The Joke that Western Indology is – A Sample


By: Shrikant G Talageri

A German scholar, Rainer Stuhrmaan, has written a paper in German, entitled “Die Zehnkönigsschlacht am Ravifluß” (“The Ten Kings’ Battle on the Ravi”), appearing in Witzel’s “Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies”, Volume 23 (2016), Issue 1:

http://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/ejvs/article/view/933

The paper itself is in German, a language which is Greek to Indian (Hindu) bank-employee yokels like myself, but, fortunately, we have a summary of the paper translated (from German to English) by none other than Witzel himself, which sheds a little light on the scholarly findings published in this paper. This paper is important because it shows more clearly than anything else how Indological studies in western academia are nothing short of a joke: paper after paper is still written by scholar after scholar, reiterating utterly discredited and disproved themes and ideas which carry on nineteenth century misconceptions with the doggedness of the horse with cast-iron blinkers, who can neither see, nor is expected to see, newer interpretations and new facts and data in deeply-researched papers by writers outside the hallowed circle of the closed-door clique that constitutes the “peer reviewed” mutual admiration society that is western academia. It shows the utterly fake, fraudulent and outdated nature of present-day western “Indology”, which has become nothing more than a powerful, academically recognized and financed, propaganda club or juvenile writers’ cottage industry.

Before examining (on the basis of the translated summary of the paper by Witzel) the hopelessly outdated aspects of Stuhrmann’s paper, it will be pertinent to point out a few positive points in Stuhrmann’s paper:

  1. First, when he quotes Witzel in describing the Battle of the Ten Kings as the “main political occurrence of the Rig-Veda (Witzel 2007:435)“. Indeed it is the main (and oldest recorded) political occurrence in Indo-European history, since it records the presence of five (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Armenian, Greek and Albanian) of the twelve recognized branches of Indo-European languages, in fact the very five branches classified by linguists as being the last five branches to remain in any proposed Homeland after the departure of the other seven branches, in the most important historical event in the Homeland before the migration of four of these branches from that Homeland. See the last section of part 3 of my blogspot article:

http://talageri.blogspot.in/2016/07/the-recorded-history-of-indo-european.html

  1. Two, when he goes against the consensus of most western Indologists that treats the Pūru tribe as being among the enemies of Sudās in the battle. Apart from accepting that the Bharata-s were “a subtribe of the Pūru“, he writes: “Because of stanza 13 most interpreters of the hymn 7.18 are of the opinion that the Pūru who are allied with the Bharata throughout the Rig-Veda, belong to the defeated enemies of Sudās. However [….] the Pūru somehow must have been on the side of King Sudās and the Bharata, though not in the actual Ten kings’ battle“. Of course, he immediately spoils it by reiterating the usual Indological confusion, identifying the Purukutsa with the Pūru tribe! [Note: in his pointless “review” of my second book in 2001, Witzel had treated my use of the word “king” for Sudās as indicative of my pathetic ignorance of the state of the Civilization in Rigvedic times!]
  1. Three, when, in the face of a determined trend among political scholars, including Witzel, who have all along maintained that the Sarasvatī of the Rigveda is the present-day Ghaggar-Hakra river, but (after my three books) have now suddenly started a campaign to deny the identification, Stuhrmann writes: “archeological research of Mughal and others have shown that until the mid-second millennium BCE the banks of the Sarasvatī were still dotted with Indus Culture settlements“, thus confirming the identity of the two rivers.

Apart from these little points, Stuhrmann writes as if nothing has been written about the Battle of the Ten Kings since the nineteenth century (apart, of course, from the writings of “scholars” like Witzel, who also have not moved beyond the nineteenth century). He completely ignores (as we will see in detail presently) not only the irrefutable conclusions demonstrated by me in my books, but also the actual data in the Rigveda on the basis of which I have drawn those conclusions, and bases his interpretations wholly and solely on purely extraneous theories and hypotheses which have been concocted by the Indologists on the principle that the Rigveda simply should not be treated as a source book of data and that theories and hypotheses about the Rigveda are to be concocted strictly without reference to any data from the text.

