Wednesday, March 12, 2014

VEDIC SCHOLAR PLACES WENDY'S "NON-HISTORY" IN PERSPECTIVE BY EXAMINING THE RECENT HISTORY OF HER IGNOBLE BOOK

Wendy’s "unhistory" making history
Dr. Pramod V. Pathak

Making fast buck

No sooner the news of the out of court settlement for withdrawing copies of Wendy Doniger’s controversial book, “The Hindus: An Alternative History” was out, there was scramble for the copies of the book. As reported by S. R. Praveen in “The Hindu” Dt 16th Feb 2014, the local dealers and in turn M/s Penguin made fast buck by selling the copies without issuing bills or receipts. Praveen called it "Streisand effect" after the pop singer Barbara Streisand’s effort to sue the photographer for her offending picture; they were circulated like wild fire on the internet. By the time the court matter was settled, almost all the copies of Wendy’s "unhistory" were sold out. That made a history. Demand for the book as such had slumped over the last two years due to gross inaccuracies, leave apart the distorted views. The book suddenly got a boost. It served the purpose for Penguins who were experiencing the Damocles’ sword hanging on their head due to infringement of copyrights, textual inaccuracies and misrepresentation in the map of mediaeval India 600 CE to 1600 CE wherein Kashmir was not shown as part of India. Out of court settlement gamble proved the best business bait and the publishers recovered all the money they had put in publishing this trash. As expected, some authors, especially like Arundhati Roy, this time was not fierce but lamented (Times of India 12th Feb 2014) as to why at all Penguins have succumbed to the Hindu rightist pressure. Shobha De felt that Penguins have buckled under the external pressure form the right wing Hindu zealots (Times of India Dt 16th Feb 2014). They did not buckle in actuality, on the contrary they made a smart business deal. She did not feel like paying attention to the reality that editorial board of Penguins must have felt really ashamed that they did not apply their usual editorial scrutiny and accepted the text as submitted by the author. They must have felt confident about the contents of the text by Wendy who had earlier submitted very authentic sort of translations of Rig Veda and Manusmriti. These were praised by many scholars. In fact the present author was very much impressed by Wendy’s translation of hundred hymns from the Rig Veda (1981). This time, however, she has made a mess of it all and Penguins must have felt let down by the gross inaccuracies in the text. Petition by Dina Nath Batra came as god sent opportunity. Penguins agreed to withdraw the book and the gamble has paid well. It also generated unaccounted cash transactions as reported in The Hindu, if indeed the copies were sold without issuing receipts.

Expected brouhaha

As was expected, the secular, the freedom of speech loving community from the select group came out with offended feelings and along with Wendy. Martyrdom of the likes of James Laine, M. F. Hussain, Siddharth Deb, Bhargava and Badopadhyay was evoked. Book withdrawal by Penguins was declared a great victory of the rightist Hindu forces with prediction that demands like these are likely to grow in future. While Arundhati Roy lamented, Ratna Kapoor, Ananya Vajpeyi, Sheldon Pollock, Romila Thapar and others signed an open letter condemning the decision and proposed for repealing of the section of the 153A and 259 A of the Indian penal code (The Hinud 15th Feb). Ramchandra Guha was forthright in condemning the Hindu as well as Muslim bigots (The Times of India Dt 13th Feb). The co-author of Wendy, Sudhir Kakar meekly submitted, “So what we are talking here is Islam. So yes, there is certain caution exercised by scholars here. But then if a certain section of Muslims is intolerant and violently so, does this mean all Hindus should follow the same example?” (Times of India 16th Feb). In effect Kakar conceded that all these scholars are cowards and dare not tell the truth in the face of adversaries. It must be noted here that the Hindus were not violent at all. They only protested and took recourse to civil action and agreed for out of the court settlement. It is quite surprising that a psychoanalyst like Kakar, expected to have better reality testing, should make such hyperbolic statements when there was no trace of violence in seeking legal recourse. 

