The Beggar who came from the Cold

The visit of President Obama is filled with uniqueness and this inimitability suits the stated purpose of the visit.
Nowadays it is a fashion in the business circle to measure the effectiveness and performance of a newly appointed CEO on the basis of a report card based on the first hundred days in the office. The CEO also makes sure that in the first 100 days he visits to inspire the subsidiaries in the countries which are generating or have the potential of delivering higher returns, India often featuring in the top 10 of this list

The president may be allowed some concessions for not having to make it in the first 100 days, but surely did he visit China and India in the same year and stopped short of visiting Pakistan in spite of coming so near.

Also President Obama may be the first and presumably the last non-white president of the U.S. to visit India as America impedes their experiment with “change”.

This is the first time a President of America came calling to India on a purely business mission and landed in Mumbai, bypassing the state honour at Delhi.
What ever was left of “strategic” policies with the South Block was shifted to a secondary visit after the main mission was accomplished.

On the first day of the meeting while some symbolic private deals worth around $10 billion were struck by private ventures, while in Mumbai you have to play along with Ambanis, the press and media went ballistic on the mere modalities of non issues like President never uttering the sinful word, Pakistan, and how India will benefit from this visit.

The American administration has made no false claims about this visit as being purely a mission to save the greatest nation of the world albeit the fact that our expectations are simply creations of our own fecundity.

But a careful look will emphasis on the point, what really America has to offer besides "running" shoes and "bottled aerated" water and an operating system which crashes more often than its running period?

There is not much of technology that America can offer in the field of agriculture, industrial technology, healthcare and communications - either India has the self expertise or they have better partners in Europe to choose from.

Today is a far cry from the fifties and sixties where Indian Prime Ministers went to U.S. with begging bowls asking for food to feed the ever growing hunger of people, fed over enthusiastically on doses of socialism and what India got in return was rotten, rejected lots of PL240 wheat, which was meant for cattle feed in U.S.

The only thing that America can offer is military technology, where it has got real expertise, cultivated through decades and tested at all battlefields in the world , which had been their own creation for testing their developments.

This is where the President is needed to do a hard sell with India, as India has a strategic reliance on Russia, France and to some extent even Israel on these issues.

Nowadays military deals are predominantly done by politicians and thrust upon the armed forces, with a result that to some extent we have seen our intelligence and military capabilities compromised.

This visit of President Obama is no exception, except for the fact that Americans, in a way they do the best, has taken their best leaf out of the marketing expertise from Harvard or MIT and succeeded in camouflaging the whole visit with a "partnership" or "collaborative" overtone.

We, in India, stand to gain nothing out of this visit, not even money that can buy you a candy. America has come with a begging bowl but with a mentality, of a misplaced notion, as the most powerful nation of the world.

This is clearly reflected in the tone and tenor of the president and while we may jump around, with our never ending colonial mentality, relishing on his intellect and charisma and wanting our politicians to be wearing pinstriped suits and speaking cultivated Harvard "English", but at the end of the day for a farmer dying of hunger neither the town hall meetings or the business meets gives them any hope of survival.

This is typical of America as it is typical of India to be subservient to any visitor, even to Pakistan, under the guise of our heritage of treating our guests as God.
Over the last six decades India was looked down upon by the U.S. state administration, so much so that Henry Kissinger did not think twice before calling Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a “bitch”. There is a growing rhetoric that we must forget the past and move ahead, but this rhetoric will remain rhetoric, till the major political parties can forget about the incidents of 1984, 1998 and 2002 and move ahead. Selective amnesia can be disconcerting.

While the Tea Party may object to what they see as an abject wastage of money spent in this visit of President Obama to India, we Indians hardly see the amount of capital that will be carried away by the Air Force One leaving us doing what best we can - sucking our thumbs.
November may be too early or in this context even Mumbai, but this visit of the President Obama can be aptly termed as "The Beggar who came from the Cold", to borrow from John Le’ Carre, and if that may restore any pride in our already famished hearts.

Enjoy - My Fellow Countrymen

The following is an article published in The Telegraph.
Only the so called Bengali intellectual can relish & digest such articles without any feelings of discontent.
This is by some non descriptive Supreme Court lawyer called Rajeev Dhawan - scooped out by NDTV after the "Ayodhya verdict" - please note that the fellow never uses the word but referes as "Babri Masjid" judgement.
The best part are his recommendations - with such people around India can never fail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like Caesar’s “Ides of March”, the much-awaited Babri Masjid judgment by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has come, but not gone. It is now certain that both Muslim and Hindu litigants are going to appeal to the Supreme Court. It is no less certain that the Supreme Court will stay (stop the operation of) the judgment to prevent any further unilateral action by an aggressive sangh parivar.

