Let’s recall Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud. This path breaking book not only unmasked the eminences but awoke an entire generation of thinking Indian youth. In a way, it was a work that can rightly be termed as an effort in course-correction. In retrospect, the education system of my generation injected a healthy distaste for history: it’s all about dates and years and wars, who the fuck wants to know what Aurangzeb did, who cares what Indus Valley civilization was all about. The end of 10th standard exams meant freedom from history.

Reading Eminent Historians made me–and thousands others–realize that at least two generations of Indians were victims of child abuse thanks mainly to NCERT.

But reading about the historical misdeeds committed by these eminent historians is one thing and reading the actual “history” these worthies propagated is entirely another things. The former is akin to reading a crime report/FIR while the latter is like being present at the actual scene of crime. The first hand impact always hits you harder.

Eminent Historians did definitely initiate some course correction but it’s always easy, and quicker to relapse into bad habits. Enter Arjun Singh.

Recently, some kind folks pointed my attention to some “appalling” distortions in the recent NCERT history textbooks. I scanned through a few random items. Which was enough to make me take some of these history textbooks for some re-education–being present on the scene of the crime like I said. What I learned was severely interesting.

Our Pasts - II, the Class VII history text book is a brilliant specimen. While the instances Arun Shourie has quoted in Eminent Historians are good examples of pretty blatant distortions, the current crop is a study in nuance. It injects both a subtler form and variant of poison in impressionable minds untainted by ideology. Poor kids think they are actually getting an education. Some random examples follow.

Example 1:

A section on temple towns (Page 76-77) doesn’t mention anything at all about why temple towns were renowned as they still are. It simply calls it a “pattern of urbanization” and then drives the point home rather quickly and directly: they were commercial centers where “temple authorities used their wealth to finance trade and banking.” Show me exactly one historical temple town which did this. A simpler logic is available: what was the king for, if not to direct and manage trade and commerce?

Example 2:

The second exhibit is a repetition of the same fabrication quoted in Eminent Historians concering the destruction of temples. The last section on Page 65 is boldly titled Why were Temples Destroyed? The answer quoted verbatim: “Because kings built temples to demonstrate their devotion to God and their power and wealth, it is not surprising that when they attacked one another’s kingdoms they often targeted these buildings.” (Bold added) And who were these temple-destroying kings?

• Shrimara Shrivallabha, a Pandyan king invaded Sri Lanka and removed all valuables and carted off lots of golden images of the Buddha in the Jewel Palace and other Buddhist monasteries. But didn’t the section title read “why were temples destroyed?“
• Rajendra I, the Chola king who carted off lots of sculptures and idols of the Chalukyas and Kalingas of Orissa. Note again the mention about temple destruction. None whatsoever.
• And then Mahmud of Ghazni gets ICU-level care compared to these vile (Hindu) kings. Reproduced verbatim: “During his campaigns…he also attacked the temples of defeated kings and looted their wealth and idols. Sultan Mahumud was not a very important ruler at that time. But by destroying temples…the one at Somnath…he tried to win credit as a great hero of Islam. In the political culture of the Middle Ages, most rulers displayed their political might…by attacking and looting the places of worship of defeated rulers.

This section is followed by a weighty question designed to instill the virtues of self-thinking as a way to stimulate the intellect of the student. Here’s the question: “In what ways do you think the policies of Rajendra I and Mahmud of Ghazni were a product of their times? How were the actions of the two rulers different?” The way the questions are framed leaves you no room for a “wrong” answer. Gold-standard Propaganda.

Example 3:

Next, the section on Sikhism is robbed similarly of context. Nothing about Guru Nanak’s (and most other Sikh Gurus) explicit proclamation of Sikhism as a movement to counter Islam’s barbarity is mentioned. Barring a stray mention of Jahangir’s clampdown of Sikhs fearing their revolt, the section completely emasculates the warrior spirit of this amazing race of people. The Sikhs were among the strongest forces who helped check the almost wholesale Islamization of the entire North India.

Example 4:

Basvanna and the Vira Shaiva movement is given selective treatment. The textbook glorifies this movement as a reaction against the evils of Brahmins, the caste system, rituals, and idol worship. I leave it to your learning of history to verify the degree of selectiveness this exhibits.

This level of finely-crafted distortion is hardly surprising if you look at the list of contributors to the textbook. Every eminence on the textbook committee hails from one or the other of the hallowed portals of secularism: Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, and Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. The lion’s share of contributors hail–quite evidently, from the Mecca, JNU.

I found these four gems during just a quick scan. And this, just in one part of History textbooks for Class VII. If I dive deeper and cast my net wider, I’m sure to extract the almost limitless treasure hidden in the Ocean’s bottom. I intend to make an NCERT Child Abuse series. This is just the preface.

Tags: Arun Shourie, Attack on Hinduism, Commentary, Education, Eminent Historians, Eminent Historians Book, History, History Distortion Continues, India, Indian History Falsified, Indian Politics, NCERT Child Abuse, NCERT History Textbooks, NCERT Textbooks, Poisoning Children, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, Toxic History Textbooks

Many Indian Muslim women in cities and small towns can barely veil their disgust over French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on
From the college lecturer in Mumbai to the young married woman in Bihar’s Munger to the student in Lucknow — all say the burqa is an article of faith, a pillar of support….In a world where sexual-crime is rampant, the burqa denotes comfort, security and allows a woman her dignity, they say. Daughter of Nawab Jafar Mir Abdullah of Lucknow’s royal family, 26-year-old Mahruq, who is pursuing her BEd feels safer wearing a burqa to public places like Nakhaas, a crowded locality. “I feel protected from eve-teasers and anti-social elements as they don’t get to see me or my body,” she says.