The two main discredited points Stuhrmann reiterates throughout his paper is a) that the enemies of Sudās and the Bharata-s in the battle were mainly “indigenous non-Aryans” native to the area of the Indus Civilization, and b) that the direction of movement and conquest of Sudās and the Bharata-s was from “west to east”:

  1. “Indigenous Non-Aryans”

Stuhrmann tells us: “Shortly after crossing the Ravi river, he[Sudās] was encircled by an alliance of Aryan and non-Aryan tribes“, and again: “The alliance consisted of Aryan and non-Aryan tribes with whom the earlier Aryan immigrants, such as the Turvaśa, Yadu and Druhyu, had allied themselves“. He continues: “much points to non-Aryan indigenous tribes settled on the banks of the Ravi river and belonging to a ‘hydraulic’ civilization that had mastered the knowledge and tools necessary to affect a river system. In fact, there are many indications in the Rig-Veda of a hydraulic civilization that was familiar with river management by controls, dykes, reinforcement of dykes and with sluices – in other other words: the Indus civilization“. In short, the “Aryan Invasion” of the “non-Aryan indigenous” Indus civilization, according to Stuhrmann, is actually recorded as the “main political occurrence of the Rig-Veda (Witzel 2007:435). He generously concedes that these “non-Aryan indigenous tribes” (i.e. the people of the Indus civilization) had some “allies” among some “earlier Aryan immigrants, such as the Turvaśa, Yadu and Druhyu“, thereby making it perfunctorily “an alliance of Aryan and non-Aryan tribes“.

The insolence of such claims continuously being made in these Indological papers is breath-taking. These “scholars” at least should be aware that “Aryan” and “non-Aryan” (as they use these terms) are not general adjectives meaning something like “good” and “bad” or “pleasant” and “unpleasant” or “noble” and “ignoble” to be used in a general and subjective sense. Precisely speaking, in the context in which these “scholars” use them, they mean “Indo-European” and “non-Indo-European” in a very precise linguistic sense. But, even as they freely describe the enemies of Sudās as “non-Aryan”, they are not able to give one single example of a word, in the hymns referring to the battle, which could be interpreted as a reference to any entity which could be categorized as linguistically non-Indo-European: not one word which can be linguistically identified as referring to speakers of a Dravidian language, an Austric (Kol-Munda) language, the Burushaski language, or an Andamanese dialect, or, for that matter, a Semitic, Sino-Tibetan, Uralo-Altaic or any other language belonging to any known language family in existence (or now extinct, like the Sumerian language) anywhere in the world. Then in exactly what sense do they have the academic guts to describe the enemies of Sudās as “non-Aryan”?

On the other hand, the data in the Rigveda makes it very clear that the enemies of Sudās (who belonged to the Bharata sub-tribe of the Pūru tribal conglomerate) belonged to the Anu tribal conglomerate. In fact, as I have pointed out in detail in my books, and in the last section of part 3 of my blogspot article cited earlier, the enemy tribes, specifically named in the two battle hymns, bear the names of the ancient tribes among the Iranian, Armenian, Greek and Albanian branches of Indo-European languages. To quote from that blog, the two hymns use the following tribal appellations for the enemies of Sudās who belonged to the Anu tribal conglomerate:

VII.18.5 Śimyu.

VII.18.6 Bhṛgu.

VII.18.7 Paktha, Bhalāna, Alina, Śiva, Viṣāṇin.

VII.83.1 Parśu/Parśava, Pṛthu/Pārthava, Dāsa.

[Puranic Anus: Madra.]

To further quote from my above blog:

These tribal names are primarily found only in two hymns, VII.18 andVII.83, of the Rigveda, which refer to the Anu tribes who fought against Sudās in the dāśarājña battle or “the Battle of the Ten Kings”. But see where these same tribal names are found in later historical times (after their exodus westwards referred to in VII.5.3 and VII.6.3).  Incredibly, they cover, in an almost continuous geographical belt, the entire sweep of areas extending westwards from the Punjab (the battleground of the dāśarājña battle) right up to southern and eastern Europe:

(Avestan) Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa).

NE Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin).

Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Iranian: Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha).

Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran: Iranian: Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna).

NE Iran: Iranian: Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava).

SW Iran: Iranian: Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava).

NW Iran: Iranian: Madai/Mede (Madra).

Uzbekistan: Iranian: Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva).

  1. Turkmenistan: Iranian: Dahae (Dāsa).

Ukraine, S, Russia: Iranian: Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu).

Turkey: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).

Romania, Bulgaria: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Dacian (Dāsa).

Greece: Greek: Hellene (Alina).

Albania: Albanian: Sirmio (Śimyu).