The signs of perversion

All the so called freedom loving scholars and artists have taken the liberty only with Hindu scriptures and Hindu psyche. Kakar praises Wendy for having treated the Hindu scriptures from the psychoanalytical point of view. It has invariably been sexual distortions that she has engaged in rather than grasping the philosophical meanings of the symbolism. In case of the Shiva Lingam, she never felt it necessary to refer the origin of the Shiva Lingam to the mystic hymns of Skambha Sukta in the Atharva Veda (X.7 and 8) where the infinite expanse of the divine column as perceived by the seer expands on either side, upward and downward to infinity. It dates back by centuries to the Purana literature. The similar story repeats in Upanishadic lore where the Supreme Gods, Brahma and Vishnu find it impossible to reach either of the ends of the column form in which Lord Shiva had appeared. Wendy forgets the idea of infinite existence and expanse of Shiva Lingam that was espoused in these hymns. She takes recourse to the Puranic story of lovelorn Shiva appearing naked before the spouses of the seers who curse him to get his penis detached. This is no sign of being the best friend of Hinduism as Kakar describes her to be. It really hurts one to see the scholar of her stature committing blunder of the highest order when she states, “Ravana stole Sita and kept her captive on the island of Lanka for many years.” Then she states that Rama brought Sita back home with him. He made her perform an ordeal by fire (P221). Any lay person with little acquaintance with the Ramayana text would assert that Sita was in captivity only for a few months and the fire ordeal was performed right after killing of Ravana and not in Ayodhya. Such glaring mistakes are to be found in many narrations. Vishal Agrawal has compiled chapter by chapter the mistakes in Wendy’s book. It does not behoove a scholar of her standing to make such gross factual misrepresentations. Of late, Wendy appears to have succumbed to senility in her sixties. She sounds irrelevant, loose and disorganized in her thinking, when she narrates about the cow exhibition in Chicago held in 1999, relating it to the World Parliament of Religions (Page 640). As narrated by her, Chicago city officials exhibited 340 life size cows in their city, “which had nothing to do with Hinduism”. These were later sold and brought $200 million in additional tourist revenue for the city. All this information is absolutely irrelevant but for the last sum up, “But during that summer, Chicago was like Calcutta, in this regards at least; everywhere you turned, you met a cow”. This is the sample of her "scholarship and love for Hinduism" that Wendy exhibits. Or is this the "alternative history" of the Hindus Wendy has to offer to the world?

It is typical of the western scholars, that they take sadistic pleasure in making remarks about sexuality rather than spirituality. Take the case of James Laine on Shivaji. Ramchandra Guha refers to his book on Shivaji as scholarly study (The Times of India 13th Feb). Has he himself even seen Laine’s book as a historian of modern period? There are so many inaccuracies. Right in the beginning, Laine refers to the tradition of mud fort making by the young kids in Maharashtra. He states that these are made during Dahashara festival. Even a toddler in Maharashtra will tell that these are made during long holidays of Diwali rather than Dashahara (Page 4). The present author had written a series of thirty articles pointing mistakes in the narration and details in Laine’s book. This historian Laine (?) of dubious repute makes the most unworthy statement in his book stating “the Maharashtrians tell jokes naughtily” which led to vandalism at the famous Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. In a history book, this analytical historian narrates naughty jokes and slander. He tries to touch upon five conjured up aspects of Shivaji’s life, Shivaji had an unhappy family life, Shivaji had harem, Shivaji was uninterested in the religion of Bhakti saints etc. This is an attitude of a perverted mind set. Laine does not go into analysis of the state apparatus Shivaji built; he does not appreciate the feeling of honour and dedication he evoked in his followers; he does not bother about Shivaji's compilation of Sanskrit word compendium for Persian administrative words which the Govt. of India emulated after independence, or Shivaji’s attempts at casting cannons in developing a technology for his military forces; he is more interested in his harem? Similar pervert attitude was prominent in so called great artist M.F. Husain who originally hailed from pilgrim centre of Pandharpur. Husain had no eye for the devotion of the Warkari pilgrims, their faces lit with the feeling of ecstasy that overflows on the streets of Pandharpur during the Ashadhi Ekadashi pilgrimage festival, but he drew the picture of a Hindu goddess in the nude. During Prophet Mohammad’s time, a neo-convert Muslim, Umayr ibn ‘Awf, stabbed mercilessly a lady Asma, daughter of Marwan in the night while she was suckling her infant child; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. Would Husain have ever dared to paint the agony written large on the face of dying Asma on stabbing? He dare not. He would have been ripped apart and lynched by the mob of Muslim fanatics, forgetting that the instance quoted above is a recorded history. He took for granted that like secular Hindus other Hindus too would accept his perversions meekly. Husain, an ordinary poster painter would have remained so till the end a poster painter and would be lost in oblivion with the advent of computerised poster printing. Just because he was a Muslim, walked bare foot and he dared to draw those pervert pictures, he was made into a "famous painter." In fact all these so called "scholars and artists" breed deep disdain for the Hindu values and culture. They become instantly famous by making such provocative sexual statements that are offensive to Hindus. And their ilk among the secular scholars here in India pounce on their books, essays, pictures etc. as if to see that they get publicity. No wonder this too is typical of a deep perversion that all them harbour.

No reference to the text

All the so called Indian and foreign thinkers and contributors to the English newspapers, listed above seem to have not even superficially browsed Wendy’s book. If they had, they would have noted umpteen mistakes and inaccuracies and would have certainly withheld their remarks about the decision to withdraw the book. However, they have manifested flock mentality as usual. On the contrary, scholarly reviews in prestigious journals, Social Scientist and American Journal of Oriental Society have criticized poor historiography and lack of focus. Vedic scholar from Harvard, Michael Witzel too was critical of Wendy’s book. But for the Indian secularists she is as if epitome of scholarship. The present author had published review of chapters in her book on the Vedic period in “Atharva” journal Vol 5, No 12 and sent her a personal copy. But there was no response. Courtesy at the intellectual level demands at least acknowledgment via e-mail. It did not come. Similarly James Laine too shied away from responding to criticism of his book.