“A covered body sends out a positive signal that says no sexual mischief will be tolerated,” says Moonisa Bushra Abedi, professor of nuclear physics in Maharashtra College in Mumbai…The need for modesty is pointedly made out in the Quran, say these women, and a chador is perfectly in order. They scoff at Sarkozy who had said that the burqa is not a religious sign but a sign of subservience.”Any Muslim woman who is close to her Quran will embrace the burqa,” says Tabassum.

Full marks to Slimes for picking up the cudgels on behalf of a certain community (ssh!) almost immediately on cue. Barely three days after Sarkozy committed the blasphemy of condemning the Burqa, comes the Slimes’ mighty rejoinder. Of course, this rejoinder will please the sections that need to be perpetually pleased, not to mention a secular party that will be smiling benevolently at its ever-reliable media mouthpiece.

Yet again, this piece offers us a study into the tactics the secular media employs to brainwash an already overly-dumbed down Indian public. Note the words I’ve underlined. Gather real (or seemingly-real) but severely personal opinions from authority figures (real or otherwise)–descendant of a Nawab, a nuclear physics professor–and pass them off as the final word on Burqa. The intent is quite obvious: create the impression of legitimacy in readers’ minds if they as much as harbour any negative impression about the Burqa.

But the story reverses on the Hindu side. Picture this: a Hindu organization chastises some Hindu women for not dressing up to meet the need for modesty. Important Note: I’m using the same language sanctified by this Slimes article. This piece would make front-page news the very next day and…well, you know the drill by now. The same Slimes would spin the incident using these well-chosen terms:

• Moral policing rears its ugly head again
• Freedom of women endangered by Hindu fundamentalists
• Women are not safe anymore
• Hindu fanatics taking us back to regressive times
• <Add your own creative spin here>

But no, no one, not even the head of a state gets away with “insulting” anything remotely…err…green (or is it black in this case?). So the Slimes language goes thus:

Many Indian Muslim women in cities and small towns can barely veil their disgust

Further, the Slimes also suddenly wakes up to the fact that we live in a world “where sexual-crime is rampant.” But unwittingly, it reveals what it tries hard to conceal. The reasoning behind imposing the Burqa, which it quotes with such gusto is but an echo of Islamic impositions.

“Any Muslim woman who is close to her Quran will embrace the burqa,” says Tabassum.

For Muslims, modesty in dressing is not left to individual discretion. Women are urged to ‘protect themselves from evil elements’, says professor Hashia. A woman’s behaviour is her message, their scriptures say. “It is not easy to separate a Muslim woman from burqa,” says Tabassum.

Isn’t the mention of “evil elements” quite interesting? I leave it to your intelligence to discern the mindset that lays down such reasoning to “protect” women. It is exactly the same mindset that harassed Taslima Nasrin among other things. It is also the same mindset that sanctions female genital mutilation (a Google search reveals interesting results).

The Slimes is basically trying very hard to showcase for us the amazing personal freedom that women enjoy under Islam’s merciful umbrella. Perhaps it has hasn’t heard about a certain Samira Bellil. Here’s a sample of the said amazing personal freedom she enjoyed.

As a teenager Bellil rebelled against the traditional constraints of her community and wanted to live freely as a young French woman.

Samira was first gang-raped when she was 14, by a gang led by someone she knew. They beat her viciously and raped her all night. A month later, one of the most violent attackers in the gang followed her and dragged her off a train by her hair, while other passengers looked the other way. She was then brutally raped by him again….Bellil’s parents, who believed they were shamed by her presence, expelled her from her house. “People outside the community don’t know,” Bellil has written. “And everyone in the community knows, but they won’t say anything….The word tournante is a French adjective meaning “turning”. It is used as a slang term to mean a gang rape.

The typical scenario that takes place is that the targeted young woman is drawn or lured into a secluded area where she is brutalized and repeatedly raped by groups of men who take turns raping her. The victim is usually insulted for behaving in a Westernized manner.

Also, perhaps the Slimes doesn’t know that entire blogs are dedicated to condemn everything the Burqa stands for.

Postscript: Where is the the Pink Panties Brigade raising their unstinted support for supporting the right of women to wear Burqas–pink or otherwise?

Tags: Burqa, Freedom of women, Individual rights, Islam, Islam Watch, Personal Freedom, Slimes of India, Slimes supports the Burqa, Society & Culture, Status of women in Islam, Times of India, Women in Islam

The prospective groom and bride met each other at the Professor’s home. And immediately agreed to marry. The prospective bride had no preconditions for her assent. She readily agreed to Nazir’s conditions: to convert to Islam before the wedding, marry according to Islamic wedding rituals, and post-marriage, to live like a pure Muslim wife. Her mother however, objected to this:

“Have you forgotten,” she asked indignantly, “forsaking Jesus means eternal damnation in burning Hell?”

“I’m forsaking one Prophet for another. If that Prophet comes after me to punish, this Prophet is ready to stand by to protect me. Besides, the Last Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is far mightier and more powerful than your Jesus. How many battles he has won, how many lands conquered, and how wide has he spread Islam! What strength does your Jesus have, a Prophet who advocated showing the other cheek? He has neither the strength to attack on his own nor defend himself against those who attack him!” replied Aruna in a tone of finality her mother had never dreamt she would hear from her.