Aggression by the Muslims is unlikely. After the Babri Masjid judgment, they have become a much weakened minority. They lost when Hindu idols were placed in the Babri Masjid complex on December 22-23, 1949. Insult, most unbecoming, was added to injury when the masjid was destroyed on December 6, 1992, whilst the world looked on. Then came the final blow when the Lucknow bench judgment of September 30 disempowered them both legally and morally. What will they negotiate with — except concede their claim for the greater glory of the Indian (Hindu?) nation?

The judgment was delivered by three judges: S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma. It is customary in such cases to have a minority judge on the bench so that, at least, appearances are met. In the Babri Masjid Case I (1994), concerning the validity of the government takeover of the site and the surrounding Hindu land, it was the Muslim and Parsi judges who strongly dissented. Here, it was thought that the Muslim judge — Justice Khan — would dissent if faced with an unreasonable majority of Hindu judges.

Although there were a huge number of issues before the Lucknow bench, they can broadly be classified into two. The first was — who did the site belong to? If the answer to the first question was the Muslims, did the Hindus have a right to pray at the site? And would this right to pray have to be obtained from the Muslims or superimposed on Muslim ownership of the site? Thus, the central issue was really: who owned the site?

The answer to this question should have been simple. It had been answered in favour of the Muslims in 1885. Again in the 1940s, when Shia and Sunni Muslims fought over which waqf the site belonged to, it was the Sunnis who won. Now, if the Muslims did not own the site, how come the Sunnis won? There was also a precedent for this kind of situation. In the 1820s, the Shahid Ganj mosque had been taken over by Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Matters simmered on. The Muslims lost the case in 1855. By 1940, the Privy Council was confident that the mosque site belonged to the Sikhs and not to the Muslims. The only further issue in the Babri case was whether Muslims had filed their case within 12 years of December 22-23, 1949, from when the Hindus claimed hostile possession of the site. There was no dispute that the idols were placed on the site that evening in December 1949. As it happens, the Muslims filed on December 18, 1961 — a few days before the limitation expired. So, they had not lost the site by adverse possession to the Hindus.

Why did this simple solution not appeal to the judges? Justices Sharma and Agarwal simply assumed that this site was always a pilgrimage for Hindus since time immemorial. Even recent history belies such a conclusion. Myth and conjecture cannot displace truth. Faith may move mountains but cannot eclipse facts. This was no basis for a legal Hindu claim to the site. This was simply imagined history. Curiously, Justice Khan went along with this theory but with some doubts.

His first doubt was that while the Hindus may have prayed in the area, there was nothing to suggest that it was the Babri site that was sacral. His second doubt was that although the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi had been constructed, the claim that this was the exact spot of Ram Janmabhoomi came along only years after the mosque had been built. In other words, the Hindu claim was concocted as a counterfoil to the very existence of the mosque.

There is nothing to suggest that Muslims gave up their site. Justice Khan’s conclusion was that “both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute… and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute”. Thus, both failed to prove their title, so the site belonged to both. So, they become joint owners. How Nirmohi Akhara was entitled to one of the portions of the site defies proper explanation.

On one issue, Justice Khan and his colleagues differed. This was the sangh parivar — Bharatiya Janata Party theory of Muslim aggressors wantonly destroying Hindu temples to build mosques. The theory was important to Hindu fundamentalists to support the Hindu case for historical revenge against idol-destroying Muslims. This approach assumes that present-day Muslims had to pay the price for their irreverent ancestors. This was a war cry for revenge. Justice Khan refused to countenance this claim for historic revenge. The archaeological evidence did not suggest that a real contemporary temple was destroyed by Babur. If Babur had done that, the site would be haram and unacceptable for Muslim prayer.

The Archaeological Survey of India’s view that the site was haram has been solidly questioned by distinguished archaeologists. Justice Khan accepted that there may have been a defunct temple in the site many centuries ago. But the Hindu judges gave total support to the sangh parivar revenge theory. The evil deeds of Muslim invaders had to be punished even if they did not take place.

This leaves the question of the Hindu right to prayer at this site. This right is predicated on the basis that there was a historical Lord Ram who was born on this very site in Ayodhya. There is no proof of this at all. But, lest the argument lose its real colour, let us assume that common sentiment assumes the existence of Lord Ram of Ayodhya. But the assertion that this very site was his birthplace was only a reaction to the fact that a mosque had been built there. What better way to discredit the mosque than to say that was the holiest of holy sites?

It was a communal argument invented for communal reasons. Such an argument could not be the basis of a property right in favour of the Hindus. If Hindus were in possession, what was the need for the trespass of putting the idols there on the night of December 22-23, 1949? The factual situation was that the Hindus had abandoned their right to the site and claim to a temple.

