to UNICEF one million children in Iraq under the age of five are chronically malnourished. Also, according to same organization the infant mortality increased drastically from 56/1000 in 1989 to 131/1000. Also, the sanctions led to death of nearly half a million children.

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

All these sanctions, wars and millions of civilian deaths make Saddam a street crook compared with US and UK. I am not supporting Saddam in any way. He was a despot and he is guilty of killing his own people for the lust of power, but the measures taken by US and UK are equally reprehensible. Bestowing the title of Baghdad butcher to Saddam is epitome of hypocrisy and such efforts of painting world black and white show the lack of knowledge and insensitivity towards the reality.

The Ultimate Matrix !

American society is no different than their meat industry. People are reared to be consumers and they are forced to spend more and more money so that corporations will get more and more profit.

When a child is born then corporate America is more jubilant than that baby’s parents. The holy union of a man and a woman is bonanza for corporations. With no investment (remember its union of man and a woman!) they (corporations) are blessed with a consumer.

I am no expert of baby need and there is more probability of me going wrong here, but somehow I feel that the child rearing is structured in such a way that a baby becomes a voracious consumer. Clothes, diapers, toys, more clothes, more diapers, diaper dispenser, (I am going to refer to it as M.C. and M.D.) tiny seating chairs, seating chairs for cars, seating chair holders for cars, M.C. and M.D. milk bottles, more toys, baby food, tonics, medicines, M.C. and M.D. Plus, mind boggling choice for each of the above product makes it impossible to avoid anything. And yes ! there is always sale There is even speculation that, with lobbying and proper advertisements the baby food industry imbibed on the young mothers that if they do not breast feed for long time then they can maintain their body figures. As the child grows, the appetite grows and reaches maximum after age of 18. (I don’t know why age 18, but 18 to 49 is most sought after age group by advertisers)

I am reiterating that I am no baby expert. And I am pretty sure that if anybody questions any of the above mentioned needs then, the argument goes like; these products are paramount for proper growth of a child. May be I am completely wrong here and making unnecessary fuss. But, I do have strange feeling about society is slowly becoming a society depicted in The Matrix – I, but corporations rather than machines taking over the world and harvesting humans for profits.

Or may be I just pessimistic, cynical, incredulous and skeptical. (I know all have same meaning but I am just giving you choice to pick!)

American Meat Industry

America is a bacon of capitalism (and freedom, so they say!) and epitome of professionalism. And this profit oriented mindset blossom most in their meat industry. Americans have voracious appetite for all kinds of meat, particularly red meat. Obviously the meat industry is multi-billion dollar industry. Under the banner of cost effectiveness the production methods have scant respect for life. I am not against eating meat but I believe that life of an animal should be valued. Animals are considered not as a living being but living ‘meat’ or piece of meat.

Injecting hormones, excessive feeding etc are some of the methods employed to produce more and more meat out one animal. The procedure of making tender veal is illustrative. Right after its birth the calf is separated from its mother and confined to few inches of space. If the calf is allowed to move then, its meat is less tender. Injected with hormones for growth the calf is slaughtered after few months.

There is saying in Marathi, “Ati tethey Mati”. It means that anything in excess is not good. The meat industry under the guise of professionalism is doing excess and using brutal methods to produce meat. Systematic destruction of live stock will have adverse impact not only on the society but also on the environment. Obesity and mad cow disease is prelude to what is coming. The future looks scary.

There is nothing new in this blog. But this topic was in my mind for so long that I was feeling itchy. I am quite relieved now.

yuck fou Ram Vilas Paswan

Who is this fucking Ram vilas paswan? How can he hold whole state machinery at ransom? What is more important, a Bihar without Laloo or Muslim Chief Minister? How can he make such a ridiculous demand and get away with it? This is not a good example of functioning democracy. This man does not have majority in the assembly election. He is not even runner up. He have trifle 30 seats or so. If he is thinks that he is only savior of Muslims in Bihar then why didn’t he made that clear before the results? Why didn’t he said, before election that, only a Muslim can rule Bihar? What is the logic behind this demand, because Muslims ruled and raped this land before? Or they are minority and that is the ticket to chief ministership. This is outrageous and sick. This is rape of democracy.

Or is it that the Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh is so large that it is lucrative vote bank now?