Tags: Aavarana, Best of Aavarana, Best of Aavarana: 4, Excerpts from Aavarana, Islam Watch, Kannada Novel, Secularism, SL Bhyrappa, Society & Culture

The Bandra police has filed a case against Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan for allegedly making comments about Prophet Mohammad but the actor said it is a writing error and not a thought or view that he believes in.

“We have registered an FIR against Shah Rukh Khan after we received an application from an advocate who alleged that the actor made some statements hurting the sentiments of Muslims….The complaint was registered against Shah Rukh and the publisher of the magazine in which the purported remarks were published.

Complainant Khalid Babu Querishi alleged that in the July issue of the ‘Time and Style’ magazine, Shah Rukh had used objectionable language against the Prophet which is unacceptable,”….

What did Shahrukh actually say? Here, in his own words, from Time and Style:

[Interviewer] The most impressive figure in history, according to you?
There are lots of them, some negative ones like Hitler. On the other hand there are nice ones like Napoleon, Winston Churchill and if I can call it history, then Prophet Mohammed and from recent times - Nelson Mandela. And also Gandhiji and Mother Teresa who are equally impressive.

That was enough to get the Islam-in-Danger bogey all worked up. You need to assign opposite meanings to the words Shahrukh Khan has used to take offence. If anything, he has spoken with polite deference to Mohammad. And this as an extremely passing statement in the entire interview in a magazine catering to the severely dumbed-down. But the Islam-in-Danger brigade’s threat worked. As always.

Shahrukh was almost instantly on his knees.

…the actor…said that there is no more important figure in history than Prophet Mohammad. “Being a Muslim and standing up for the tenets of Islam is my most important agenda,” he said.

Meanwhile, none of our liberals have given this the serious treatment it deserves but I am boxing with air. And because I say this, I’m branded a Muslim-hater, communal, fanatic, and all the other nice designer labels.

And no Pink Panties (TM) to support poor Shahrukh Khan.

Tags: Commentary, India, Indian Media, Indian Politics, Islam in Danger, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Politics, Pseudosecularim Hall of Shame, Secular Media, Secularism, Shahrukh Khan, Society & Culture, Time and Style

Congress’s stealth Stalinism
Sandeep B

Government’s recent proposal to impose censorship on online news portals, Websites and blogs smacks of fear and insecurity similar. It reminds us of the dark days of the Emergency

Something nasty went unheard, buried beneath the cacophony celebrating the comprehensive victory of the ‘secular forces’ in the 2009 Lok Sabha election. While it’s a long shot to try and actually implement it, the idea behind it and the implications for the health of the ostensibly largest democracy in the world are quite grave. But the mindset that surreptitiously slipped this nastiness is not new. It has its roots in Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress’s sense of entitlement to ‘rule’ India.

About three weeks ago, the Government released a draft proposal that seeks to censor online news portals, websites and blogs for a wide variety of security and national interest reasons. Part of an amendment to the Information Technology Act, the proposal doesn’t stipulate any prior hearing for the said websites and blogs. The proposal empowers every State and Central Government to decide whether a particular news item, blog, article or advertisement is deemed offensive. The host of the ‘offending’ website who doesn’t comply with the Government’s ban order is liable to be imprisoned for seven years.

The proposal by definition is insidious because it doesn’t define anything clearly. One can include almost anything in the ‘security’ and ‘national interest’ bracket. Additionally, empowering bureaucrats in every Government to decide what is deemed offensive severely damages the notion of a democracy based on the principles of free speech. It will create an Orwellian scenario with these bureaucrats acting as ‘Online Thought Police’. But more crucially, when one doesn’t give a chance to the other party to voice his or her say, he is effectively ruling by decree. In plain words: Stealth Stalinism.

This move is just another proof of the Congress’s highhandedness when it finds its power almost unchallenged. After bringing its allies to heel, it has revived a project that Nehru began: Intolerance to opposing views and criticism, which bared its complete ugliness during the Emergency. In a way, Nehru is the progenitor of Press/opinion censorship. A 1951 Time magazine article reports that on a pretext that the Indian Press indulges in “vulgarity, indecency and falsehood,” Nehru mooted a Constitutional amendment to impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. His main targets were Atom, Blitz, Struggle and Current weeklies that consistently attacked Nehru’s policies. His move was immediately and widely condemned. “There is as much deterioration in the moral fibre of Nehru as there is in the moral strength of the so-called Congress (party). The sponsor of civil liberties in 1936 has become the wrecker of liberties in ‘51,” wrote the Blitz.

Recall that the UPA in its previous avatar suddenly blocked Blogspot (http://blogspot.com) and a host of other websites about two years ago on a lame excuse of blocking “hate” sites. This flimsy reason fooled none. The worldwide blogging and online community was outraged and wrote angry posts condemning this overnight, impromptu censorship. Eventually, the UPA realised how badly its gambit had backfired, and restored access to the sites. Or perhaps it was just a way of testing the waters before embarking on greater adventures. The sleazy manner in which the Congress pushed the latest proposal lends credence to this suspicion.