Publish criticism volume 

In this book of hers Wendy has lost her bearings. She appears to have done away with the precision in her scholarship. She had shown it in her earlier works. It is a pity that the western scholars have not yet come out of their colonial mind set and the Indian secularist have not come out of their slavish mentality. They write false histories of Asia and Indian subcontinent. The perceptions of the American policy makers are colored by these half-truth histories and they formulate their international strategies based on such distorted views about other cultures and people. That is why a strong nation like USA has not been able to win a single war in the post-World War II era. The penguins would have done well to publish volume of critical essays published mostly on the web. That could have been sold like a hot cake. Scholars and lay people as well would have known both the shades of opinion. It could have been a real intellectual exercise. By withdrawing the book, Penguins have lost that opportunity. It has as well upset many writers. Dina Nath Batra who has spearheaded the movement through Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas should come forward to publish a volume of critical reviews of the Wendy’s book and expose her for the deliberate rather than inadvertent distortions. It will be a great service in the cause of intellectual inquiry and the scholarship of Indian history and culture.

About the author
Dr. Pramod Pathak is a Vedic scholar based in Goa. He has a Ph. D. in the Vedic literature, has authored books on the Vedas and is a freelance writer.         

Saturday, March 8, 2014

RAPE IS COMMONPLACE IN U.S. BUT IS A GLARING NEWS IN INDIA, WHY?

Why this focus on 'rapes in India' by world media?

January 27, 2014 · by mariawirthblog · in Uncategorized · 37 Comments ·Edit
Judging from media reports, India has a BIG problem with rape. No other country seems to come even close. All over the globe “another rape in India” is reported ever so often.  On my last visit to Germany, I jolted when on 27. December 2013 the most popular TV news ended with “another gang rape in India”. It was one of only five topics of the 15 minutes broadcast.
Even my sister wondered how a gang rape in India made it to the main news in Germany. That same day in a conservative estimate, over a thousand rapes would have been committed all over the world.  In the USA some 200, in South Africa some 170. In the western cities, the statistics show a high percentage, much higher than in India. Many of those rapes would have been gang rapes. In many cases, the girl or woman would have been killed. Behind each of those statistical figures are painful, heartrending stories. If we knew what is happening at this very moment on this earth – how much pain humans inflict on other humans and on animals – we could not bear it.  With so much crime happening everywhere, why is India being singled out and shamed with “another gang rape”, when it actually has only a fraction of the crimes other countries have in relative numbers? In absolute numbers of course it would be no surprise if India with her huge population of four times the size of the United States were number one apart from China. Even then it is not number one. USA is.
The deluge of rape reports on India started with the shameful gang rape of a young woman, Jyoti, in a bus in Delhi on December 16th, 2012. Jyoti died. The six culprits were convicted. One committed either suicide (official version) or was killed by prison inmates. Four got death sentence. The sixth was a minor, six months short of his 18th birthday. He got away with 3 years in a reprimand home. As he allegedly was the most brutal of all and responsible for the death of Jyoti, efforts are on to try him as an adult.
This gang rape received unprecedented publicity. It reached national and local news all over the globe. It reached even a friend in Slovenia, who is usually oblivious of what is happening. Why was it broadcasted all over with such intensity? Was it because Indians protested in a big way and demanded harsh punishment? Those protests should have actually gone in favour of India, as they made clear that Indians consider rape as completely against their culture. But the opposite happened:
Read more at:
Regards
Maria Wirth

MODI DEMYSTIFIED

Narendra Modi all set to script history

Posted by Gautam Sen  /   March 08, 2014  /   Posted in Commentary, Slider  /   No Comments
Narendra Modi
Every other day the American and European media publishes some convoluted rumour about Narendra Modi’s extremism, only adducing corroboration, which even the repulsive Teesta Setalvad has ceased daring to purvey. He has apparently committed genocide (sic!) against Muslims in Gujarat and represents a form of Indian nationalism akin to fascism, of an unexplained Hindu variety of course. And Washington’s arrogant refrain, prompted by Christian fundamentalists and their US-based Wahhabi allies, is that it will not allow him to enter the US. Modi has not sought this exalted privilege, though torturers and mass murderers, who are supine American allies, are not denied entry. Besides, admission to the US cannot be refused should Narendra Modi propose to attend a UN event in New York as India’s head of state.

The worst offenders, abusing Modi and fabricating pure rubbish against him, are America’s allegedly liberal east coast broadsheets. All of them instruments of US foreign policy goals. In Britain, their counterparts are the duplicitous Guardian and Independent dailies, their India correspondents ever the most assiduous and malicious India-baiters. In Britain itself the House of Commons hosts sombre meetings, organised by hard left activists with known Jihadi connections, to libel Narendra Modi as a Hindu fascist. Some of these self-righteous far left activists have evidently attained a state of grace in academia since their days calling for revolt on behalf of the mass murderer, Mao. If this wasn’t enough reason to inspire Indian voters to support Modi what else could?! India’s most determined foreign detractors despise him and tell lies in a forlorn desire to thwart his ascent or prompt a Jihadi assassination attempt by repeatedly broadcasting provocative untruths.