Further:

  1. a) The leader of the enemy alliance is KaviCāyamāna: Kauuiis an Iranian (Avestan) name.
  2. b) The priest of the enemy alliance is KavaaKaošais an Iranian (Avestan) name.
  3. c) KaviCāyamāna of the battle hymn was a descendant of Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, who is described in the Rigveda (VI.27.8) as a Pārthava. The later Iranian (Avestan) dynasty (after the Iranians migrated westwards from the Rigvedic Greater Punjab into Afghanistan, and composed the Avesta), the oldest Iranian dynasty in historical record (outside the Rigveda) to which belonged Zarathushtra‘s patron king and foremost disciple Vištāspa, is theKavyān (Pahlavi Kayanian) dynasty descended from this same Kavi/Kauui. In later historical times, it is the Parthians (Parthava) who maintained a strong tradition that the kings of the Kavyāndynasty of the Avesta belonged to their tribe.

In the face of all this very specific and detailed evidence within the hymns, in the form of the actual concrete data in the Rigveda, can these Indological papers, which continue to describe the enemies of Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings as linguistic “non-Aryans”, without finding it necessary to produce an iota of evidence for this claim, be regarded as anything but lies and trash?

In the process, Stuhrmann refers to Sudās and the Bharata-s as “the Pūru and Bharata latecomers“, and as “Vedic conquerors“. Hindu opponents of the AIT will object to these phrases, especially to the idea that the actions of Sudās and the Bharata-s were the actions of “conquerors”, and would instead insist that it was a fight  between “good Aryans” (represented by Sudās and the Bharata-s) and “fallen Aryans” (represented by their enemies), and insist that these “good Aryans” were somehow provoked into attacking, or were even fighting in self-defence against, an unholy alliance. However, the two phrases are right, but not in the sense that Stuhrmann uses them: the Pūru-Bharata tribes were indeed imperialistic “conquerors” of the land and territory of other tribes, but they were not originally non-Indian “Aryan/Indo-European” tribes from the west conquering the land of indigenous Indian “non-Aryans/non-Indo-Europeans”, they were indigenous Indian “Aryans/Indo-Europeans” (Pūru-s) from the east conquering the land of other equally indigenous Indian “Aryans/Indo-Europeans” (Anu-s) to their west, a normal (if unfortunate) phenomenon of mutually warring and conquering tribes that can be seen in any ancient civilization in the world. And they were “newcomers” not into India, but “newcomers” (as conquerors) from Haryana and western U.P. in the east into the then Punjab area of the Anu-s. Both these groups of tribes were components of what Stuhrmann calls “the Indus civilization” (or, more correctly, “the Indus-Sarasvati civilization“).

  1. “From West to East” or “From East to West”?

Even more brazenly, Stuhrmann tells us: “Along the Bharatas’ trail of conquest [….] Sudās had crossed the Ravi from west to east, just as he had, earlier on, the Indus“. He repeats the lie: “the Ten Kings battle took place after the crossing of the Ravi river from west to east“. And then: “it opened up the further path eastward into the Indian core territory, where the Vedic conquerors followed the carriers of the Indus civilization that had been weakened by tectonic and hydrological changes“.

Let us start examining this trail of lies from the starting point in Stuhrmann’s story: the crossing of the Indus river “earlier on” by Sudās:

The three Oldest Books of the Rigveda, in that order, are 6, 3 and 7. In any case, more relevant to the point under discussion, these are the books associated with the periods of Sudās and his ancestors: “In Book 6 of the Bharadvāja, the Bharatas and their king Divodāsa play a central role” (WITZEL 1995b:332-333), and “Book 3 [….] represents the time of king Sudās” (WITZEL 1995b:317) (as, obviously does book 7, the Book of the Battle of the Ten Kings). In these three Books, the word “Sindhu” is used only in its original etymological sense of “river”: except in 8 verses, it is used in the plural in the sense “rivers”. In the 8 verses where the word is used in the singular, it refers in every case to a specific “river” whose identity is clear from the reference itself: Vipāś (III.33.3,5; 53.9),Paruṇī (VII.18.5), Yamunā (VII.33.3), Sarasvatī (VII.33.6; 95.1), and the ocean (VII.87.6).

Nowhere in these three Books is there a single reference even to the Indus river itself, let alone (either in these three Books or elsewhere in the Rigveda) to any “earlier crossing” of the Indus, let alone to any “earlier crossing” of the Indus by Sudās, let alone to any “earlier crossing” of the Indus by Sudās “from west to east“. So where do Witzel and Stuhrmann get the information about this “earlier crossing” of the Indus by Sudās “from west to east“? Did Sudās appear in a dream and convey this information to them?