Assuming the proposal becomes law, it’ll be a fine showpiece of absurdity simply because one cannot really ‘censor’ the Internet. Despite severe censorships, ‘dirty’ news from China, Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial regimes routinely make its way online. The online world contains tens of thousands of blogs, message boards, forums, and email lists where these news items are passionately discussed. What the Congress doesn’t realise is that such moves are counterproductive — on the Internet, there’s no ‘long run’. It is now and here. One such Stalinist act will not just be dissected to bits but will also drag in all other misdeeds and generate more negative visibility than otherwise.

More fundamentally, censorship has no place in a democracy: Definitely not in a country where the Prime Minister is known for his mild manners, soft-spoken nature, and represented as an image of decency. Only a Government lives in perpetual fear and insecurity will initiate things like bans and censorship. Can we then conclude, given the nature of this proposal, that the Congress is cowardly and insecure?

But what is more shocking is that this has largely gone unnoticed. The secular media that behaved like the Congress’s handmaid during the recent election has largely paid lip service, if not completely ignored, this latest threat to the basic right of citizens in a democracy. While we can’t expect any better from these worthies, all right-thinking Indians need to disseminate this proposal more extensively and highlight the potential havoc that it could wreak. This is neither the first nor will the Congress shy from trying it again. After all, it has a history of setting the maximum number of bad precedents.

Tags: 15th Lok Sabha Elections, BJP, Commentary, Communism, Congress, Congress Censoring WebSites & Blogs, Elections 2009, Gagging the Internet, India, Indian Media, Indian Politics, Manmohan Singh, Media Watch, Op-ed in Pioneer, Pioneer, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Secular Media, Secularism, Sonia Gandhi, Stalinism, UPA, UPA Censoring WebSites & Blogs

The first roadsign is the article itself. The contrast cannot be starker: a top gun, a very close confidant of the failed Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP “introspects” in a paper whose blood is made of billions of virulent anti-BJP RBCs. Even the staunchest Sudheendra Kulkarni (SK) fans will find it hard to pass this article off as “strategy.” SK’s long-wided apologia is really a symptom of a deeper malaise that’s pervasive in the BJP: a historical tendency to wash its dirty linen in public. Whatever the media support for the Congress party, no Congress party member has ever done something this monumental.

All articles, blogs, and posts have condemned SK’s essay as reprehensible on the grounds that SK is an ex-Communist. That doesn’t make for sound logical sense. Ever since he joined the BJP and occupied his present position, SK has largely spoken in the BJP’s favour. So let’s grant him that and proceed purely on the “merits” of his piece. Interestingly, Tehelka’s byline for the piece neatly sums up his position.

In a deeply introspective essay, LK Advani’s key aide says that if the BJP wants to win, it needs to rethink its approach to Muslims, Hindutva, the poor, the RSS, and itself.

Which is absolutely right. The problem with SK is that he’s your average “modern” Hindu in the sense of the English-educated Hindu. He has no–as far as I know–grassroots background like the one that characterizes hundreds of thousands of RSS workers. Additionally, he lacks the intellectual vigour of an Arun Shourie, who despite being English-educated, articulates the Hindu position with superb clarity, honesty, and force. That leaves us with a born-again “modern” Hindu upon whom a position of eminence was thrust suddenly. It is only natural he has “introspected” the way he has. I could find only this much to say in his favour. The rest of my post weighs on what works against him.

Most of his article sounds like an extended version of a poorly-written piece that can be rightly termed An apology for Advani or In Defence of LK Advani. His subtle attempt at painting Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi as the fall guys are good examples of this. When he dwells on the causes for the BJP’s steady loss of allies, he mentions the Gujarat riots. That’s pretty farfetched because we all know that electoral alliances are purely opportunistic where everybody sides with the biggest guy: had the BJP bagged 200 plus seats, would he still write this way?

The real reason the BJP lost was because it repeatedly screwed itself up at multiple levels like I wrote earlier. Accepting this plain truth without resorting to obsessive denial, blame-games, and whining is the best introspection. Face it: for five years, the Left proved to be a better Opposition than the actual Opposition party.

The other, deeper disease that has steadily eaten into the BJP is the power-mongering and lamb-to-the-slaughter tactics. Ever since it tasted blood in the jungle of politics, the “top” leaders of the BJP systematically sidelined and kicked out the really committed people. Govindacharya (does anybody remember him now?) immediately comes to the mind. He was the strategist, the actual brain that directed the whole Ayodhya movement. Guess who is now known as the architect of the Ayodhya movement? This isn’t to malign Advani’s role but an attempt to showcase the consequences of sacrificing ideology at the altar of individual whims and ambitions.

Besides, you cannot rest solely on the strength of your past good deeds. I need to know exactly one accomplishment of Advani in the past five years as leader of the Opposition, or his prowess in leading the 2009 campaign. He mostly outsourced the campaign to Sudheendra Kulkarni who comprehensively botched it. On the contrary, the Congress party successfully whitewashed five years of ignominy upon ignominy by skilful manipulation, silence, strategem, PR, and media support.