Interestingly, a very similar calumny was aimed at Jawaharlal Nehru soon after Indian independence in 1947. The US State department disdainfully denounced his India as the successor to Japanese fascism, even as it eagerly seized profoundly tainted research conducted, in the most brutal experiments imaginable, by Japanese scientists on prisoners of war and civilians. These vile experiments, including severing frozen limbs and injecting fatal bacteria, were conducted while the victims were alive and conscious. It was to be followed by dire US military threats in 1971 against India, which sought to end the worst human rights violations the world had witnessed since Nazism. The US also offered unqualified support to the country responsible for perpetrating them. Not a great deal has changed in deep-seated US attitudes toward India, but the global geopolitical situation has changed.

The US won the Cold War, although tensions persist because of it is determination to administer a coup d’grace to Russia, but the accusation against India of being a Soviet lackey has lost potency. The rise of China has even made India a potential collaborator, but on US terms rather than in any relationship of give-and-take. There is little regard or respect for India, and India’s current status as whipping boy on international trade issues, amply confirm. The consent for the Indo-US Nuclear Accord is the exception that actually proves the rule. The US authorities are apparently also determined to have a say in choosing India’s future prime minister. It is no longer content to merely choose Indian cabinet ministers, which it has been doing owing to Indian folly that began with the late Rajiv Gandhi’s premiership.

The self-serving, media disinformation hostile to India’s well being and future is obscuring the hugely positive impact Narendra Modi is poised to have on the country. His aspirations remind of Japan on the eve of its momentous Meiji restoration in 1868 and the onset of its dramatic socio-political and economic advance. India is not Japan, the latter having a firm basis for development in pre-existing agricultural transformation.

Although India overcame formal imperial tutelage, it remains a victim of its dismal conquered past, both colonial British and worse earlier. They haunt it through intellectual backwardness and absence of a settled civilizational consciousness that could create a sense of common national purpose. The recent colonial experience also left behind seeds of self-doubt, worsened by various forms of subversive proselytisation under the cover of secular freedoms. These have instituted and deepened national divisions on multiple spurious axes, including fraudulent leftist pipedreams and religious chimeras.

For the first time since Indian independence, a politician, in the shape of Narendra Modi, is speaking boldly of the Indian people as a nation and not in terms of their myriad caste, religious, linguistic and regional identities, which comprise its injurious vote banks. It is true that a possible virtuous conjuncture of political and social maturity that underlies it is a youthful Indian population and urbanisation, instituting cultural and political sensitivity less anchored to a parochial past and more forward looking. The prodigious information revolution, which Narendra Modi and his supporters are using to such good effect for the election campaign, has a bearing on this fortuitous situation. Everyone is better informed and most share common aspirations, across superficial divides, for a better life. The urban Indian is also more patriotic, a constituency that Modi’s BJP predecessors miraculously managed to disillusion although it should have been their natural ally!

Significantly and almost unnoticed, a huge swathe of the educated, many apparently from Anglicised social backgrounds and nominally from privileged castes, have lined up enthusiastically behind Narendra Modi. The dream of this man, from humble beginnings, is their dream too. It is their intervention through the social media that unhinged a bewildered Home Minister and has humbled the serried ranks of self-important and powerful media gangsters, happy to sup with the devil for crumbs from the table! They and their political masters are befuddled and quite unable to comprehend the oceanic forces lapping at their feet, soon to sweep them away into socio-political oblivion. A historic moment has arrived when the rulers are unable to carry on as before and the ruled, no longer willing to accept. Of course their mundane material interests are threatened, precipitating a disgraceful defiance from this detritus of the past, indifferent to causing massive injury to the nation.

Narendra Modi has seized the moment and is enthralling an emerging one nation of the Indian people. He is promising to sweep away the inherited quasi colonial political instincts, administrative structures and practices that have endured unseen beneath the surface, shaping and bedevilling the functioning of Indian society. These have retained their influence despite countless reforms because their undemocratic feudal underpinning and mindset only changed slowly. They have undermined successive reforms, for example, to devolve power away from the Centre. The regional satrapies of the ruling party could not reconcile local political aspirations to the domineering political instincts of the Centre until truculent breakaway fiefdoms emerged, uncomprehending of a national purpose.
It is this fragmented political reality that genuinely sharing political power, in exchange for mutual responsibility, a common developmental national agenda will address. This is the one nation to which Modi’s promise of good governance and development has appealed across the length and breadth of the country. Narendra Modi’s one nation, experiencing genuine participatory authority will combine with radical new economic forces that have eluded India too long, only appearing uncertainly to retreat again. The tired debate between markets and state enterprise has not been laid to rest because a coterie of over-rated Indian academics and mediocre policy makers have invested much of their failed careers defending India’s bizarre economic arrangements. India’s economic system encourages and facilitates rent seeking on a grand scale and curtails entrepreneurial activity. It has established the worst manifestations of private property and capitalism, which is its crony variety, designed to plunder the nation for the enrichment of the few.