Objectifying Subject or Subjectifying Object

There are numerous differences between Indian and Western cultures. But one difference, which I believe is very important and which is missed in most of the literature, is the marked difference in perception of subject and object. In simple terms, a particular incidence which is subjective to western world is objective to Indian mind and vice versa.

The dictionary meaning of the word subjective is proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Since renaissance in medieval ages the western nations constantly strived to break the shekels of structured and hierarchical society. The regulations of the society, the conventions, which every individual was supposed to follow, were repeatedly questioned. Everything became relative and subjective and open for different interpretations. At the same time the western world was rapidly capturing old eastern world and conquering new world. Add industrial revolution to this and world or at least Europe entered in the new order of market economy. The imperceptive papal power and its rigid Christianity became an obstacle for scientific development. Metaphysical and spiritual development became taboo and subject to backwardness. Materialism became mantra and human thirst to attain the highest physical comfort at all cost attained Himalayan height. Materialism is epitome of objectivism. If you do not attain certain goals or do not own certain things then you have achieved nothing. Driving BMW, having yacht and beach house etc are measures of happiness. But if a person kills another person for no reason then the killer does not necessarily to be bad, there will arguments in killers support. The killer become a subject not an object.

The basic philosophical thought of Indian religion is that the materialistic life is all Maya i.e. unreal. The spiritual and metaphysical development is ultimate way to attain the moksha. (Salvation) Obviously, this was in contrast with the new world order set by conquering Europe. For them, lack of faith in materialism is direct threat to their business and markets. Since then, these capitalistic nations are trying every way to discredit the Indian philosophy, branding it as old, archaic, rigid, discriminatory or simply obsolete. There is no religious head like Pope in any of Indian religion. (I am mainly considering Hinduism and Buddhism). So, no one within the religion tried to break the old way of thinking, which according to majority, if followed correctly is still relevant. The social structure changed over the period of time but society never deviated from basic tenet of religious philosophy that emphasizes more on spiritual development than material development. Indian people are used to see world in black and white. There are certain things that are bad and therefore should be shunned at all cost. People who do those things were treated as culprit and abhorred. There is no subjectiveness in those things. There are different ways to reach god but basically the spiritual ways were objective. There are certain ways set to attain salvation. In contrast, subjective thinking is paramount in materialism. Happiness of a person has nothing to do with his materialistic wealth. Good health and good family is desirable.

There was an interesting opinion poll published in TIME magazine. The question was would you accept pay-raise that would cost your family time? In US around 80% answered positively while in India around 80% or so people answered negatively.

A passages from Indian Philosophy

By Dr. S. Radhakrishnan

1) The political changes brought about by the establishment of the Mohammadan supremacy turned men’s minds into conservative moulds. In an age when individual self-assertion and private judgment threatened at every point to dissolve into anarchy the old social order and all stable conviction, the need for authoritative control was urgently felt. The mohammadan conquest, with its propagandist work and later the Christian missionary movement, attempted to shake the stability of Hindu society and in an age deeply conscious of instability, authority naturally became the rock on which alone it seemed that social safety and ethical order could be reared. The Hindu, in the face of the clash of cultures, fortified himself with conventions and barred all entry to invading ideas. His society, mistrusting reason and weary of argument, flung itself passionately into the arms of an authority which stamped all free questioning as sin. Since then it has failed in loyalty to its mission there were no longer any thinkers, but only scholars who refused to strike new notes, and were content to raise echoes of the old wall.

2) If the leaders of recent generations have been content to be mere echoes of the past and not independent voices, if they have been intellectual middlemen and not original thinkers, this sterility is to no small extent due to the shock of western spirit and the shame of subjection.

My Writing!

It’s not hard to notice that most of my blog is about current affairs. My purpose of maintaining blog is to express my opinions about current issues. I do read lot of current affairs so one may say that it must be easy for me to write all this stuff. But it is not that simple. Increasingly, it is getting difficult for me to write about contemporary topics. I would like to call it as my writer’s block! Not that I am a writer but who said that writers block happens only to writers! Strangely, the problem is not lack of ideas or thoughts but in fact, it is too many of them. Whenever I start writing about certain issue I start to see many new dimensions of it and I fell miserably whenever I try to cover all these dimensions.