But Sudheendra Kulkarni is right when he says there’s confusion in the way the BJP articulates Hindutva. The BJP and the Sangh Parivar has continually persisted in a defiant stubbornness to tone down its angry and mindless rhetoric. Anger is good strategy if it is backed by confident articulation, and the ability to induce instant guilt. The Sangh Parivar’s anger is both impotent and inconsequential, and provides great fodder for the media. Additionally, it lacks media management. The amazing commitment of the RSS workers towards nation building and selfless social service is invisible to the newspaper-reading and news-channel watching middle class India. The only face this audience sees is the one where the RSS folks are on a rampage when they’re provoked. The BJP has done nothing to correct or counter this. Saintlike people like Dr. Sudharshan who continues to better the lives of Adivasis in the forests of B.R.Hills are unknown. How many of us know that the proceeds from the sales of several local brands of pure Honey (not Dabur Honey) go to the bank accounts of these poor Adivasis, thanks to Dr. Sudharshan? The few who really articulate the Hindu position are again, sidelined. Here’s a pretty apt observation about the issues that over-zealous Hindutva guys face:

The parivar folks have a simple shakha-drill mindset. They do not focus enough on developing and transmitting ideas and ideology (even though they profess to). Advani exemplifies this ideological timidity. His only goal in life has been to simply be accepted into the charmed circle of the ‘secularists’. He has looked at them for approval – for stamping and certifying his every move…they have to start being the ideation engine in India to guide their technocrats - but given that the great unwashed do not vote for ideas anyways – you need a popular leader to get the votes – and then hand it over to the technocrats to get the job done….the most hand-off-to-technocrats approach in his ministry was external affairs (read Talbot’s book on how Jaswant started with a track-2 channel and took over the ministry) and disinvestment (remember the Maruti offer?). The most parivar minded-ministries were home (Advani) and HRD (MM Joshi) - and look where that got you. No police reform, no strong arming of terrorists (only tall talk), no crushing of Naxal violence, no liberalisation of higher education.

SK then bares his barely-concealed secular-speak when he elaborates on the BJP’s “need” to be Muslim-friendly. Incidentally, the whole point about the BJP being anti-Muslim is blown out of proportion by the Grand Axis of Communists, media, the Congress party and the towering intellectual giants at our universities. The real issue is not whether to “include” Muslims in the BJP’s scheme of things or no. Do all parties agree that Muslims are as much Indians as the rest of us? I assume they do. So why do they need to be “included” again? The Congress party at least has a disgusting excuse to “include” Muslims. What’s the BJP’s excuse? SK writes:

In five long years after 2004, the BJP did not come up with a single worthwhile initiative which Muslims could welcome. Take the example of the Sachar Committee report. No doubt, the Congress party, guided by its votebank politics, tried to appease the Muslim community with some dangerous and thoroughly condemnable pronouncements — reservation for Muslims on religious grounds…But was everything about the Sachar Committee report or its recommendations objectionable? After all, by highlighting widespread socio-economic backwardness within the Muslim community, the report laid bare the successive Congress governments’ own failures and betrayals towards a community that has been its most loyal supporter. Sadly, the BJP rejected the Sachar report completely and unreservedly. The party could have responded to its findings and recommendations in a more nuanced manner by presenting some alternative proposals for addressing poverty and backwardness among Muslims. It didn’t do so because, as I have mentioned earlier, the party’s collective mind is suffering from a prolonged confusion about how to deal with issues relating to Indian Muslims. Those leaders who want to think and act innovatively know that they are prone to be quickly accused of following a “Muslim- appeasement” policy.

This is proof for why I said Kulkarni was neither a grassroots level Hindu nor the modern Hindu of the Arun Shourie stain. The appropriate question to ask was this: was the Sachar Committee necessary to set up in the first place? So does this mean that the 85% of Hindu population is living on a daily diet of milk and honey? Besides, what’s the attitude of the Muslim leadership for repeated calls to integrate into the mainstream without feeling marginalized/vicitimized, without demanding special privileges, without taking offence at every sneeze, without demanding separate laws….? When Abdul Kalam became President, a man who Manmohan Singh described as “a true patriot” wrote thus:

Dr Zakaria wrote in The Asian Age that presidential nominee A P J Abdul Kalam cannot be considered a Muslim because he a) does not involve himself in the affairs of the community and b) he does not follow Islamic tenets like fasting during Ramzaan, saying namaaz five times a day. Worse, Dr Zakaria wrote, Kalam’s favourite scripture was the Bhagvad Gita, and favourite deity was Krishna. But for the fact that he was born with a Muslim name, there was nothing Muslim about Kalam, ran the tenor of the piece. Dr Zakaria also left himself an escape route: he wrote that Kalam will not make a Muslim President on the lines of Dr Zakir Hussain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed…

SK is partially right when he commends the Congress party’s strategy of exerting complete support for Manmohan Singh because he also says:

Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul made an essentially weak Prime Minister like Dr Manmohan Singh look strong by backing him solidly. In contrast, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar made a strong leader like Advani, whose contribution to the growth of the party is enormous, look weak, helpless and not fully in command.

That’s because they knew that Advani had already scored a self-goal by inviting Manmohan Singh for an American-style TV debate. What percentage of the voters whose votes really matter know about an American-style TV debate? And even those of us who know, how do we really care? But Advani just didn’t stop there. His invitation metamorphosed into a taunt and then into full-blown aggression when he began railing words like weak, and coward. But SK really stretches things too far when he calls Advani a “strong” leader. Recall what I said: you cannot rest on your past laurels. Advani was a strong leader 10-20 years ago but he wasn’t a contender for the Prime Ministerial position then. Between then and now, a new generation of voters has found its way to the ballot box. Did Advani ensure that he was acceptable to this generation? He obviously didn’t and he lost his last chance.

It doesn’t need me to say this: in politics as in showbiz, perception is more important than reality. The Congress projected this perception quite well in the voters’ minds. More importantly, like I said in my earlier post, the Congress party did not win at the expense of the BJP.