It needs to be remembered that an error of historic judgement by Nehru in the early 1950s has had momentous negative consequences for India’s economy and its people. It led to the Indian economy being dominated by the state, with misplaced faith in capital goods production leading to high growth. These were mistakes of the era, because markets had suffered huge setbacks and the Soviet model of the 1930s beckoned. However, much of the rest of Asia wisely chose a more rational path later, based on their existing capital, labour and natural endowment assets. As a result, South Korea, which was poorer than India in 1960, competes for the high-end international consumer market today. China, with a lower per capita income than India in 1992, followed suit in 1978 and is the world’s largest manufacturer today. India was left to lag behind, debating inanely about socialism, affirmative action proliferating mindlessly and affected by Maoist whims that had been resolutely abandoned by China itself.

India wasted huge national savings and curtailed its immense national entrepreneurial resources for more than four decades, only falteringly adopting some market discipline in the 1990s. But it has been abandoned for the past decade of shocking politicisation of economic policy and the outright plunder to which it inevitably gave rise. The most hapless in India is small and medium size enterprise, the source of the greatest employment generation and potentially the most dynamic sector of an economy at India’s level of per capita income. They have been strangled by regulatory mechanisms whose purpose has ended up as predatory political and bureaucratic larceny. One example of this is the veritable reign of terror in which the tax and customs authorities of India are engaged.

Narendra Modi’s promise to unite the people of India as one nation, with a common purpose and dramatic administrative reforms to usher in rational governance, will be accompanied by a transformative economic trajectory. The Indian State is not going to fade away, but will redefine its role as a regulator of essentially private endeavour. A determined retreat from the current massive ownership of low productivity and unprofitable assets must surely be a radical step ahead to energise the Indian economy.  All redistributive measures will not disappear, impossible in a country with India’s level of poverty and destitution, but reform and thoughtful targeting are almost certain.
In addition, much will need to be done to overcome infrastructure bottlenecks and ensuring freedom for economic activity, without the State acting like a greedy and disciplinarian overseer, only anxious to pre-empt its illicit share. Labour reforms, a rational land acquisition policy and sane environmental approvals are essential for implementation at the earliest opportunity. Some of the pain of the transition is best suffered in the early months of a post-election, political honeymoon, which will be succeeded by employment growth, the only real basis for sustainable improvements in the living conditions of the majority.

India is capable of achieving explosive economic growth if the regulatory environment permits and this is what Narendra Modi is hoping to craft.

(The author taught international political economy at the London School of Economics)
- See more at: http://www.indiafacts.co.in/narendra-modi-set-script-history/#sthash.KOZfByFI.M4BqdgzC.dpuf

Friday, March 7, 2014

MOULANA JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S GREAT GRANDSON SHAHZADE RAHUL ATTEMPTS TO INFLAME MUSLIM CROWDS NEAR BHIWANDI IN MUMBAI BY REPEATING HIS FAMILY MYTH PROMULGATED BY HIS GRANDPA DISREGARDING ALL HISTORICAL FACTS AND INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/03/criminal-and-blatant-lie-of-blabber.html

CRIMINAL AND BLATANT LIE OF BLABBER-MOUTH RAHUL GANDHI ABOUT THE RSS

By V. SUNDARAM IAS (r.)

PTI has reported that Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi on Thursday, March 6, 2014 blamed the RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

"RSS people killed Gandhiji and today their people (BJP) talk of him...They opposed Sardar Patel and Gandhiji," Rahul said while addressing a public rally in Bhiwandi in Thane District of Maharashtra.

According to Dr Manmohan Singh, Manish Tiwari, Kapil Sibal, P. Chidambaram, Salman Khurshid, Sushil Shinde, Anand Sharma and the Dastardly anti-Hindu and anti-National Digvijay Singh, Rahul Gandhi is an intellectual giant cast in the grand mould of a Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. According to them, Rahul Gandhi is a man of great stature and is the fittest man to be the Prime Minister of India. No one in India’s public life today can equal Rahul Gandhi in courage, integrity, judgment, knowledge, wisdom and vision, according to these Nehru-Gandhi Family Page-Boys and Retainers.

Justice K. T Thomas, a former Supreme Court Judge and Padma Bhushan awardee, who is of no less stature than Rahul Gandhi said in his Presidential Address at a Gurupooja function, in Ernakulam on 1
st August 2013: “The mere fact that the assassin happened to be a member of the organisation (RSS) once upon a time could not make the disciplined organisation responsible for the murder of the Father of the Nation.’’ He also reasoned that had it been so, can anyone could say that the entire Sikh community of India was responsible for the murder of Indira Gandhi?