For example I was trying to write a short column about whether India will be super power in the year 2020 or not. The issue was simple; in the sense the thesis statement was either yes or no. And the column should proceed with few arguments and facts to support the main thesis. At least that was my initial plan until I got lost in my own thoughts. I started well, but as I progressed I tried to incorporate so many factors like caste politics, regional politics, lack of assertiveness etc that I couldn’t find way to finish it. Though my column had lot of material, it was completely incoherent, confused and befuddled piece of writing.

I think I should stratify my thoughts. (I just learned stratification method in my Survey Sampling class.) Like, this is about Religion; this one is about nation-state and so on and so forth. This will help me in using only relevant data and points, while writing about certain issue.

Hmm! Now I am kind of confused on how to end this column. I guess I will just say see ya!

Aamir Khan and Secularism

I think I grew as a human being, as I grew from being a child to an adult. I realised that there is a lot of poison that can be spread in peoples’ minds. For example, what happened in Gujarat is really appalling. According to me, somebody like Modi is there, I mean there were Indians killed over there, innocent Indians killed over there. It is completely irrelevant whether they were Hindus or Muslims or Christians or Parsis or Sikhs. They were Indians being killed by a leader who was supposedly a leader, and he is responsible. He and his party, he and his people are responsible for the killings and trauma of thousands of Indians. And, in my opinion the person and the people who do this, indulge in this kind of things, are most unpatriotic. It’s a completely anti-Indian thing that has been done.

- Aamir Khan in his recent interview in Indian Express

Mr. Khan, there is nothing new about riots. There were plenty of riots before Gujrat riots. So you had plenty of chances to grow. Do you want list of it? How about 1992 riots of Mumbai, unlike Gujrat riots you were actually present in Mumbai during the riots. How about Bhiwandi riots of 1984? How about Hindu genocide in Kashmir in 1988? How about first Kar-Seva in 1989 when thousands of Hindus were killed for no reason by Mulayam Singh government? The Bhiwandi riots of 1970, Moradabad riots of 1984, Malegaon Jalgaon and Karhad riots the list goes on and on. I am not mentioning any riots before 1970 because Mr. Aamir Khan was born in 1965. Mr. Modi or his BJP were not in power in any of the above mentioned riots.

My point here is that people like Mr. Khan actually lays foundation for next riots. I am not supporting riots but when general populace sees that media, politicians and other major personalities always behave biased then the ‘healing’ never takes place. Mr. Khan has full freedom to express his opinion. But then it would be appreciative, only if he knows the history and express himself without any bias.

Gandhi and Savarkar

If you flip a coin then there equal probability of getting heads or tails. So, if there are two sides even to trivial matter like coin flipping then, why can’t there be two ways of attaining independence? Pretty long shot to compare coin flipping to independence struggle but as the Mr. Savarkar controversy continue to rage I realized that Savarkar hating is much more than just dirty politics. I am not concerned about Mani Shankar Aiyar because he is one of the pathetic creatures who always grow on the side wall of sewage pipe. But even Mr. Nehru was a Savarkar hater and we can certainly say that Mr. M. K. Gandhi wasn’t in much favor of Mr. Savarkar. I do not understand the reason behind it.

Let’s put it this way. Mr. Savarkar was staunch nationalist, indeed a Hindu nationalist. He loved his country more than his life and worked relentlessly to achieve independence. He been to jail numerous jail and one thing is sure that his jail terms were not like pleasure trips, as in case of Gandhi’s jail terms. A normal human being would break down if he were in Savarkar shoes. But only because of strong will power and fierce nationalism, Savarkar survived. I am not going in Mr. Savarkars life here. And I am not comparing Gandhi or Savarkar here. But my point is that only difference between them is there thinking line regarding to Independence struggle.

Gandhi was fanatically non violent, while for Savarkar, violence is necessary if situation demands. If Savarkar was proponent of Hindutva ideology then same can be said about Gandhi. Gandhi used to call himself Sanatan Hindu. Both of them were against Hindu untouchabilty and both of them wanted to revive Hinduism. Again, Gandhi wanted to do that peacefully and Savarkars approach was more masculine. Masculine in the sense, he wanted young men to be physically strong.

