my "awesome" stay in Kuwait

good. i wrote 15 lines long blog on my stay in Kuwait. And now its not allowing me to copy and paste on my blog. This is height of ...hmm...i don't know. i am short of words and short of expressions. frustrated, annyoed, angry, jet-lagged and with little cough and cold. dang! i can't be worst than this.

I need to go home.......ASAP.......

Making of a Great Leader.

I am not sure when the media age started, because I was born and brought up in media age. But for this column’s sake I am considering that real media age started with the ascent of Hitler to the power. The years leading to WWII were growing years for Media. And though Nazi’s were defeated in 1945, the age of media was here to stay.

The important work of media is to influence people’s mind. I mean, theoretically they (Media) is supposed to put the truth in front of people and allowing people to decide what is correct and what is wrong. But that rarely happens.

One of the ways to influence people is to portray certain people’s life prominently. One such effort can be witnessed with the life of George W. Bush.

The recent front article of Time, where George W. Bush was awarded as a Man of the Year and eulogized by essays and photo essays is classic example of making dumb people great. There are scores of examples of such efforts. JFK, Ronald Regan in American politics. Rajiv Gandhi and I. K.Gujral in Indian politics. And even Mahatma Gandhi up to certain extent.

Look at the making of ‘Great’ George W. Busch. The procedure seems to be standard. Classic black and white photographs that supposedly depicts his life ‘behind’ the stage. And glossy diagrams of his family tree makes everyone great in his lineage and kind of shows us that he born great in great family. Good quotes which are usually written by speechwriters. Great world visions of him which are as stark to real policies of as Israel is to the Palestine. But all these things create a thick aura around the personal and it becomes increasingly hard to see that person through it. Such eulogy not only conceal leaders draw backs but at the same time gives him cover to carry out his own agenda, which, more often than not is centered around personal greed.

Such efforts hurt society to a great deal. That “Great” person may die, but his image remains solid in peoples mind and continues to hurt the nation in one way or another.

John Stewart once asked that why can not we have a media that portrays the reality and discerns truth from sham. And at the end allow the viewers to decide. I can’t agree more.

Chinmay's World

Chinmay's World

I ain't writing no soon. My exams are underway, actually i should say over me. so i don't have time to enlighten this world with my thoughts and knowledge. but I will be back!

UN

Whenever I talk with my friends about recent Iraq War, the issue of UN’s role in recent conflict inadvertently creeps in our discussion. We don’t discuss UN’s role per se, but we discuss UN’s viability in today’s world.

Personally, I think UN was established with too optimistic views. There is no way UN would have succeeded in its goal given 1950’s bi-polar world. Each nation had to take side of either of super-power. All though there was Non Aligned Moment, but even nations who drafted NAM end up taking sides. For example, India was notably pro-Russian.

The goal of UN to work peace and prosperity of whole globe was at best an illusion. I mean, each super-power were trying to gain as much power as possible, and were fighting in almost every corner of the world. At the same time these same super-powers were supporting UN for peace and prosperity of world community. Isn’t that ironic? A classic case of conflict of interest.

Fast forward the scenario in 1990’s. Russia was disintegrated and was no longer a superpower. US was the sole super-power and its economic, military and political power increased tremendously, particularly in 90’s. They became colossus in every sense. Their economy’s worth 11 trillion dollars. The next biggest economy is Japan, about half of US

‘s economy. The globalization made all the growing economies of the world depend on the US. Because in the world of supply and demand, US is biggest consumer in the world. So low wage nations like India and China are increasingly depending on US. There by handing more power to US.

Their military technology is beyond most of the world’s reach. (That technology is futile while dealing with Mr. Laden though) Their defense budget is $500 billion. India’s economy which is 11^th largest economy in the world is still $480 billions. Even if you add 10 biggest defense spending nations of the world (less US) their spending is still less than $500 billions. Plus, their military reach on the globe is unparallel in human history. They are present in almost all parts of the world, and they weaponry has ability to strike any part of the world at will.

In such situation, if they decide to attack Iraq what can UN do? There’s nothing in world that UN would able to stop US. Come on! US is the biggest donor to UN. Basically US sustain UN. Of course from humanitarian aid point of view UN definitely do great job. Their efforts in providing food and other supplies in Africa are stupendous. But again US is the single largest donor of money in all the categories. I mean, from forest protection to AIDS drug development, US is the chief because they give money.

So, at least from US point of view, UN is a redundant body. US do not have to listen to UN, if there’s anything, then it should be other way round.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

SRI SRI RAVI SHANKAR

Posted online: Saturday, November 27, 2004 at 0000 hours IST

If you come across a Communist, with a Hindu name, and ask him about his identity, he will deny being a Hindu. Yet, a Muslim Communist often claims his identity without hesitation. One wonders what causes this difference in attitude.

It is interesting to probe into the psyche of identity, which often is a source of security, insecurity, conflict and comfort. Perhaps the following reasons would answer the identity crises of the Hindus. The broadmindedness of Hinduism, its inherent inclusiveness and secularism, makes Hindus feel guilty about claiming their identity, as it is embedded in their philosophy that it is wrong to exclude others. Claiming a religious identity makes them feel they are excluding others and so they shy away from doing so.

Hindus have been traditionally groomed by the Vedanta to drop all identities. This has deeply influenced the Hindu psyche. Hindu philosophy is woven around egolessness. Let alone their religion, some sadhus don’t even say their name; they would say, “What’s in a name?” Sanyasis are even shy to talk about their parentage. A renowned ascetic in Rishikesh would meet with everybody, but not his own mother and family. When asked, he would say, “I am Vedanti; once I have taken sanyasa, I have dropped all my identities.”