According to Stuhrmann’s fairy-tale (and Witzel’s before him), Sudās, and obviously his ancestors before him, were somewhere beyond (to the west of) the Indus river till the time Sudās and the Bharata-s set out on their “trail of conquest“. Does the data in the Rigveda support this blatant and brazen lie? See what the geographical data in the Rigveda tells us, for which I will quote from part 2 of my blogspot article:

http://talageri.blogspot.in/2016/07/the-recorded-history-of-indo-european_27.html

  1. a) The geographical area of the Early Old Books (6,3,7 in that order) [….] covers only the eastern parts of the Rigvedic area. These Early Old Books show complete ignorance of western areas, but easy familiarity with and emotional attachment to the eastern areas (in VI.61.16, the composer begs the river Sarasvatī: “let us not go from thee to distant countries“):

These three oldest books mention the  eastern  rivers Gaṅgā Jahnāvī,    Yamunā,  Dṛṣadvatī Hariyūpīyā/Yavyāvatī,ĀpayāSarasvatīŚutudrīVipāśParuṣṇAsiknī, but they do not mention the western    rivers  Marudvṛdhā,  Vitastā,  Ārjīkīyā,  Suṣomā, Sindhu and its western tributaries  Triṣṭāmā,  Susartu, Anitabhā,  Rasā,  ŚvetiShvetyāvarīKubhāKrumuGomatī,SarayuMehatnuPrayiyuVayiyuSuvā, GaurīKuṣavā, all of which are mentioned in the New Books.

They mention the eastern place names Kīkaṭa, Iḷāspada (also calledvara ā pṛthivyā or nābhā pṛthivyā, i.e. “the best place on earth” or “the centre of the earth”) but they do not mention the western place names SaptasindhavaGandhāri, both of which are mentioned in the New Books.

They mention the eastern lake Mānuṣā, but they do not mention thewestern lake Śaryaṇāvat(ī) and the western mountains Mūjavat,Suṣom and Arjīk, all of which are mentioned in the New Books.

They mention eastern animals like the buffalo, the gaur (Indian bison), the elephant, the peacock and the spotted deer, but they do not mention western animals (whose names are found in common with the Avesta) like the uṣṭra, varāha, mathra, chāga, vṛṣṇiurā and meṣha, all of which are mentioned in the New Books.

  1. b) Further, the western place names, lake name, mountain names and animal names are missing not only in the Early Old Books (6,3,7), but also in the Middle Old Books (4,2) and in the New Book 5: in short, in all the family books. And the river names appear from east to west in historical contexts:
  2. i) The oldest Book 6 refers only to the Sarasvati (which is deified in three whole hymns, VI.61, VII.95-96, and in 52 other verses in the three Early Old Books) and to the rivers east of it: in VI.45.31 the long bushes on the banks of the Gaṅgā figure in a simile (showing their long acquaintance and easy familiarity with the topography and flora of the Gaṅgā area).
  3. ii) The next Book 3 refers in III.58.6 to the banks of the Jahnāvī (Gaṅgā) as the “ancient homeland” of the Gods. In III.23.3-4, it remembers the establishment of a perpetual sacred fire by Devavāta, a far ancestor of the Rigvedic king Sudas, at Iḷaspada (in Haryana) on the eastern banks of the Sarasvatī. In III.33, it refers for the first time to the first two easternmost rivers of the Punjab, the Vipāś  and Śutudrī, in the context of the militarist expansion in all directions (after a religious ceremony performed at vara ā pṛthivyā in Haryana) by Sudās, and the reference is to his moving from Haryana into the Punjab and crossing the two rivers with his warriors.

iii) The next book 7 (which refers to the Yamunā in VII.18.19) describes (in VII.18, and also 19,33 and 83) the dāśarājña battle (the Battle of the Ten Kings) in which Sudās, fighting from the east on the banks of the third easternmost river of the Punjab, the Paruṣṇī, fights the coalition of ten Anu tribes who are described (inVII.5.3) as the Asiknī people (as they are fighting from the west, from the direction of the fourth easternmost river of the Punjab, theAsiknī).

The three Early Old Books (6,3,7) do not refer to rivers further west.

  1. iv) The Middle Old Book 4 (but not yet the Middle Old Book 2, whose riverine references are restricted to the Sarasvatī) for the first time refers to the Indus (Sindhu) and its western tributaries (Sarayu and Rasā), in clear continuation of the earlier westward movement: it refers (in IV.30.18: which, incidentally, is a Redacted Hymn) to the battle fought by Sahadeva  and Somka, descendants  of Sudās, in an area “beyond the Sarayu”.