The BJP’s chances of a comeback lies in first getting out of denial mode followed by a massive cleanup of lazy, inept, and half-baked people. That list also includes gatecrashers.

Tags: 15th Lok Sabha Elections, Advani, BJP, Commentary, Communists, Congress, Elections 2009, Ex-Communists, India, Indian Media, Indian Politics, Lal Krishna Advani, LK Advani, Lok Sabha Elections, Lok Sabha Elections 2009, Manmohan Singh, Media Watch, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Secular Media, Secularism, Society & Culture, Sonia Gandhi, Tehelka, UPA

In the last overs, as it became clear that India was winning, some visibly frustrated Pakistani supporters handed over a Pakistani flag to my son. The offer was promptly accepted, and on our way home he had two flags in his hand: the Tricolour and its Pakistani equivalent. Call it the innocence of a nine-year-old, but the Indo-Pak equation has always had a romantic edge. [..] The dualism was starkly driven home when I was interviewing then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the midst of the Kargil war in 1999. The interview saw a few sharp, testy exchanges over just who was responsible for the war. With the camera off, Sharif was back to being his gregarious self. As we ate a several course feast in the luxurious prime ministerial gardens overlooking the Margalla hills, the tone was anything but bellicose. Instead, Sharif proceeded to reminisce on his favourite Hindi film star, Rajendra Kumar. “Waah, kya actor tha!” (perhaps the only time anyone has recognised ‘Jubilee’ Kumar’s acting capabilities). The conversation then drifted to Sharif’s other great obsession, cricket, and he appeared awe-struck by Tendulkar’s batting. Finally, while leaving, I mentioned that I hadn’t eaten better kebabs. Sharif, the foodie, smiled, “Not as good as the ones I once ate in Purani Dilli. And the gajar halwa was something else!”

Heart-warming stuff eh? I mean, the innocence of a 9-year old boy, the lavish spread, vintage Bollywood, and the innate goodness and warmth and humanity of Nawaz Sharif even in war time.

Turdesai, like all secularists wants us to dream. Unfortunately, the reality of sixty-plus years of neighbourly love is a daily nightmare for India.

Just so that he doesn’t drift too far on the dream track, Turdesai makes the right amount of right noises at regular intervals.

Perhaps, the food and conversation was only meant to soften an Indian journalist in a time of war…

But immediately lapses back into stupor in the same sentence.

…but the affection has always felt just as real as the enmity over the years.

The rest of the piece is mostly predictable blah blah blah.

Has 26/11 changed that? Are we now as a people less inclined to give our Pakistani counterparts the benefit of doubt, less prepared to distinguish between the Pakistani State and its civil society, less willing to get carried away by nostalgia and shared interests?

It’s always us. We get routinely killed and horribly maimed. And we need to give them the benefit of doubt. Benefit of what doubt is the right question. Let’s get one pesky issue out of the way before we proceed: there is no civil society in Pakistan. The civil society Turdesai refers to exists in the bungalows of the likes of Nawaz Sharif and a few other wealthy and powerful people. A robust civil society doesn’t shut up when fanatics turn streets into battlefields like it’s business as usual. A civil society first and foremost is courageous. This applies to India in varying degrees but there’s a glue of tolerance, spirituality, and humanity that holds us together. That glue has its firm roots in thousands of years of conditioning by Sanatana Dharma. Which is why we aren’t on the verge of rapid disintegration like Pakistan: all it took was Musharraf’s departure from power.

Like most secularists, Turdesai adopts the time-tested “middle” path. Of sitting on the fence. Of trying to sound saintlike but spouting cowardice upon cowardice. Of not calling the monster by its name. Of using heresay and liberal sleights of the hand.

For those who had been affected by Partition, the love-hate relationship with the ‘other side’ was connected with their collective memories of childhood. But for those who lived south of the Vindhyas, with no real connect with Pakistan, the obsessive relationship always seemed a little incongruous.

I can’t fathom what school of logic Turdesai graduated from. Collective memories of childhood and south of the Vindhyas and incongruous. Let’s see. I’m at least 2 generations removed from the Partition. And I live as south of the Vindhyas as south is possible. And I still experience no incongruity that Turdesai so confidently proclaims as fact. And I’m sure there are a few thousand folks who share my sentiment vis a vis the Partition and Pakistan. Doesn’t Turdesai remember how Pakistan covertly abetted the Razakars who wanted to carve out a mini-Pakistan right next door in Hyderabad? See! sitting on the fence. Actually, no, these are the precise ingreidents that make up Turdesai’s romantic India-Pakistan potion. He says that right in the next paragraph.

Take cricketing ties for example. In the afterglow of that heady 2004 series when chants of “Balaji zara dheere chalo!” were heard across Pakistani stadiums, the romantics believed that there had been a tectonic shift in attitudes, with the average Pakistani ready to embrace the idea of India.

Isn’t the word choice amazing: tectonic shift? The last time I wrote about mountain weed was about a year ago. Looks like Turdesai never climbed down that mountain. I don’t blame him. Secular weed is addictive. Secular mountain weed is purer, and compulsively addictive. The following is just a symptom.

And yet, it is difficult to accept the extreme view that all Indo-Pak sporting and cultural contacts be abandoned as a demonstrable measure of our anger post-26/11.