This is an erroneous understanding of Vedanta. Why do we fear the identity so much? Seeing identity as stumbling blocks for one’s growth is ignorance. Sanyasa is transcending identity; it is being in that centredness from where you have equal love and compassion for all. It is the unshakable light and richness that one has found in one’s Being which is universal. Transcending identity is different from denying identity. When religious leaders themselves denounce their identity, the community follows suit. This is akin to the thought that secularism is anti-religion.

Caste identity is in some places much stronger than religious identity. The normal tendency is to go for one single identity than for a dual one. So, between caste and religion, many Hindus seem to go for caste. Hindus feel ashamed of the ills of Hinduism — its superstition, untouchability, and practices like sati are usually highlighted in the media, rather than its unparalleled philosophy and scientific temperament. Thus, for several centuries Hindu bashing has been a fashion.

The media seems to have given the prerogative of Hindu identity to the RSS and VHP and secular-minded Hindus would not like to associate with these two organisations. As a result they shy away from their own identity.

Within India itself, we witness a great deal of ignorance about the Hindu religion and its scriptures. Although Hindus form 80 per cent population of India, there is still only one university which teaches Hinduism — whereas there are five which teach Islam, five which teach Christianity, two which teach Sikhism and one that teaches Jainism. You would find every Muslim would know a couple of verses from the Quran; you can hardly find a Christian who has not read the Bible.

But Hindus who know Sanskrit or a few shlokas are rare. Most educated Hindus know the Bible; they know Christmas carols. When they know nothing about their religion, how can they take pride in it?

There are 1.25 billion Hindus in the world, a little over one-sixth of the world’s population, but you hardly find a single Hindu lobby at international forums. You will find a Christian lobby, a Muslim lobby or a Jewish lobby, but you can’t find a Hindu lobby. Just 12 million Jews in the world are such a powerful voice. Buddhists also have a voice and make their presence felt at world forums.

In countries of south and central America and in Europe, although they are secular democracies, they are not shy to proclaim their allegiance to Christianity. You will find the religious symbol of the Cross placed in their parliaments; chaplains offer prayer before every official dinner. While associations like YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) have gained wide acceptance. Why then is it that Hindu associations are viewed with scepticism?

A strong community is an asset to any nation. A weak community will always be in fear and because of insecurity will become aggressive. It is the pride in one’s identity which strengthens the community. Identity is in no way contradictory to universality.

People often ask, “Will not the concept of global family, Vasudhaiva Kutambakam, contradict patriotism? Similarly, will your religious identity not conflict with your universality?’’ The answer is “No”. Your duty as a family man is not a hindrance for your realisation that you are Brahman. You don’t need to run away to the forest to realise “All this is Brahman”. Your being spiritual in no way contradicts your being a socially responsible citizen. In fact, it enhances your ability to care and share.

The conflict in the world is because people are either stuck in their identity, and die for it, or shy away from their identity and lose their roots. One has to opt for a middle path. The ideal situation will be when every religion transcends its identity. Until that time, it is unwise for the Hindus to let go of their identity. We cannot, and should not, eliminate differences on this planet. We need to celebrate the differences. And this is the uniqueness of Bharat — from the atheism of Charvaka to Bhakthi Panth and Sufism, it’s one beautiful bouquet.

An identity is related to an action. Denial of identity will dump you in inaction, sloth and lethargy and hence Krishna reminds Arjuna of his Kshatriya identity even while giving “Brahma gyan” to remind him of his duties and responsibilities. Otherwise while giving this High knowledge of the Self, why would Krishna remind him again and again of his limited identity. The limited identity in no way contradicts the universal one. A policeman cannot perform his duties — steer the traffic — if he fails to acknowledge his identity. Similarly, if a businessman shies away from his identity, he cannot function. The same is the story of Hindu identity. India cannot make a distinct mark on the world if it ignores its religious and spiritual heritage.

The Myth of White Supremacy

Dang! I hit the bulls’ eye. I mean I didn’t hit it, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra did that job but at least I had opportunity to read his thoughts. So its like I banged the target. Anyways. I guess I am going to write bunch of short column related to the columns, The Myths of Hindu Sameness.

British people ruled the world with the sense of superiority. Of course they didn’t start conquering world or had ambition to rule the world just to free people, business always comes first. But I think they assumed the superiority once they start getting success, at least in India. The sense of superiority always puzzled me. Our religion was definitely more progressive, rational and advanced than Christianity. We were super rich nation.. In fact, they arrived only because we were super rich. But then, how did they assumed the superiority over us? Because of their skin color? I doubt that. India have fair share of fair colored people, who look lot better than British people. Then is it that they became superior because they ruled us or conquered us? Partly, but their Christian faith played very important role.

Its better to read what Mr. Malhotra wrote in his column.

In the Bible, God gives man ownership of all animals and nature, for man's own pleasure. To support the plunder of other peoples, this supremacy was extended by Church theologians to argue in favor of the slavery of blacks and the genocide of millions of Native Americans, on the basis that they were heathens, i.e., not Christians. It was argued that the men who were given ownership of the bounty of nature were Biblical men and not the heathens.