In short, the geography of the Rigveda in the period of the oldest book 6 and in the pre-Rigvedic period [….] is completely restricted to the area to the east of the Sarasvatī river, in Haryana and western U.P., which is regarded as “the ancient homeland”. Needless to say, there is not the faintest trace in the Rigveda, even at this point of time [….], of any extra-territorial memories or migrations from the totally unknown far western areas.

  1. c) Even in this period [….], there is not the faintest reference in the Rigveda to any non-Indo-European language speaking (let alone specifically Dravidian or Austric language speaking) people or entities, friend or foe, in the Rigvedic area, past or present,  let alone any reference to the “Aryans” having invaded and displaced them.
  1. d) Even in this period [….], the rivers in the Rigvedic area have (undeniably or arguably) purely Indo-European names, with no indication that there ever were any other names. [This is a powerful indication of the indigenous nature of the Vedic Aryans. As Witzel points out: “In Europe, river names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 B.C. (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe).” (WITZEL 1995a:104-105). But, in sharp contrast, “in northern India rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on“. (WITZEL 1995a:105). This is “in spite of the well-known conservatism of river names. This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus Civilisation where one would have expected the survival of older names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least, one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England with the name of the state of Massachussetts next to the Charles river, formerly called the Massachussetts river, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red River, etc., next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi and the Missouri”.

In the face of all this clear data in the Rigveda, which shows that the ancestors of Sudās were inhabitants of the areas (in Haryana and eastwards) to the east of the Sarasvati river many generations before Sudās set out on his “trail of conquest“, can these Indological papers, which continue to tell us fairy-tales about Sudās starting out “from west to east” from areas beyond (to the west of) the Indus,  and about “the Ten Kings battle” opening up “the further path eastward into the Indian core territory, where the Vedic conquerors followed the carriers of the Indus civilization that had been weakened by tectonic and hydrological changes“, without finding it necessary to produce an iota of evidence for these claims, be regarded as anything but lies and trash?

III. Common Sense and Logic

This is the state of Western Indology today: the prestigious western Universities, and their respected “scholars”, churning out Indological paper after paper full of blatant and brazen trash, completely ignoring the massive historical data in the Rigveda, and retailing centuries-old (and totally discredited) fairy tales about “Vedic conquerors” conquering “non-Aryan indigenous tribes settled on the banks of the Ravi river and belonging to a ‘hydraulic’ civilization [….] – in other other words: the Indus civilization“. To buttress his fairy-tale, Stuhrmann goes a few steps ahead of his colleagues and cites “archeological” evidence about “an unusual high percentage of men, women and children killed by force that are found in the cemeteries and burial pits of late phase Harappa (ch 6)“. So he combines his textual “evidence” with archeological “evidence” about Sudās’ conquest of “the non-Aryan Indus civilization“!

While books and research papers (such as mine) failing to uphold the “Aryan Invasion Theory” are completely ignored by the western Indologists, such trash is accepted as academically sound scholarship, published in “peer-reviewed” journals, given doctorates, and quoted as gospel truth (or veda-vākya) by official academic circles all over the world, including or especially in the Indian media and academia.

One reason why this happens is because Indian/Hindu/anti-AIT scholarship is divided into umpteen political slots, and the writers and scholars are more busy pandering to their own religious biases, beliefs and prejudices (and those of their devout fans and admirers), or fighting their own personal ego-battles, than they are interested in countering Falsehood with Truth. In fact, the Truth pinches these scholars more than the Lies of the western Indologists. So, until all anti-AIT scholars, and all those sympathetic to the Indian side in the various “clashes of civilization” taking place in India, decide to keep aside their personal biases and prejudices, and adopt a united stance in support of what is True, Sensible and Logical, and in keeping with the facts and data, this supremacy of Lies and Falsehood will continue to prevail in the field of Indological Studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

WITZEL 1995a: Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters. Witzel. Michael.  pp. 85-125 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, 1995.

WITZEL 1995b: Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics. Witzel, Michael. pp. 307-352 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin.

(Note: This article originally published HERE)

Pakistani Menace – Options for India


Pakistan since its creation in 1947, on the demand of its people that they have a separate religion and for that reason they are a separate nation, has been an enigma for India. There has been a sharp dichotomy in the stand on the basis of which this nation was created. All those persons in the undivided India who held the belief that their religion decided their nationhood naturally had migrated to the newly created Pakistan. But all persons holding that religion did not go to Pakistan. What was their logical stand in staying back this side of the boarder?