Given all these things what is reason behind all these generations of Savarkar hating? Gandhi didn’t like Savarkars way of struggle but he accepted it because according to him it a ‘different’ way to achieve independence. So why can’t all these Savarkar hating people understand this?

One argument is that he plotted to kill Gandhi, which is completely false. It was proven even in Indian court. Another argument is that he collaborated with British government. But all he did is to ask youth to join Army, so that they will gain access to arms and ammunition. And if situation arises then they will be able to fight with British army. What is wrong in that? It was a pragmatic move. And didn’t Gandhi stop Asahakaar movement of 1921 only because mob killed British soldiers. One can say that Gandhi was more concerned about British soldiers than Indian people. He wanted to British people to leave India in such a way that Indian people will continue to love British Empire! Isn’t this a criminal statement liable to treason? I mean India was raped by British people and millions people were dying due to hunger and poverty and here is Mr. Gandhi, who wanted Indian people to love British Empire.

I think for people like Nehru, it was just impossible to understand a person like Mr. Savarkars. He was too bright, too intelligent and too pragmatic for them. Continuing Savarkar bashing proves that the short sightedness, dumbness, selfishness of Mr. Nehru continues to this date.

Mani "Dog" Aiyar !

There was a huge controversy in India, when our petroleum minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar worked hard to remove a plaque in Andaman jails. The plaque lauded the efforts of V. D. Savarkar towards freedom movement. I am not sure what petroleum ministry has to do with the state affairs of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but the argument of Mr. Aiyar is that Mr. Savarkar was not a freedom fighter and he in fact collaborated with British government. So strange to hear from a man, who besides being a staunch communist, is an anti-national, a traitor himself.
During his student days in England, he actively participated in collecting money for Communist Party of China. The glitch is that, he was collecting money during Indo-China war! According to him, India attacked china and therefore china is a victim.
Later on when he was trying to get in Indian Foreign Service (IFS), his ‘nationalist’ efforts became big issue. Even Mr. Nehru, a staunch anti-Savarkar himself, couldn’t digest what Mr. Aiyar did in England. Finally, Mr. Aiyar had to give an assurance letter, negating his earlier acts.
Bravo! Mr. Aiyar! How unfortunate is India that we have ministers like him.

Turkey and Head-Scarf

In Turkey, women who are attending college or in government service are not supposed to wear purdah or head scarf. Even a senator is not supposed to do so. There was this documentary about a Senator in Turkish parliament who wore head scarf and landed herself in the controversy. Surprisingly, the document was anti-establishment and pro-head scarf.

Confused !

"Responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom"

This is the reason behind denying visa to Mr. Narendra Modi. Ok, granted that Mr. Modi did what he, as a public servant, should not have done. But US does not gain any higher moral ground. The attempt to appease Muslim minority in US and in other countries can be described at best as pathetic and at worst as a classic act of double standard.

How come Saudi price travel to US, when the religious rights of minorities are heavily slashed in Saudi? No one is allowed to follow any religion except Marxist ideology in China. Hey, I have strong intuition that there is some tampering going on related to religious freedom in china. There is Sharia law in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and bunch of other Arab countries that grossly mistreat minorities in those countries. How about that? And host of Taliban officials traveled to US in 1999. I do not believe that Taliban were democratic, secular and compassionate people who respected rights of minorities.

Help me out here, I am kind of confused.

All is well, who have oil well !

The recent act of rejecting US VISA to Mr. Narendra Modi is latest act of appeasing Muslim community. Ostensibly, it came from a country which is at war with terrorism, an Islamic terrorism to be precise and it captured one of the biggest Islamic country in the world. But I am not concerned with this. What hits me like a bullet is that throughout the world, if you see a little deep, then you would notice that almost all the problems has some relation with Islam. And at the same time almost all the countries are trying to woo Islamic community. How strange! I will furbish few evidences to support my argument.