By the early 1800s America, this had evolved into the well-known doctrine called Manifest Destiny, which was the basis for the conquest of new territory (such as Texas) from Mexico, along with the territorial expansion Westwards by conquering the Native Americans. This doctrine explicitly gave white Americans the right to 'civilize' others by whatever means they considered appropriate, and to take over their lands, property and cultures.

In British India, the argument of 'fitness to self-govern' was very explicitly used to remove various native rajas and install the East India Company's governance. A prominent example was the removal of the Queen of Jhansi (who had led the war of independence against the British) on the basis that she was an 'immoral person' and that this made her 'unfit to rule'. The phrase 'regime change' that is so common in the media today was used in the 19th century by the British to force their rule upon Indians – argued on the basis that they brought 'freedom' and better 'human rights' than the local Kshatriya rulers.

See, thus from now onwards, British people are superior in India and Spanish and Portuguise are superior in South and Central America.

And George W. Bush and his country is superior over Iraqi people. Dang! Now I understand the logic of regime change in Iraq.

Why BJP’s rule is a bright spot of Indian political History?

I am using word ‘History’ in the heading, but that does not mean that BJP is history. I think BJP is still a force to reckon with. I have strong faith on the abilities of L.K. Advaniji and A.B. Vajpeyeeji. I also believe that their so called second rung bright leaders are certainly capable of achieving electoral success again. Its just that they have contemplate again on their basic goal and sort out the differences that are caused due to power.

But I believe that BJP’s six years rule changed the way people perceive central government. People realized their power of vote. And they realized that if they assert their power, they can change government which is not working and bring about the change. Unfortunately, BJP was its first victim. I am trying to evaluate achievements of BJP government at the center. The analysis is crude but then again, it’s a blog, dang! What are you expecting?

People realized that Roads, clean drinking water and electricity are their basic rights and politicians or government should provide them these basic facilities. The realized that development is achieved only through competition, so FDI’s are not bad and nor Privatization is forbidden. People realized that ‘they’ are the nation and their aspiration of becoming strong was quite fulfilled in 1998. The Nuclear Bomb test gave them unique confidence that in case of war, we are quite capable of taking anyone squarely. The firmness, with which BJP leadership dealt with intruders in Kargil, left Pakistani military as well as political leadership searching for honorable exit. Of course, the initial intelligence failure should be investigated critically and harshly. Nonetheless, a strong military and political message is worth applause.

The infrastructure that BJP government built or rather tried to build is definitively a giant stride towards economic independence, which we sought for long time. The golden quadrangle project, whenever completed will certainly herald a new era of prosperity in wider parts of India. The tech sector boom was hallmark of BJP government. The decision of government to not to interfere in the tech boom was one of the best decisions of their tenure.

The list is pretty long. And I am not trying to prove that I am BJP supporter. Heck! I know I am and everybody knows I am. And its not that BJP government was best. They had their drawbacks. Their economic policies were certainly significant, but Rao government and Dr. Manmohan Singh made the initial breakthrough in 1991. Similerly, their Kargil operation was stupendous but Indira Gandhi’s 1971 war planning defined the ultimate war success.

The Congress ruled India for almost 45 years and they ruled India as if India is their property. They (Congress) institutionalized the corruption and heralded the divisive caste politics, which eclipses their achievements. But BJP governments ruled responsibly. Their top order leaders were non-corrupt. (Advani, Vajpeyee, Jasvant Singh, Yashwant Sinha, George Fernandez, Arun Shourie) The achievements are certainly undeniable. People may not see the effects of their decisions today, but in future they will realize the importance of BJP government. Hopefully, then, they will elect them again.

Where is Mr.....

I just started reading Imperial Hubris. Its written by a former CIA agent. Its an interesting book. Though i am yet to complete the book, one very important observation of the book hit me like a bullet. It’s like, damm it! How can i be such a dumb ass? Well, actually it should be “how can whole society be such a dumbass?

U.S. actively supported Afghan Mujhadinn from around 1980 to 1988, against Soviets. During this time period it is estimated that US spend almost $3 billion dollars. Apart from supplying money, ammunition and strategies, scores of CIA agents and plain clothed military officers visited area bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. These people know how Afghanistan and bordering region of Afghanistan and Pakistan works. They know the topography of that area and most importantly they know Afghani mentality. So, now when US government is saying that they can not one person because of hostile terrain in Afghanistan then there seems not much merit in it.

I mean the terrain is definitely hostile but then nobody is expecting U.S. Marines to scout that area on horses and find Mr. Laden, like old Texas cowboys used to do. With proper intelligence, a little hand-twisting and knowledge of the area and social conditions around, we will be quite close to Mr. Ladens location. Its definitely really tough but not impossible.

Any comments?

We miserable poor Hindus !

How pathetic we Hindus are? Every time something happens I ask this question? India, a Hindu dominated country is trying to erase all its Hindu past and is glorifying its Muslim period. Ok. Wait a minute. What am I talking about? Why am I sending you this rabble of words on Diwali? Because recently, one of our Shankaracharya was arrested on the charge of Murder, yeh, khoon! So I just wanted to tell you something about our own Hindi society. Just my thoughts you see, I am such a bugger. Anyways, let’s brush our history a little bit.