Justice K.T Thomas, cited the fact that Justice Kholsa ICS of the Punjab High Court had exonerated RSS in the Gandhi assassination case. Jawaharlal Nehru had engaged the then Home Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel to conduct an inquiry into the role of the RSS in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Sardar Patel came to the conclusion in the month of February 1948 itself that the RSS was not involved at all in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He also wrote a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru in the last week of February 1948 communicating this factual position about the non-involvement of the RSS in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

But despite this definitive finding of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Maulana JawaharLal Nehru imposed a ban on the RSS in February 1948 and this ban was removed by the anti-Hindu Nehru Government only in June 1949. Nehru had also incarcerated Guruji Golwalkar in 1948 twice and he was released from prison only in June 1949. When Guruji came out of prison and went by train to New Delhi, more than 3 Lakhs of people greeted him warmly at the New Delhi Railway Station.

Rahul Gandhi who has patented his Nehru-Gandhi Family’s Fundamental Right, not only to Defiant and Authoritarian Ignorance but also to their Familial Right to Rule unto Eternity is not aware of these facts. Perhaps Rahul Gandhi believes in the Gobbelesian Dictum that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth! This Bumptious Buffoon fervently believes with cosmic pretentions that his stupid and childish opinions are inviolable facts rooted in terrestrial reality. Then he has the bagpipers like shameless Manish Tiwari and Digvijay Singh to proclaim his global greatness as a political leader!

Now coming to the other criminal lie of Rahul Gandhi regarding Sardar Patel.

The last Nizam of Hyderabad Mir Osman Ali Khan, transferred a huge sum—£1,007,940 in the National Westminister Bank, London, just before Hyderabad became a part of the Union of India in September 1948.

The Razakars a private militia organized by Qasim Razvi to support the rule of Nizam Osman Ali Khan, were indulging in large-scale killing, rape and brutal murder of many Hindu people in the Telangana and Marathwada region who were driven out forcibly from their homes.

Countless Hindu "women became victims of rape and kidnapping by Razakars. Thousands went to jail and braved the cruelties perpetuated by the oppressive Islamic Administration. Due to the oppression by the Razakars, tens of thousands of Hindus had to flee the Hyderabad State.

In an Explosive Book titled, “The Story of an Era Told without Ill Will” written by Shri MKK Nair IAS deals with the “sharp exchange” between Nehru and Patel in a Cabinet Meeting before “Police Action” against Hyderabad. Let me quote Shri MKK Nair in this context:

At a cabinet meeting, Patel had described these things and demanded that army be sent to end the terror-regime in Hyderabad. Nehru who usually spoke calmly, peacefully and with international etiquette, lost his composure and shouted at Sardar Patel, 'You are a total communalist! I will never accept your recommendation...”

A shocked Sardar Patel collected his papers from the table and slowly walked out of the Cabinet Room. That was the last time Patel attended a Cabinet Meeting. He also stopped speaking to Nehru since then.”

Now the question is, why shouldn’t the “Communalist” BJP adopt the “Communalist” Sardar Vallabhai Patel who was insulted, humiliated and disgraced by the “Secularist” and Pro-Nizam Jawaharlal Nehru?

When “Communalist” Sardar Patel’s contribution was never hailed by the Congress Party which eulogised only the Nehru-Gandhi family, why is Rahul Gandhi bewildered and rattled when the “Communalist” BJP hails and builds a Statue in honour of Sardar Vallabhai Patel? But then it takes very little to understand that Rahul Gandhi is not just an Ordinary Fool but a Damn Bloody Fool!

IF ONLY THE UPA GOVERNMENT HAD LASTED FOR ONE MORE MONTH, DR MANMOHAN SINGH WOULD HAVE BROUGHT OUT AN ORDINANCE TO CONFER UPON RAHUL GANDHI THE HIGHEST CIVILIAN DISTINCTION OF BHARAT RATNA (ALLAH, JEHOVAH AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA WILLING!) FOR HAVING SO SPLENDIDLY, GRANDLY, GRANDILOQUENTLY ENRICHED THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, SPIRITUAL AND IN SHORT, NATIONAL LIFE OF INDIA IN SO GLORIOUS A MANNER!

It will be clear from the above picture that the RSS participated in the Republic Day Parade in New Delhi on 26thJanuary 1963. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had requested Guruji Golwalkar to send a large contingent of RSS Swayamsevaks to participate in the Republic Day Parade on 26th January 1963. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was greatly impressed by the remarkable, selfless, patriotic and courageous role played by the Swayamsevaks of the RSS in several parts of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh when the Chinese Army walked into Indian territory. The battered and the shattered common people of this invaded territory looked up to the RSS Swayamsevaks to regain their hope, composure, faith and self-confidence.

This untutored and untutorable middle-aged stripling called Rahul Gandhi proclaims foolishly from the house-tops that RSS is a divisive and anti-national organization! I am not therefore surprised that he is not even aware of the fact that his grand-mother, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi paid this tribute in the Lok Sabha to Guruji Golwalkar when he passed away in June 1973: “Shri Golwalkar, an eminent personality, was not a member of this House. He held a respected position in national life by the force of his personality and the intensity of his conviction, even though many of us could not agree with him.”