There is little to analyse in the judgment of Justice Sharma. It is entirely pro-Hindu, discloses no legal basis and upholds the Hindu claim for no better reason than that he wanted to do so. His judgment is absurdly long and does not sustain argument, but only sentiment. Justice Agarwal’s judgment also does not bear legal scrutiny and is insufficiently balanced in his treatment of hopelessly inconclusive historical material. Ultimately, the Hindu case is based on hearsay and ‘say so’.

What were the judges trying to do? A title suit was converted into a partition suit on the flimsy basis that since the property belongs to neither, let it belong to both. Alternatively, it has always belonged to the deity and those who took it from the deity must suffer for it. But the whole world belongs to the deity without forcing focus on his unproven birthplace on earth. But it seems that the judges were in a panchayati mood to find a solution which they had not been asked to find. “Share the site,” said the judges. Not even half-half; but two-thirds Hindu and one-third Muslim. This division eludes a proper foundation. The judicial solution is unworkable. Muslims will be ousted into a corner to feel even more insecure than they do in a majority-dominated Hindu India which lets fly at Muslims, Christians and other faiths with ferocious malice aforethought.

The suggestion that mosques can be destroyed physically and legal titles taken away with legal alacrity dishonours a secular rule of law on which India’s togetherness must rest. Some say let us bury the hatchet on this dispute and move on. This seems eminently wise. But no solution should be based on a decision which induces the minority to feel cheated out of its claims. This is yet another example of brow-beating Muslims into second-class citizenship in which they cannot even defend their legitimate rights in a court of law.

I believe a solution is possible. The site can be divided. First, the Muslims need to be given an apology before anything else is done. Apologies have an important place in dispute settlement. Second, the waqf board’s legal rights must be recognized. Third, they need to be persuaded that the old mosque or a new one will be built on, or in the vicinity of, the site. Fourth, a plan to build a world heritage area in which all religions can be accommodated should be chalked out and the land distributed accordingly to make this a world heritage site to be visited by all.

I have a sense, that if Lord Ram were to arbitrate this dispute, he would approve of this kind of a solution.

The Systematic Distortion of Indian History

History is half as true as the colour of the historian and is specifically true of history of the Indian subcontinent. While the ancient civilization in the subcontinent produced volumes on philosophy and religion and to some extent popular literature, ranging from great epics, couple of dramas to explicit eroticism in the form of Kamasutra, but when it came to writing a detailed account of day to day life or about its surrounding environment [flora, fauna, socio economic life], they almost drew a blank.

What remains today as accounts of those periods are through intermediaries, mainly through the travelogues and in some passing comments in treatises on other subjects. The visitors came from far away land like Persia, China, mostly for trade purposes or for the sheer adventure of the unknown and once they stepped into this beautiful land with the richness of material and soul, they stayed on for years devouring what ever came across their way and left with bag full of documents and an enriched heart.

The Chinese came to take away the teachings of Buddha, besides selling their silk and earthen ware, but as again there was complete lack of enthusiasm in part of his disciples to share their Masters words of wisdom. The Hunan king invited monks to China and commissioned them to translate the wisdom of Buddhism in their language and as a result the volumes of Buddhist literature in China far exceed that of India.

In the 4th century B.C. there was an attempt by Kautilya through his epic Arthashastra, which although is a treatise on statecraft, politics, economics policy and military policy, gives us certain details about life and times of that period.
The Islamic conquerors maintained, like all military generals do, a daily log and that carried on even to the Mogul dynasty with Babar to Akbar maintaining a personal account [or through their courtesans, Akbar could not read or right] like Akbarnama [Book of Akbar]. Although it served more as a military document for Babar and Humayun, but in hands of Abul Fazl it took a more refined stance, but can in no way be treated as an unbiased account of the rule and life of the subjects at that time.

The history till independence of India has been flooded by the works of European historians whose accounts ranges from mythical to spiritual to upright derogatory.
Like the “History of India” was written by John Mill, who never visited the country and never spoke any local language. This format of history suited the British as their ulterior motive was to rule the country and it would be counterproductive for the British subjects to come over to a land and hit hard against a culture which is far superior in terms of its philosophical content than theirs.
The colonial rule left copious volumes of documents, the India House having more documents than even the Central Archives of India.
Orientalism, a word made famous by Edward Said in the 20th century, influenced a breed of Indian historians and they carried on writing history of the subcontinent immersed in the same sprit of Postmodernism. The writings depended more on the official documents of the British rule, with very little independent research, but was made more accessible to the general public at large.

If history was the life of a king, his conquests, his queens, his wealth then rendition in comics like Amar Chitra Katha would suffice. But history is more than that and modern history tries to delve more into the socio economic life of the subaltern in the rule of the king. But history is no science that it can be verified by experiments, the historians need to depend on what ever account is left from those times aided with some architectural evidence.
Any event in history can have three versions – one by the perpetrator, another by the affected and the third as an outsider perspective. All accounts have their own self bias and hence it becomes a matter of hard choice for the historian to write an unbiased view of the event without being influenced, partially or fully.