I hope I don’t need to tell you about rapists, plunderers and bandits like Genghis Khan, Mahemud Ghaznavi, Alla-u-din Khilaji. And Taimurlang (ohh by any chance if anybody of you don’t know about this contact me!) So we will jump straight to to our great Mughals. Akabar who slaughtered 200000 Rajputs in Rajasthan becomes Akbar the Great and all the atriocities of Auragzeb are erased from the textbook. We make movies on Shahajahaan .He is epitomized as a great lover. Right? What do you think of Hitler, a great lover or a dictator who killed millions by his acts? I mean he did marry his long time lover Eve Braun before committing suicide. Nobody makes movies on his love life but everybody focuses on his racial genocide. But we in great India makes movies on Shaha-jahaan, who by the way slaughtered some hundred thousand people during his mission in South India. He had burning desire to convert whole India into Muslim dominion. And even Taj-Mahal which is usually credited to him, is not built by him. Its Tejo-Mahal, build by some Rajput king. I mean Excuse me, I sincerely doubt a plunderer and Muslim zealot like him can envision structure like Taj-Mahal.

These are just some of the examples. I may not have put it in proper manner. Because such acts continues beyond words and imagination. But who cares. Poor Shivaji, he fought in vain. Actually I think he fought for wrong people.

And by the way there is not a single Hindi movie on the life of Shivaji or Maharana Pratap or on Guru Govind Singhji. I guess this is because Mr. M.K. Gandhi thought that these people were misguided patriots. And for our beloved Mr. Nehru, Shivaji was a Bandit, a thief, plunderer.

I am upset. I can’t express my frustration in words. I am not talking in particular about recent arrest of Shankaracharya in South India. It does not surprise me beyond certain point. I am pretty sure that most of friends, whom this column is intended, are not aware of number of Peeths or number of Shankaracharys in India.

I don’t see this act as beginning of crimes against Hindus but I see this as epitome of crime against Hindus. Almost all the riots are started by Muslims but still we, Hindus are held responsible. I totally understand the feelings of Muslims killed in recent Gujrat riots but they should not have burned 59 innocent people in train.

Mohammad Shahabuddin is responsible for 72 counts of crimes that range from theft to rape. But still he is not arrested and in fact he is union cabinet minister. Imam Bukhari of New Delhi openly supports Afghanistan terrorists and Taliban but still he is not arrested. Mr. Bilal (I am not sure about his first name.) who is responsible for burning train in Godhra is still not convicted for crime. Whole of family of Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon is living peacefully in Dubai and Karachi. Well, you see, they killed only 350 people in Bombay blasts in 1993 and majority of them were Hindus. So, we should not talk about them. Astonishingly, Dawood’s brother stood for recent elections in Mumbai.

How about Kashmiri Pandits who are living like refugees in their own country. In fact India is probably only country where Indian citizens lives like refugees. Their crime, they are Hindus. Does anybody cares about large scale Bangladeshi Muslim infusing in north-east India and in West Bengal?

And how about giving Ram-Janmabhumi , Krishna Janma-bhumi and Kashi-Vishveshwar temple back to Hindus? Oops! That’s a wrong subject to talk about, a taboo if I may say.

Arresting Shankaracharya is just an episode. Such acts will continue. But if we, Hindus stop caring about it then soon our life will be miserable too.

Happy Diwali.

Mr. Bush and Mediocrity

They keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity," says Mr. Incredible in recently released movie The Incredible. (The movie is awesome by the way!). I am not talking about the movie plot, its characters and its superb animation. But its philosophical aspect which suits best to the recently concluded US presidential elections. Mr. George W. Bush was elected again and this time overwhelmingly as a President of US.

This person, for half of the time can’t even construct a simple sentence. (“I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.") This person didn’t know name of Pakistan’s President (or should we say Dictator!). He thought that there are WMD’s in Iraq, well there is nothing there. (nada!) We are not sure about Mr. Laden’s location. The economy is completely tanked. Almost all economists are equivocal that taxes should be raised but he did exactly opposite. He invaded Iraq without proper planning, without exit strategy. He celebrated victory in Iraq when almost 1000 soldiers (That’s 89% of war casualties) died after his famed Mission Accomplished.

North Korea and Iran, two of his axis of evil are currently on the forefront in the race of acquiring nuclear weapons. NorthKorea probably have nuclear weapons by now. Mr. A.Q. Khan, an celebrated Pakistani nuclear scientist was caught red-handed while selling Nuclear weaponry. But he was pardoned. And so on and so forth. But still society chose Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry. Because the society seems to be so bored by intelligence, great oratory, and pragmatism and most worryingly they are so scared of truth that choice of Bush seems to be the solace.

By choosing Mr. Bush, an extremely mediocre person over Mr. Kerry, society have attained the epitome of ‘celebrating mediocrity’. I like when John Stewart said that we don’t want some Tom, Dick or Harry to be our president. But we want our President to be intelligent, a good orator and pragmatic.

I agree that Morality is one of the biggest issues today and to the certain extent it should be major issue. But, when your country is waging wrong war with wrong people. When real culprits of Spetember-11 are still at large and by all means are in healthy condition. When you are loosing more jobs to India and China faster then you are creating, when tax-cuts are actually healthy just for top 1% of the population. And rests 99% are left in lurch. And on the top of that when President lie about everything then moral issues take backseat.

I am not Republican, nor Democrat. But I am really afraid of Mr. Bush because his decision will affect whole world adversely in near future. No! Mr. Bush should not have been chosen as a President. Another four years are going to be, well, I would say not good.

Communism

I am not sure what i am thinking right now. I wanted to write something about something but i am unable to write a single word. Well, i am expressing this state of mind through words but what i mean is that i am unable to write a word that would express my thoughts. I wanted to write about Communism, then Indian secularism and about Islam. But everything seems to be like bubbles. They look beautiful for a second. If you touch them they burst and if you don't touch them they burst anyways. ohh..hmm...thats loose-loose situation.

damm it. anwyas. i am sleeping now. I will definitly work on that Communism stuff and will get back to you. see ya.......and yeh Happy Diwali.