Field Marshal K.M Cariappa (1899-1993) in his speech to RSS volunteers said “RSS is my heart's work. My dear young men, don't be disturbed by uncharitable comments of interested persons. Look ahead! Go ahead! The country is standing in need of your services”.

Shri Jayaprakash Narain, the arch-Socialist, who put an end to the draconian and dictatorial regime of Indira Gandhi in March 1977 paid this tribute to Shri Guruji Golwalkar and the RSS: “Shri Guruji was an outstanding spiritual soul. However modern we become, we shall never be called American, French, English or German. We shall always remain Bharatiya. Revered Guruji had awakened this sense of National Identity in thousands of young men from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from the Rann of Kutch to Arunachal Pradesh.”

Fortunately or Unfortunately, we have to endure this insufferable blabber-mouth, mercifully, only till May 16, 2014, the date of Declaration of Results of Parliamentary Elections!!!

--
S. Kalyanaraman

Thursday, March 6, 2014

WENDY DONIGER : AN ACADEMIC CARICATURE EXPERT AT COVERING HER TRACKS AND PRESENT HERSELF AS INNOCENT

Wendy Doniger: An academic caricature
by Madan Lal Goelon 05 Mar 20141 Comment


Wendy Doniger’s 779-page tome titled, The Hindus: An Alternative History (2009) is a hurtful book, laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays.  She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories, and often narrates the most damning story - Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular - to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism.  After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. But, why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.

This article, however, focuses on only one aspect of Doniger’s very large book: the chapters dealing with the incursion of Islam into India. As is well known, Islam entered the Malabar Coast in south India with Arab merchants and traders in the 7th century, peacefully. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 711. Mahmud Ghazni looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 CE. Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526; it gave way to the Mughal Empire in1526, which ended with the arrival of the British Raj, about 1757.

Wendy Doniger makes the following dubious points on Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707).
-        Muslim marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many (Ch 16)
-        Temple destruction was a long standing Indian tradition. In an earlier period, Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites - “the Muslims had no monopoly on that” (P 457)
-        Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse (P 454-57)
-        The Jizya - the Muslim tax on non-Muslims - was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service (P 448-49)
-        Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples (P 468)
-        The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagar Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South (P 467)

Each argument is false. First, beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE, the invaders looted, pillaged and destroyed several thousand Hindu and Buddhist temples, as attested by the Muslim chroniclers who accompanied these expeditions and described the destruction of many Hindu shrines. The destruction of infidel places of worship is a meritorious act under Islam (See, The Mohammedan period as described by its own historians, Sir HM Elliot, The Grolier Society, 1906). 

Alberuni, who accompanied Mahmud Ghazni, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included 'five of red gold, each five yards high,' with eyes formed of priceless jewels... The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India” [1]

At the destruction of another famous temple, Somnath, some 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold was divided according to Islamic tradition – the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Women were sold into concubinage and the children raised as Muslims.

The esteemed professor asserts that during an earlier period, Hindus persecuted Jains and Buddhists and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the discredited story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country, but admits that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story” (p 365). Then why narrate the story?

Whatever the sectarian tensions, Jainism and Buddhism are an integral part of Indian tradition. The Buddha is regarded as an Avatar. Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE in a region ruled by Hindu Rajputs, falsify notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples.

Wendy Doniger suggests that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so (p 457). Hindus did come to power when Mughal rule rapidly declined after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. The Hindu Marathas were the strongest power in western and southern India, as were the Sikhs and Jats in north India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maratha soldiers, Shivaji instructed that the same should be passed on to a Muslim follower rather than being burned.

Doniger claims that Jizya levied on non-Muslims was for Hindus protection and a substitute for military service. Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition; it was levied to begin with on the defeated Jews and Christians, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the leading Islamic clergy. But Muslim rulers were practical men; if they killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [2]

Doniger says the Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), all great temples were destroyed; Hindus built new temples wherever they could preserve territory. Temple architecture of some beauty survived in southern India that escaped long Muslim occupation. The slur that the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagar empire ‘double-crossed’ their Muslim masters in Delhi must be seen in this context.

The invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim is described as follows: Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law. Qasim kept his promises. The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent (paraphrased)

This makes it seem as though Qasim was a blessing. Andrew Bostom (The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India) provides the following disquieting picture from Islamic sources [3]:
The Muslim chroniclers… include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 CE… Baladhuri (an Islamic writer), for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair … Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.”

RC Majumdar, another distinguished historian, describes the tragic outcome:
Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in theChachnama (cited in Bostom.)

Doniger extensively cites Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and AK Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, to showcase meticulous scholarship, but entirely ignores distinguished historians such as Jadunath Sarkar, RC Majumdar, AL Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup.

Doniger claims (p 458) that when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women) but picked up the more strict form of purdah from contact with Hindu Rajput women. She finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (ch 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by other historians (See KS Lal, The Mughal Harem (1988), available on the Internet).

If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence?  Or, the absence of purdah in southern India, a region that escaped extended Islamic domination?