Let us begin with India. It has almost 11% of its population Muslim. Though India had been battling with many problems like poverty, litracy etc, this one problem, the problem of “minority” is best publicized. And though India had been quite successful with host of its problem, the supposedly ill treatment towards minorities, particularly towards Muslims is considered as a black mark to Indian progress report. Wait a minute! What does it mean by ill treatment? Muslims have separate civil laws under Indian constitution, the same constitution which supposed to proclaim that all citizens are equal. So, for example Muslims can marry multiple times, while for people of other religion it is a crime. According to Outlook magazine, almost 90% of the riots are initiated by Muslims. I mean reason behind Gujrat riots was train burning, wasn’t it? There is a government subsidiary for Haj pilgrimage, nothing like that exists for Man-Sarovar yatra! They have special status in Kashmir and plus they get protection from Media even though they carried Hindu genocide in Kashmir in 1989. All the Islamic atrocities are erased from government textbook and guess what Mughal period is considered as golden period of Indian history even though “great” Akbar killed 200,000 Rajput at Chittor.

The list of such things is unlimited.

Let’s think about United Kingdome. I am not that conversant with its internal policies towards Muslim, but the picture that emerges from newspapers is quite bleak. Majority of the Muslim population is from Pakistan (Mirpuris) and Bangladesh. It is reported that most of the terrorist funding goes through London now. (Even Gaddafi stated this after 9/11)The finesbury mosque is infamous because of the inflammatory speech of its Imam’s and visits paid by number of known terrorist. Yeh! I know Mosque is open for everyone and it is place to worship but it is surely more than conincidence that many of the notorious and known terrorists have visited that mosque. Even Mohammad Atta had visited that mosque. Three years ago Britain encountered its first riots between Muslims and Whites in Bradford. Still, Britain is lenient about the VISA procedure towards Muslims.

US is battling with same problem. The Islamic population is increasing in alarming rate. Newark, Washington and Chicago area have more than 70 Islamic centers. It is believed that Mosque in Bronx had collected money that ultimately ended in Mohammad Atta’s bank balance. Similar things can been witnessed in Denmark, France and Germany and host of other European countries. But all of these countries persist with their appeasement policies towards Muslims.

Muslims are still labeled as persecuted. Though they are cause of problems in most of the cases, they still project themselves as victimized mainly by Israel, US, and by India, Britain etc and etc. Someone may think that, there is a concrete effort by Islamic community and Media throughout the world to project such image, but it is absurd as fighting between Islamic countries are legendry. Then there is only one explanation left that is that rest of the world is playing fool.

These Arab countries have made absolutely no contribution to the development of the world in any sense. No science, no math, no Arts, no trade strategies, absolutely nothing, All they have is oil, which is nature given. They can’t even drill their own oil; they need Americans and Britishers to do that.

Well! Didn’t I just answer my main questions? They have oil and they are playing their oil card well. Everybody needs oil so everybody has to appease Muslims everywhere. Mr. Modi, you worked really hard to make you state 2nd most industrialized state in India and one of the richest and literate too but too bad, you do not have oil beneath your soil.

'Superpower' India Inc !

Whether India will be super power or not is not a new question. It has been in public mindset since Mr. Nehru gave tryst with dynasty speech on Independence Day. But it is hard to define the word superpower. Do we mean that we want to militarily strong like USA? Or do we mean, given ‘peaceful’ nature of Indians, that roti, kapada aur makaan as the ultimate goal of our nation. And what is the probability of achieving this goal considering current situation of Indian state and its political class?

In any case, I sincerely believe that we need at least another 100 years to achieve these goals. It is just impossible to see India as a superpower nation by 2050, forget about 2020. It is a very slow process and we have to connect lot of dots to form exact picture of developed and strong India. The process is definitely underway but there are few issues we have deal with before proclaiming that India is on its way to ‘superpowerdom’. In this column I am trying to pin point three points which is making the task of making India a superpower almost impossible at this moment.

The most important thing needed for any nation to advance on development chart is best human resource. And at the same time it is necessary to manage that human capital. USA become superpower and continues to hold that position only because they attract best talent from every possible corner of the world and then manage them to perfection. India is blessed with one of the top most human capital in the world but unfortunately it is squandering this wealth by pure mismanagement. The success of Non Resident Indians in US and in other countries prove this point and shows us that if we could garner our home grown brain for development of India then the result would be stupendous. But our uneducated, short sighted and extremely corrupt political class on both national and state government level thinks other way.
I am not concerned about lack Research and Development in India. We do not have huge reservoir of money for continuous R&D as in US. But mismanagement here means, not giving talented people a fair chance. The extremely aggressive reservation policies are not only making our top notch brain fly from India but it is actually hampering development of Indian society in education sector. A society can make progress only on merit basis. Nepotism and favoritism are curses to the development. But vote bank policies are making the task of giving fair treatment to suitable people impossible.