BJP

The party of difference is not party of differences. I just can't believe the way things are going on in BJP. I used to had so high regards for BJP leadership that the way they are behaving frustrating me beyond limits. I know power corrupts but i had strong belief that if a person is motivated by honest ideology then that person will remain on the right course, no matter what.

We certainly have bunch of examples of such personalities. People who possesed immanse power and still managed to stay on right course. From, Great Shivaji to V.D. Savarkar, these people had power either in military sense or they were immansely popular among populace or both. Even Mr. Gandhi was not corrupted upto certain extent by power he had over Indian populace.

In post-Independance era power corruped each and every person. Of course there is no point in talking about Gandhi families because they are beyond redemption. But i sincerely used to believe that people of RSS background will live upto peoples expectetaions. I see these people as ideologist. They will stick to their goal of serving India in all possible way. No doubt, they did lot of work in last 6 years, that was largely neglected in last 50 years. But at the same time people in the cabinet were very very corrupt. Once they lost power,they (BJP) went completely out of Synchronizition. Even Vajpeyee was engulfed by first anger (against Modi!)for loss of power and then frustration and finally trauma.

Its impossible to imagine, the hell, Vajpeyee and Advani must be going through right now. (only of Advani and Vajpeyee) These people worked selflessely for almost 50 years and now they must be feeling completely lost and dejected. But Indian people need them even more now than before. Currently drama of so-called BJP's bright second generation leader is showing whole world that now there is no further difference between BJP and Congress.

Please, don't do that. I beg you. You are my last hope for India's redemption. If people of Congress, CPI's and Laloos won over India then there no hope for India. Forget about India's dream of becoming superpower in 20 years, we will continue our position of third world country.

Mr. Bush and Crusade.

Why did Bush win this election? Its been a week and almost all the newspapers in US and rest of the world worked overtime to answer this question. Though i am not sure whether to agree with them or not because i am completely alian to this country and to its culture. So if all these publications are saying that Bush won because he convinced voters in Mid-West America that he will stand for Moral Values then let be so. Personally i am surprised by this analysis but polls certainly shows that this is true. Frankly, my ideas of morality (Indian ideas!) are so different from morality in US that its worthless for me to wonder about this sudden morality awareness in US.
But somehow i see different reason for Bush's win. I am great admirer of V.S. Naipaul so I always try to see a bigger picture What i mean by bigger picture is that how we will perceive this result after 50 years from now.

There is great upheaving of Islamic fundamentalism in Middle-East Asia or rather, whereever there is substantial population of Muslims is present. The so called moderate voices are increasingly getting silenced and at the same time power of new Bin Ladens is increasing. Honestly speaking from my point of view there is no moderate Islam, in its all form its a radical religion. If someone is believes that Islam is a religion of peace then he or she is really naive because last millenium was full of blood bath because of South American genocide by Spanish and Asian genocide carried out by Islamic invaders. (of course there were Russian, German, Chinese genocides but they were not religious genocides.)

So right now Mr. Bush, a moral inspector and commander in Chief of free world which is usally perceived as Christian leader (He himself like to believe that he is a crusader!) by majority of Muslim world, won the election then why don't we see this as a slow coagulation of Christiandom against Islamic world. If Islam is fighting agianst Christianity then why can't Christianity fight with Islam. They need not to be in same format. Lets call Christianity as cruseders here. So Islam is openly defying Christianity but curseders might just say that they are for freedom and still fight with Islam.

All actions have equal and opposite reactions. Then if Islamic fundamentalism is pushing its agenda throughout the world in one format or other then it is unnecessary to belive that there will not be rise of Christian fundamentalism.

Some may say that America does not represent Christianity. True, but its a superpower country with christian majority. Also, we can certainly see the increasing unease among various Europian nations due to Muslim migrations. For example rise of right wing parties in France agains large scale Algerian migrations. Britain is batteling with Islamist from South east asia on their soil. Same with Denmark, Germany and Italy.

I think this is an extrimely slow process. It will take time. Its quite possible that in US, Democrats will win next election but i guess Mr. Bush started or gave center stage to this radicalism process and it will continue. This is not a Democratic or Republican process. As Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism will continue to grow, the possibility of same fundamentalism occuring in Christianity is 99 out of 100. (Vatican is a radical itself but i am talking about large masses who are Christian but not radical as Vatican.)

Any comments ?

my EnGLiSh

damm it, i am really frustrated with my english. I thought more i write, more i will get better in it. But somehow i am not getting any better. ( i have even completed my Expos.no shit!) I have uploaded three columns on my blog so far and every time i read those columns i see new mistakes. Its like "ohh i could have written this sentence in different and much better way and used much precise words". So either i am really dumb or theres something wrong in english. I think later part is correct.
I used to writer quite nicely in my mothertongue.(Marathi) In fact i used to be ace in that. I was the only student who got double mark (mark of distinction) in my Marathi class. I guess, i still think in my mothertongue and then try to write in English. But whenever i tried to think in English, my nationalism erupts like volcano. If i start thinking in english then after some time i will loose my sense of my mothertongue. I see lot of Indian who can't think in their language anymore and therefore can't talk properly.(I see lot of such people even in India!) I am really scared of this thing happening to me. And I just can't afford to loose my country nor my language. Its my identity. (hey, i am not a chauvinist!)
So i guess as long people understand what i write and what i say, i am happy. I don't want write to get some literature prize. I write just to express my thought. If i am successful in streaming those thoughts to readers, that's all i want. I will one happey and content soul on motherearth.
( oh Yeh, i am certainly working on writing stuffs in rhythm. My lost blog is as disorianted as it gets. Like Mr. Gandhi was during partition days...heheh)

Gandhi

Hi everybody.