Doniger says “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition” in both India and Pakistan (p 627). One is at a loss what to understand from this weighty pronouncement from the University of Chicago’s tenured professor. But if this is her understanding of historical facts for which there is no dearth of unimpeachable evidence, then her inability to fathom the profound and multi-dimensional meanings of Hindu dharma and its deities and philosophies is perhaps understandable.

Notes
1] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1981, pp. 207-08. Smith derives his account of Mahmud’s raids from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India.
2] See Ram Swarup’s Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, 1992. And Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, 2005, at:
3] Published in 2005 in the American Thinker by Andrew Bostom and available at:

The author is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of West Florida, USA. Based on a chapter in “Portrayal of Hinduism in Western Indology”, ed. S. Kalyanaraman and TRN Rao, 2010, published by WAVES, USA

Sunday, March 2, 2014

SECRET OF MODI'S POPULARITY : BUSTING OF NEHRUVIAN ERA WHICH LED TO DEPRESSION, SUICIDES, GENOCIDES, CORRUPTION, FRAGMENTATION, GROWTH OF ANTINATIONAL ELEMENTS AND USHERING TRUE PROGRESS AS JIVANKI SAPHALATA KA SAUDAGAR FOR ALL INDIANS


The Indian Express

New Delhi, Sunday,  March 2, 2014

Why Modi is popular

This time the choice increasingly appears to be between the past and the future, between an old idea of India and a new one.
This time the choice increasingly appears to be between the past and the future, between an old idea of India and a new one.

The closer the election, the clearer it becomes that this is the most important general election since 1977. In that distant year, Indian voters were offered a choice between a dictator and her son on one side and a raggedy, disparate caboodle of crusaders for democracy on the other. They chose the caboodle mostly because they had learned the hard way what losing democracy meant. This time the choice increasingly appears to be between the past and the future, between an old idea of India and a new one. Those selling the old idea, in their different ways, are the Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party and the ‘secular socialists’ who banded together last week as a third front.

What is the old idea of India? It is the one bequeathed us by Nehruvian socialism whereby we have created India as she is today. A land in which a vast infrastructure of politicians, officials, clerks and peons govern badly an angry and restless populace that no longer understands why basic needs are so hard to meet. A land in which young people demand to know why the sons of officials and politicians live like billionaires while they hunt desperately for jobs in a market that in the past 10 years has dried up. So crony capitalism is a favourite catchphrase with the AAP lot, without them noticing that this is always a creation of the state. In the eyes of AAP, it is corporate India that is to blame.

What is most depressing is that if you talk to leaders of the parties in the old India club, the solutions they offer are no different to the ones we have already tried. In their campaign speeches, they talk of secularism and socialism, poverty alleviation schemes and empowering women. On corruption, the Lokpal is a ‘new’ idea that has been around for 40 years. They know that they offer nothing new, so they throw in dark references to the man they most fear and loathe. Narendra Modi.

The reason why they fear and loathe him is because his popularity, according to recent polls, has increased dramatically despite repeated attempts by the old India club to remind voters that he is a ‘maut ka saudagar’. A merchant of death as Sonia Gandhi famously called him. What they seem not to have noticed is that his popularity has increased because he has succeeded in selling voters a new dream of India. In a sales pitch to businessmen in Delhi last Thursday, he offered a detailed account of what his priorities will be if he becomes prime minister.

After making it clear that he believed that India’s strengths were “democracy, demography and demand” and its weaknesses were serious deficits of governance, trust, morality and hope, Modi made the case for what he thinks can be done. He said nothing could improve without “good governance”. He did not say in so many words that by this he meant massive administrative reforms, but used anecdotes from Gujarat to make this point.

Then he talked of needing to improve “the quality of life” for the average Indian. It was vital to make India a country in which young people could live with hope and dignity, he said, and for this they needed jobs and the amenities that remain mostly unavailable to rural Indians. Electricity, clean water and a standard of living that could be described as a standard of living. He said, “We need in rural India to keep the soul of the villages but provide people with the utilities and services available in urban centres.” He reiterated that he saw urbanisation not as a problem but as an opportunity.

What touched my own cynical soul to its core was his suggestion, when talking of healthcare, that we pledge to make India clean and sanitary by the 150th anniversary of Gandhiji’s birthday. This was the best tribute that could be paid Gandhiji, Modi said, because he had worked so hard to convince Indians of the importance of sanitation and hygiene. In modern terms, Modi emphasised, the benefit would be a huge reduction in India’s healthcare bills, because it would shift the emphasis to prevention from cure.

He talked of many other things and in talking of them made it sound as if there was no reason at all why they could not be done. Listen to the whole speech on YouTube and you may discover the real reason why Modi leads the race to become India’s next prime minister. He offers hope in a time of deep despair and he offers a dream of prosperity at the end of a decade when the Indian economy has sunk to its lowest ebb in recent memory. The old India club offers only ‘poverty alleviation’ to people sick to death of poverty.

Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter @ tavleen_singh