Correct. We should release Kasab forthwith and hold a Grand Presidential Banquet to atone for the sin of inflicting inhuman torture on Afzal Guru. We should invite the finest quawwali and/or ghazal singers from Pakistan to perform at the Banquet. Perfect cultural contact. The angels will smile and peace will reign in the subcontinent.

What’s most notable in Turdesai’s discourse is the way he upholds the very thing he paints as deplorable. In secular annals, cricket, Bollywood, music (the Nusrat, Ghulam Ali, et al variety not the classical), and food (again, Mughalai etc) are Great Unifiers and shining symbols of the “inherent unity” between India and Pakistan. Turdesai realizes that these themes have been milked dry. He therefore exercises utmost caution.

The truth is that cricket has its limitations beyond the boundary. Cricket matches cannot be a substitute for statecraft, an Indian cricketer being cheered by a Pakistani crowd does not mean that the terror infrastructure has been dismantled. It is too much in the first place to have ever expected our cricketers to achieve what politicians on both sides of the border cannot: a permanent peace.

The very fact that he talks about cricket as a peace-vehicle gives his game away. But like I said, utmost caution is the way forward. So what does he advocate?

The challenge then is to strike the right balance. We must hold the stick of sanctions — economic, sporting and cultural — if Pakistan refuses to cooperate with the 26/11 investigation but also offer the carrot of even greater interaction if there is concrete proof that Islamabad is acting against the jihadis. Above all, we must all live in hope that sanity will ultimately prevail.

Toot toot toot. This is straightfaced Managementspeak. To strike the right balance and sanity will ultimately prevail sounds sickeningly familiar to let’s be on the same page or let’s get into a conference room and thrash this out or let the team reach a consensus. An illusion of feeling noble by employing lofty language. In reality, it is the fear of facing the problem. Thus: no concrete solutions. You read ten such “analyses,” make a list of some “catch” phrases, read news regularly, use healthy doses of creativity and bingo! You have a job in a secular media outlet.

This piece is proof yet again that the media is the mouthpiece of the secular party. Each time Pakistan bullies us, the peace process (sic) starts from our side. Funny how I’m yet to read just one piece from the Pakistani media that criticizes its own government. Instead, they blame the omniscient “Indian hidden hand.” But our media heroes (including a certain superheroine who shall not be named lest I get a legal notice from her) are paragons of forgiveness and loving neighborly behavior who fault us even when we as much as breathe “punish Pakistan.” Which is what Turdesai advocates. He uses the example of his 9-year old son, now back in the picture.

Above all, we must all live in hope that sanity will ultimately prevail. My now teenaged son certainly does: he still has the Pakistani flag in his room.

See, a small boy is sane enough to understand the finer values. Shame on us grown ups.

Such lovin’!

Tags: Commentary, India, Indian Media, Indian Politics, Intolerance, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pakistan Watch, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Rajdeep Sardesai, Secular Media, Secularism, Society & Culture, Turdesai

In May, dozens of Sikhs living in the Orakzai agency were forced to move out after the Taliban demanded Rs50 million as jazia, or security tax, from them… Less than a month later, the tax net has spread wider, to the Khyber agency tribal area. The Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians there have been told by the Taliban-backed Lashkar-e-Islam (LeI) to pay jazia in exchange for ensuring their security in the area…The LeI commander has publicly announced that Sikhs and Hindus will be free to live anywhere in the area after paying this protection tax.

Predictably, none of the big media houses featured this alarming development. I take it that they’ve still not emerged from their drunken stupor post their party’s recent electoral victory. A simpler explanation prevails: they couldn’t care less if a trainload of Hindus were burned right inside India (sounds familiar?).

To that extent, we owe thanks to DNA for featuring this. But look mummy, how DNA spins this.

DNA defines Jazia as security tax. Exemplary political correctness. Defining jazia as security tax clinically severs the obvious Islamic-scriptual link that gave it birth. The media considers it haraam to criticize Islam. So security tax (sic) it is. Oh but why even bother? A few thousands killed here and there, a few thousands converted and turned against their ex-religion…hell, there are more than 800 million Hindus in India alone…nobody will notice if a fraction of that disappears.

Tags: Aurangzeb, Hindus wiped out, India, Indian Politics, Intolerance, Islam Watch, Jazia, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pakistan Watch, Politics, Secular Media, Secularism, Society & Culture, Taliban

The Congress footsoldiers were quick to pick that up. The servility they displayed during Indira Gandhi’s time set a precedent that continues to date. For most of the post-Rajiv Gandhi era, the Congress party’s fortunes looked like it was headed for bankruptcy. And despite its familiar noises, people had stopped taking it seriously.

Its fortunes are pointing heavenwards again. And it’s now trying to resuscitate its inheritance of intolerance for all norms of healthy opposition, dissent and basic norms of democratic decency. The latest Exhibit :

Barely four months after dropping its proposal of forcing TV channels to show only an “authorized” feed during security emergencies, the government is now seeking to censor news portals and other websites, that too even at normal times.

One glaring infirmity in the draft rules prepared by the department of information technology is that they make no stipulation for a prior hearing to the affected website. This is despite the fact that the web host who does not comply with the direction to remove the offending information is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years. … Under the draft rules framed under section 69A of the IT amendment Act, every state or Central government department will be empowered to decide whether a certain news item, article, blog or advertisement relating to its jurisdiction is safe to remain on the Net.