I am not sure if anybody reads my blog but I have decided not to care about it. Writing for my blog not only gives me satisfaction but also gives me stage to express my views and thoughts. It doesn't matter if there are any viewers or spectators in the theater.

Recently I did a mini-drama on the life of Gandhi. It was a small play of around 50 minutes. But it while practicing for the drama I kept thinking about Mr. M.K. Gandhi. Its not secret that I am not a great Gandhi fan.(Its not secret to my friends!) Of course neither do I have any credentials nor I claim any in order to criticize him. But as a part of free India where freedom of speech is my right, I can certainly express my thoughts.

Currently any criticism of Gandhi will be labeled as fundamentalist, communalist and what not. Mr. V.D. Savarkar more than 35 years after his death, is still paying price of not towing Gandhi's line. Even though his contribution towards Indian independence is indisputable.

In this column I have tried to take critical approach of Mahatma Gandhi's action. The approach is certainly not comprehensive. I have discussed this matter with quite a few people and putting up my views for some real and constructive criticism.

Mr. Gandhi’s contribution to the struggle of Indian Independence is certainly exemplary. But British Government consistent efforts to label Mr. Gandhi as a sole torch-bearer of Indian independence seem to affected Mr. Gandhi’s judgment of contemporary situation

Independence struggle was united movement of Indian people not only against oppression of British imperialism but it also showed to the world that freedom is the basic human right. Mr. Gandhi was one of the most important leaders of this movement. His unique eminence among both Hindu and Muslim communities was certainly helpful in fostering these diametrically opposing communities together for the fight of Independence.

His non-violence certainly united whole India. As most of the Indians were wary of British force, it was quite improbable then, that whole India would rise up for violent revolution.(1857 war of Independace was first and last one!) Not only did Britishers took away all the arms from common citizens but they also subjugated Indian people mentally. One of Mahatma Gandhi's greatest feat was to root out this fear of Britishers from the mindset of people. His message was of to stand firm against Britishers because freedom is basic human right. This message proved to be hugely successful. Of course, the base of this struggle was firmly built by people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak but Gandhi definitely gave an explicit direction to the struggle.

But his insistance on Hindu-Muslim unity was bone of contention for both communities.

Hindu and Muslim religions are two ends of spectrum. The Muslim invasion that began 11th century almost destroyed the Indian civilization and had catastrophic effect on Indian culture. Allthough in the end Muslim plunderers failed in their stated aim of proselytizing whole Indian subcontinent into Muslim dominion. Given this violent History their unity beyond certain point is impossible, rather not feasible. Mr. Gandhi somehow failed to understand this. According to him Shivaji, Maharana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh were "misguided patriots" because they fought valiently against on slought of Islam. (Mr. Nehru actually called Shivaji, a bandit. Gandhi gave lot more respect to Shivaji!) It seems that for Gandhi, any other method of struggle, apart from non-violence was not only incorrect but also nuisance

As Mr. Savarkar was trying to unite whole India under banner of Bhartiya, Gandhi insisted on giving strong and separate identity to Islam in India. Of course, nobody was robbing Muslim community of their Islamic identity but their first and foremost religion is Indianess and same applies to all the people in India, irrespective of religion.

Some of the above factors were main reasons why Gandhi failed to unite India. I certainly do not blame him for Partition. In current condition, it seems that partition proved to be good for country. Otherwise it would have been nightmare to run the country with huge fundamentalist muslim population as a part of it. But Gandhi almost attained sainthood in his life, if he had used his position more pragmatically in uniting people than clinging to ideology of "secularism" and non-violence then today's scenario would have been much different. Probably much better.

In later part of life, when he became Mahatma V.S. Naipaul correctly said that " He (Gandhi) became his own admirer" Thus he was so consumed by himself, that he stopped thinking rationally and did some great blunders, perticularly during partition.