Mass in a socio political context is a mere number until or unless it is led to a certain activity, either in a constructive or destructive way and it is then that the mass gathers momentum and makes relevance. Mobilisation of the mass requires a tremendous effort by the leader and the leader can be a part of the mass or an outsider with a cause which appears to appeal to the mass. The stature of the leader is determined by the quantum of the mass moved – Mahatma Gandhi being one of the finest examples in India.
But it can be argued that a physical presence of a leader is not always needed to create a movement, with a clear distinction to be made between mass movement and mob.
In today’s socio political context, the society has been fragmented to suit the various political parties in terms of caste, creed, religion and other attributes. This also is for the purpose of obtaining maximum benefit from this fragmented mass, but it is also easier to derive “stimulus” that would sway this mass. If one thought that individual brilliance within the mass may negate this affect then it is only a presumption, because once you start believing in the “stimulus” your reasoning gets obfuscated by the greater cause.

A practical example is a Fire Alarm system in an office building. When the fire alarm rings, the people inside the building, irrespective of their rank [from the managing director to the bell boy] moves to a place outside the building in the designated “assembly point”. In this case the trigger for the mass movement [exodus] is inanimate, a mere electro-mechanical contraption called a fire alarm, the stimulus being the personal safety of the people inside the office building.
Neither Jawaharlal Nehru nor Indira Gandhi and her generations afterwards were mass leaders but were quite a contrary and the mass leader in Jayprakash Narayan never came even anywhere near to political power. But they had had cultivated the art of creating the stimulus with their strong official machinery.

While the Left parties and BJP has a clear ideology and to that extent also some of the regional parties like BSP [dalit ideology], RJD [social equality], but the oldest party of India, Congress is devoid of any ideology so as to speak.
The relevance of Congress ended with the independence, it was a forum which gave the voice of the Indians to reach the colonial rulers, but subsequent to independence and creation of India as a secular, democratic polity, Jawaharlal Nehru failed to create an ideology which could bind the party to their grass root supporters. The wind of nationalistic policy in terms of nation building based on socialistic principles played for a decade and with the waning of that spirit, there was the period of simmering disquiet, which Nehru could hardly handle and in many cases made blunders.
But behind the great veil of Socialism, he sowed the seeds of that nefarious “stimulus” which unknowingly has spread its tentacles and engulfed our daily lives which will be discussed in details subsequently.

“The Matrix” series by Wachowski Brothers borrowed heavily from the Buddhist or Vedic philosophy. It is a simple tale that tells that the computers have taken control of the humans, controlling their brains and thereby their actions, and how a group of “originals” try to fight out of this imperialistic control.
Movies like the “Enemy of the State” depict how every move in our life is monitored by the government, which is nothing more than a control of our lives. The control becomes easier if the polity believes is a similar ideology and do not contest any opposition to that ideology, the ideology can be religious, philosophical or political – but the central theme is to make the polity believe in that.

During the height of the “Cold War” the leftist states in India were flooded with books from Russian distributors like Mir and Vostok, highly subsidized. The collection varied from textbooks of basic science [some becoming as popular as to attain a textbook status] to writings on socio economic principles of Marxism.
Dmitri Mendeleev was a bigger figure as a true Russian than the proponent of the Periodic Table of Elements and for every scientific discovery of the allied West there exists a counterpart in the Soviet domain.
The state propaganda was drilled hard into the public domain and in fact they started believing what they were fed with as they were practically cut from the rest of the world.
Such was their faith in the leadership that in China, another Marxist block, nearly 30 million people died in Mao’s quest for transforming the traditional agrarian based Chinese economy into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturisation, industrilisation and collectivization.
The mass were in complete agreement with the principles of Mao Zedong, any rebellion being violently suppressed, in its Great Leap Forward which ultimately led to a famine and death of unparalleled proportions.

We may take pride in living in the worlds greatest democracy which adheres to secularity, is guided by jurisprudence and allowed by the constitution of freedom of speech which retains our free thinking and logical reasoning.
It is entirely another perspective, what if the ideas on which our reasoning pattern depends is based on a huge propaganda? What if what we have been taught through our school days is a clearly crafted play?
It has been assumed that not more than 1 to 2 mass leaders are needed per ten thousand people and a complete control over the minds of these leaders makes it easy for domination. Are we moving towards a Matrix like society where instead of computers there will be select few calling the shots?

This is the basis of the distortion of the Indian History, against which people are becoming aware only now, thanks to the efforts by the huge Diaspora who are investing their time, energy and money to uncover the truth and expose the culprits of systematic distortion of History.

Advancement in technology, free market, communication has helped in the spread of ideas which contradict the forty year period of systematic alienation of the people from the truth.