The other important thing that is necessary for any country to become superpower is that its political class should be aware of potential energy of a country and deep in conscious the political and administrative class should think that India can be superpower. And then they should be able to install this faith and confidence in their country in general populace. Basically, citizens and ruling class both should have attitude that they have ability to become great and their superpower status will benefit world. British people used to think that they are actually “helping” Indian people rather than ruling them and same is with US citizen in case of Iraq. But the political class is so busy in playing dirty politics to keep themselves in power they do not have time to think about future of India. The burgeoning corruption in all possible spheres of administration is making the task of overall development like infrastructure of country impossible.

India is a lot different than any of the western country. We have very long history and highly developed culture. The way Indians work and think is different than western countries. So, developmental plans should be tailored according to the necessities and conditions of this country. Blindly aping the economic policies of western countries will not be good in long run. Sadly, that is what we are doing at this moment. Right from the film making (barring few efforts!) to the economic policies all we do is to copy what US does. Sure, capitalism is a better way of development but capitalism by US way is sure shot way of suicide. With deteriorating public health and complete crash of family structure, even US policy makers are grappling to find out way to deal with these problems in their current capitalistic model. Do we need to go through all this before we realize that, it is not what we wanted? Worsening public health post 1990 economic boom gives us glimpse of what is stored ahead if we continue to go down the US capitalistic way.

Though becoming superpower is a highly desirable growth, actually achieving it is a very hard task. I do not mean to sound pessimistic here. The achievements of India in last 50 years or so are worth applause. The literacy drive had stupendous success. Within fifty years we produced one of the top class universities of the world. The success of students passing from this university speaks volumes of its education institutional success. But we are talking about being a superpower here. It will give us power to impose our will on other nation and our decision will have decisive effects in world politics. Again, it is extremely ardent task. And I believe we need 100 years to overcome all the problems.

Peace through cricket !

Every time there is India-Pakistan match, almost all newspapers start talking about mushrooming peace between two countries. I just fail to understand how sports, especially cricket will bring peace between two countries that are at the two ends of a spectrum virtually on each and every issue. Granted that India and Pakistan were same country before 1947 and share same history. I believe that it’s the same blood that runs through Indians and Pakistanis. But in last 50 years or so one country progressed or at least striving hard to progress on every possible front while its counterpart has whirled down to the path of self-destruction. Let me give two examples.

Out of last 60 years Pakistan had been under dictatorship for more than 30 years. Pakistani army has prevailing say in all the decision related to Pakistani foreign policy. Kargil war was essentially waged by Pakistani army without knowledge or consent of its political class. And when they were battered by Indian army the army overthrew civilian government and established itself as a ruler again. None of such thing ever happened in India. Except, during the brief period of emergency India had unblemished record of flourishing democracy. Even during democracy Army kept itself out of politics.

Pakistan is founded on basis of Islam, which for theoretically and practically does not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions. Pakistan managed to wipe out almost entire Hindu minority population from Pakistan. The percentage of Pakistani Hindus fell drastically from around 10% to 12% in 1947 to meager 1% in 2000. The report published in The Week magazine about the treatment given to Pakistani Hindus by Muslim zamindars is more than disturbing. Take the example of cricket teams. In last 60 years Pakistani cricket team had only two Hindu players, Danish Kaneria and Anil Dalpat, While Indian cricket team had host of luminaries from minority community.

Such kind of comparisons can go on and on and on. But each comparison will reach same conclusion that Pakistan is diametrically opposite to what India is or what India stands for. Pakistan had been striving hard to dislodge India in every possible way. First was Punjab then was Kashmir and now North-east. They attacked India four times but were dusted down every time. Instead of wasting their energy money and time on India, if Pakistani government or for matter of fact Pakistani populace had used that energy in building their own country then Pakistan would have been in much better position.

The prospect of peace with Pakistan is nothing but mirage. Thinking of cricket as a possible way to achieve peace is sheer foolishness. Last time the visit of Pakistani team was followed by unnecessary but audacious invasion of Kargil by Pakistanis. And the cost was 1000 young Indian lives. I hope Indians still remember the bravery and deaths of those soldiers.