Chinmay R. Rahalkar

A Million Mutinies

- V.S. Naipaul
Publication: India Today Date: August 18, 1997

I think that it would be wrong to ask whether 50 years of India's Independence are an achievement or a failure. It would be better to see things as evolving. It's not an either-or question. My idea of the history of India is slightly contrary to the Indian idea. India is a country that, in the north, outside Rajasthan, was ravaged, and intellectually destroyed to a large extent, by the invasions that began in about 1000 A.D. by forces and religions that India had no means of understanding.
The invasions are in all the school books. But I don't think people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else, led to a tremendous intellectual depiction of the country. I think that in the British period, and in the 50 years after the British period, there has been a kind of recruitment or recovery, a very slow revival of energy and intellect. This isn't an idea that goes with the vision of the grandeur of old India and all that sort of rubbish. That idea is a great simplification, and it occurs because it is intellectually, philosophically and emotionally easier for Indians to manage.
What they cannot manage, and what they have not yet come to terms with, is that ravaging of all the north of India by various conquerors. That was ruin not by an act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It's much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British. What happened from 1 000 A.D. on, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality. I wrote a book about that, and people thought I meant that India hasn't really a civilization, or India can't go ahead. What I was saying is that you cannot deal with a wound so big. I do not think, for example, that people like the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places, the head was cut off. I think the pre-British ravaging of India was as bad as that. Muslims shouldn't be too sensitive about this. Because in the Islamic world, a similar vandalization occurred with the Mongols. Muslims all over still grieve about that.
In the place of knowledge of history, you have various fantasies about the village republic and the old glory. There is one big fantasy that Indians have always found solace in: about India having the capacity for absorbing its conquerors. This is not so. India was laid low by its conquerors. There's an extraordinary work by the young Gandhi-his 1909 book, Hind Swaraj, about the need for Indian independence-where he says that what is really wrong with India is modern civilization: doctors, lawyers, railways (spreading famine and vice). His arguments are quite absurd. Rome has fallen, Greece has fallen, every other culture has fallen, but old Indiahas survived. It is immovable and glorious. Now Gandhi is writing this at one of the blacker moments in India's history and one of the blacker moments in his personal life. He has seen South Africa and the abject, unprotected condition of Indians there. Out of that despair, and out of his own lack of education, all he can manage intellectually is that rejection of modern civilization, which is a rejection of the tools of self-defence. It is the deepest kind of despair. That's my starting point in understanding Indian history. And so, I feel the past 150 years have been years of every kind of growth. I see the British period and what has continued after that as one period. In that time, there has been a very slow intellectual recruitment. I think every Indian should make the pilgrimage to the site of the capital of the Vijaynagar empire, just to see what the invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town. Religious wars are like that. People who see that might understand what the centuries of plunder and slaughter meant. War isn't a game. When you lost that kind of war, your towns were destroyed, the people who built the towns were destroyed, you are left with a headless population. That's where modern India starts from.
The Vijaynagar capital was destroyed in 1565. It is only now that the surrounding region has begun to revive.
A great chance has been given to India to start up again, and I feel it has started up again. The questions about whether 50 years of India since Independence have been a failure or an achievement are not the questions toask. In fact, I think India is developing quite marvellously. People thought-even Mr Nehru thought-that development and new institutions in a place like Bihar, for instance, would immediately lead to beauty. But it doesn't happen like that. When a country as ravaged as India, with all its layers of cruelty, when that kind of country begins to extend justice to people lower down, it's a very messy business. It's not beautiful, it's extremely messy. And that's what you have now, all these small politicians with small reputations and small parties. But this is part of growth, this is part of development. You must remember that these people, and the people they represent. have never had rights before. So in India at the moment you have a million mutinies-every man is a mutiny on his own-and 1 find that entirely creative. It's difficult to manage, gets very messy, but it is the only way forward. You can't get people from Bihar suddenly behaving very beautifully. When the oppressed have the power to assert themselves, they will behave badly. it will need a couple of generations of security, and knowledge of institutions. and the knowledge that you can trust institutions-it will take at least a couple of generations before people in that situation begin to behave well.
People in India have only known tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. Particularly pathetic is the harking back to the Mughals as a time of glory. In fact, the Mughals were tyrants, every one of them. They were foreign tyrants. And they were proud of being foreign. There's a story that anybody could run and pull a bell and the emperor would appear at his window and give justice. The child's idea of history. The slave's idea of the ruler's mercy. When the people at the bottom discover that they hold justice in their own hands, the earth moves a little. You have to expect these earth movements in India. It will be like this for a hundred years. But it is the only way. In a country like India, I don't want people at the bottom to ever lose their say in their government, to ever lose representation. That is a calamity that must be avoided at all costs. It's painful and messy and primitive and petty, but it's better that it should begin. It has to begin. If we were to rule people according to what we think fit, that takes us back to the past when people had no voices. Old caste or clan boundaries can't disappear. They are people's support system and I think they will be with us for a long time. What is happening, of course, is that within those boundaries people are beginning to have a greater sense of themselves. Some people may feel unhappy at what they see as a breakdown of old reverences. but they have to understand that this is part of an intellectual movement forward. I don't believe in revolution. it's a bogus and cruel idea. Things don't change overnight. They move very slowly, they move over generations. And with self-awareness, all else follows. People begin to make new demands on their leaders, their fellows, on themselves. They ask for more in everything. They have a higher idea of human possibilities. They are not content with what they did before or what their fathers did before. They want to move. That is marvelous. That is as it should be.
>From India's point of view, the Partition was extremely fortunate. The religious question would otherwise have paralysed and consumed the state. By cruel irony, this is what it's done across the border in Pakistan. InIndia, there's the emphasis on human possibility. In Pakistan, there's only a constant regression to greater and greater fundamentalism-it's quite extraordinary and shameful that Pakistan, 50 years after independence, could have created something like the Taliban. There's no future in the doctrine that perfection in religion leads to perfection in men. That is the great difference between India and Pakistan. The Iqbal idea that religion wasn't a matter of conscience, that it needed a separate community and society, was a wicked and rather foolish idea, and in the end it went against the polity he thought he was creating. There are very talented people in Pakistan. Unfortunately, they don't have much of a chance. The religious state is not built around the idea of individual talent. So it remains half a serf state, and there is little chance of .change. A country's wealth is its people, but instead of drawing out strengths of the people, instead of drawing out their talent, this use of religion debases, degrades and depresses them more and more.
People ask me about the forces of Hindutva in India. I got into trouble a couple of years ago when I said that with this new kind of self-awareness in India, the Hindu idea is almost a necessary early, stage. It contains the beginnings of larger, new ideas: the idea of history, the idea of the human family, of India. I hope this self-awareness doesn't stay there, and I don't think it will, but it's necessary. We are dealing with a country that has started from a very low point, a very low intellectual point, a low economic point. When people start moving, the first loyalty, the first identity, is always a rather small one. They can't immediately become other things. I think that within every kind of disorder now in India there is a larger positive movement. But the future will be fairly chaotic. Politics will have to be at the level of the people now. People like Nehru were colonial-style politicians. They were to a large extent created and protected by the colonial order. They did not begin with the people.
Politicians now have to begin with the people. They cannot be too far above the level of the people. They are very much part of the people. The Nehrus of the world have to give way now to the men of the people. It is important, in this apparent mess, for two things not to be interfered with. One is economic growth. I would like to see that encouraged in every way. It is the most important news coming out of India, more important than the politics. I would like to see education extended and extended. If this were to happen, and I feel it might, gradually, the actual level of politics will reflect both the economic life and higher level of education.
There's been great movement since 1962, when I first went to India. It's not only the level of public debate, of intellectual life. You look at the newspapers from those days, they are reports of speeches, there is not muchnews, nothing like investigations going on. In a way India didn't exist for the Indian papers at that time. There would be various items sent in by the local correspondent, saying that a woman had thrown her children in a well and then jumped in herself, that would come as a line from the correspondent from Faizabad or wherever. But they wouldn't send someone to investigate what would make someone do that. They had no idea that could be done. So you get an idea of the great intellectual change that has taken place. And that goes with the economic change. That's why I think the two must go side by side. There was no economic life really worth talking about. People blame Nehru for his slightly socialist attitude to enterprise. But I don't think India in the 1950s had the talent to resist international business. It would have been dreadfully exploited. I think the old stringencies caused a lot of pain, but it's much better that change is happening now. Every year that passes, makes the country more able to cope 'with international business. In 1962, the number of talented people, equipped people, would have really been quite small compared to what you have now.
It is important that self-criticism does not stop. The mind has to work, the mind has to be active, there has to be an exercise of the mind. I think it's almost a definition of a living country that it looks at itself, analyses itself at all times. Only countries that have ceased to live can say it's all wonderful.
In India the talent is prodigious, really, and it increases year by year. And in sheer numbers, in another 10 years, India will probably be one of the world's most intellectually gifted countries. The quality and the numbers are extraordinary, and I think this makes India extraordinary. But India shouldn't have fantasies about the past. The past is painful, but it should be faced. We should make ourselves see how far these old invasions and wars had beaten India down and how far we have come. I would say that India in the 18th century was pretty nearly a dead country. India has life now. India is living