Once somebody sends a “complaint” against any information displayed on the Net, the department concerned will take a call on whether the matter in question affects any of the six concerns mentioned in section 69A: interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order or incitement to commit any cognizable offence relating to the other five reasons.

Stealth Stalinism in plain language.

Woe must’ve befallen me that this damn piece of news was reported on my birthday [I'm not fishing for anything okay? ].

This is eerily reminiscient of the days of a Indira Gandhi-appointed “news censor.” But Congress 2009 is a completely different beast. It looks like it has partially learned some lessons from its fall from the heady days where it commanded upward of two-thirds majority. This time around, notice how this proposal was passed surreptitiously? Not too many people–even the media–have written about/reported it. It’s understandable that the secular media is overworked from spinning tales of the triumph of secularism over dangerous communalism etc. Which perfectly suits–and I suspect is also part of–the Congress strategy. Recall in my previous I’d complimented the Congress party for quashing its political opponents once it’s in power. If you notice, it put a rubber-stamp non-entity in the Rashtrapati Bhavan and winked at the media. The media promptly painted her as a symbol of female empowerment, etc. Then it put its reliable Emergency Lieutenant, Navin Chawla in the Election office. All along it doled out goodies to the media, kept it well-oiled and now that it is unchallenged in sheer numbers, it has begun to slowly slip such Stalinist envelopes under the door.

However, unlike the days of print media, trying to censor online media is really, a double-edged sword: one, you cannot really “censor” the Internet. Two, when this comes up for more detailed discussion, it will generate widespread outrage across the world. Recall the public outcry when it blocked Blogspot and several other “offensive” sites? We’ll see how that’ll unfold but this disgraceful move underscores what I observed earlier: the Congress party by nature suffers from insufferable megalomania and an acute intolerance for democratic norms.

PS: Read this blog while it lasts: it maybe banned.

Tags: 15th Lok Sabha, Blogs, Censorship in Democracy, Congress, Congress Master Censor, Congress wants to Censor News Portals, Dynastic Rule, Elections 2009, India, Indian Elections 2009, Indian Politics, Indian Polls 2009, Intolerance, Media Watch, Politics, UPA

Actually this nation deserves perpetual rule by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. That way, we’ll have at least nothing to look forward to. And I’m not saying this out of anger. India is one human heap of pusillanimous people completely devoid of a sense of history, lacking the will to recover our collective spiritual consciousness, and being content to be grovel under the kind of people that now rule us.

The BJP rout in the 2009 polls is perhaps the best and most recent example that illustrates this.

You can call me presumptuous but I expected the BJP to be mauled badly this time. Thankfully, I wasn’t disappointed. If you look at the party’s history, it’s clear that the BJP successfully builds some amazing momentum but suddenly develops inexplicable bouts of cowardice as it reaches the goal post.

Let’s start with the event that made the BJP a political superpower.

I care zilch for the secular explanations for the Babri Masjid demolition. I’m convinced it was a very defining event with great potential for national and social re-integration. Babri Masjid demolition was the perfect opportunity to bridge social and communal differences. The run up to the evidence-gathering phase altered the course of public discourse in a huge way. It reawakened–to a significant extent–a sense of pride about our past. Large sections of people began efforts to recover this past and apply its riches to the present. More importantly, it was the golden opportunity to reintegrate Muslims and Christians–exploited as victimized minorities under the guise of secularism–back into the Hindu fold. The key word is reintegrate, not convert. With good reason: there’s nothing in Islam or Christianity that Hinduism cannot offer except perhaps the Us versus them violent monotheism. Most Indian Muslims have Hindu ancestry and there’s no logical reason for them not to return to the Hindu fold. This wouldn’t have happened overnight but then the demolition provided the best opportunity to steer public discourse in that direction. When the BJP squandered this opportunity, the only way was downhill.

As Elst observes, the BJP today looks like the Congress party’s B-team. You can’t react with stunned looks of disbelief when people voted for the Original instead of the B-team. And I don’t really buy into the doctored EVM theory unless it’s backed by really strong evidence.

It’s also pointless to blame individual BJP leaders for the defeat. The truth lies in is the nature of the BJP’s behaviour: when it’s near or in power (to borrow from Elst), it lapses into tremendous and overconfident self-congratulatory rapture. It takes but just one thwack to completely demoralize it. Actually, the BJP never really recovered from the unexpected defeat in the 2004 elections. It consistently goofed up on issue after issue while the Left played the role of the Opposition more effectively than the BJP. It gave sticks to an already-hostile secular media to beat it up. It confused and confounded its own support base by flip-flopping on crucial issues at regular intervals. Its 2009 election run up was a joke. Most importantly, the Congress party’s spectacular score was not at the cost of the BJP. Doesn’t that point to something?

The Congress party’s biggest strength remains this: once in power, it wastes no time in demolishing its political rivals. This is not to condone its methods. Rather, it is to show the difference in approach between the two. However, what’s puzzling is the BJP’s performance in the states it rules. In Karnataka, Gujarat and to an extent, Madhya Pradesh, there’s no worthy Opposition to the BJP. Yet at the national level, the party has been reduced to dust.

In the end, this party is in terminal trouble. Whether it withers or blooms is a question of time. At present, the prospects for the former happening are greater.

Tags: 15th Lok Sabha, BJP, BJP Debacle, Commentary, Congress, Elections 2009, India, Indian Elections 2009, Indian Politics, Indian Polls 2009, Politics, UPA