The Age of Empires.

There is a huge outcry about recently published Intelligence Committee reports both in US and Britain. The blame game is on role, as ruling political classes of both countries are cleaning their hands of Iraq mess and putting intelligence agencies on death row. (Tenet is already gone; well he should have been retired long time back!)
But is this war really caused due to Intelligence failure? Look at the following statements issued by similar authorities, but the time gap between them is almost 80 years.

“Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators…it is the home and desire of the British people and the nations in alliance with them that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown among the peoples of the earth
- General F.S. Maude, Commander of British Forces.
Baghdad, March 19, 1917.


Unlike many armies in the world, you came not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate, and the Iraqi people know this.
-Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense
Baghdad, April 29, 2003.

The similarity between two statements is not that the common language is English but they are issued by white people and against same Arabs. Of course I am not suggesting that this war is between two races, but I think the time gap between two statements is actually period between two imperialists ages.
The Iraq war is return of Age of Empires. It’s lesson to new generation and reminder to old generation that this age belongs to American empire, as it was age of British Empire 50 years ago. This war is not about liberation or planting seeds of democracy and certainly not result of bad intelligence but this war is about sustaining an Empire that depends heavily on Oil and Iraq has Oil.
The most distinctive feature between American empire and other empires of the past is that American empire is not Land hungry as it has its own ample land mass. Money is the driving force of America. Where there is money there ought to be Americans. Money is the central philosophy; it’s the building block of American society, of American empire. It’s the only language they understand. They (American Empire) want to keep their people in best possible luxury, so they want to use unlimited amount of resources in every sense. And due to tremendous development in communication, all the resources that are not available on American soil can be brought from other parts of the world, so there is no need to physically capture any country. Better strategy is to keep puppet government at the helm of the country and then be the sole profiteer of its resources. It makes perfect business sense as least human resource and capital is invested in this process and returns are pretty high.
There are numerous instances of this strategy. For example, constant intervention of US troops in Central America; the monetary plundering of South-East Asia and South America. Pro-American governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. (Oh ! I love Arabia(n) (Oil)!). Similarly various military outposts throughout world. (Taiwan, South Korea, Diego Marcia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) to keep eye on emerging threat.
Is there anything wrong in the theory of world domination? Rationally speaking it’s not our choice as there will always be someone to grab the power and, particularly power to rule world is irresistible. World history can always be divided into age of world superpowers. Be it Romans, Alexander or Emperor Ashoka’s empire stretching from present day Afghanistan to South-East Asia. Or be it very primitive and cruel Huns and Muslim plunderers of medieval period. Since the European Renaissance the power struggle became intense and various powers of Western Europe started quest to dominate world. So there is no choice of equality based world order, but its just choice of accepting or denying the power of world dominator.
So anyone who reads this column, let me know your opinion, post the comment and play active intellectual part in this very volatile era of return of Age of Empires.