India had rejected the argument that the religion of people should decide their nationhood. In consonance with this view, this country stuck to its consistent stand that the religion of a people had nothing to do with their nationhood and it proclaimed that India was to tread the path of secularism.

With this logical Indian stand it was assumed that all those persons who were professing that religion but had not gone to the other side of the divide had agreed to the Indian proposition that nation – Indian nation – was of the paramount importance and their religion was subservient to this paramountcy. Of course, this logic equally applied to all other persons professing different religions, including Hindus and Hinduism’s cognate religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.

This is the story of that part of a united India which was forced by circumstances to remain content with the parcel of land lying this side of the divide. So far so good.

But what about the other part of the united India that had gone to the other side?

Pakistan was founded on Islam and declared itself an Islamic republic. Theoretically there everything was subordinated to their religion. Their religion had a mandate and it was nationally agreed point that all national institutions had to serve this religious mandate.

Accordingly things like education, history and laws were purposely crafted to steer the nation in the service of this mandate. A population was raised in religious Madarsas, a bigoted army steeped in religion was put in place and a supposedly hallowed history starting with Mohd Bin Kasim was made the source of inspiration.

This is the thinking that made Pakistan entertain hostility against India and launch wars against it in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999 (in Kargil) and a continuous slow-pace bleeding armed campaign with no end.

Kashmir issue is not the start or the end point for Pakistan for its mission against India.

India should be very clear of a  few facts in planning its befitting response to the Pakistan’s aggressive designs.

Firstly, Pakistan as a nation is based on their religious mandate of cleansing of the world – including India – of the kafirs or non-believers. India is their nearest enemy, old sour in their side and target of their first fury. Till Pakistan is what it is, India can not live in peace and security.

Secondly, Pakistan is the breeding ground of religious terrorism. Till Pakistan is what it is today, it is not only a danger to the security of India alone but of many others countries – far and near; in fact, none is safe from the self-blowing human bombs.

Thirdly, the world is what it is and must be reckoned as such and fit in within calculation of the response equation. China or the US or Russia – the current major world powers – all, have their own interests and strategy to kill two birds with one shot in the service of their respective national agenda. India should take this reality into account while balancing them and must take the Pakistan problem as its own problem. The dynamics of the ever shifting ‘centre of gravity of this balanced world’ should be constantly kept in my mind by India while devising its strategy from time to time in dealing with Pakistan.

Fourthly, Atomic weapons of Pakistan is a reality and India has to find a reasonable answer to that reality. Pakistan problem should be handled with a comprehensive approach.

What are the options available to India in meeting the challenge of this country?
1. Help Baluchistan freedom fighters in every possible way. Balochis are being exterminated as a people by Pakistan today. It is the moral obligation of world community to help them in the hour of their dire need. One can also take a leaf from history to learn a lesson: Soviet power was decimated by the United States of America not by direct confrontation but by helping the Bin Laden – Mulla Umar and company in Afghanistan with money and means.
2. Divert Sind River waters by unilaterally abrogating the Indus Water Treaty. This treaty is highly unjust for India and against equity. The required steps on the ground should be taken by India quickly and before China is able to aid Pakistan by constructing a storage facility for the (possibly) diverted Brahmputra waters.
3. Help and encourage the Pakistani thinking and sensible people, liberals, Sufi stream there. There is a large section of Pakistani population that realizes the unreasonableness of hostility towards India on the basis of religion. This section is all for the economic development of Pakistan and peaceful and friendly relations with India. They need an international welcome and support.
4. India should inform the international community in all forums and at every opportunity that the terrorism emanating from Pakistan is a danger to them all individually and to the international peace collectively. A united world opinion against this terrorism should be translated into treaties for sharing terror related information, combined operations, extradition criminals, isolating those who shelter or finance those criminals. It should be done at the war footing. Hold urgent conferences, leaders-meets, cooperating treaties with the willing parties.
5. India HAS TO BE READY to answer Pakistan nuclear blackmail. India would do the correct thing by taking a stand on atomic weapons that the danger of atomic war is not averted by sticking to the declared policy of ‘No First Use’ but this danger is averted, or at least further lessened, by a new policy of atomic-weapons countries that those who are ‘Most Likely to Use These Weapons First’ would not be allowed to use them first. It should be left to the international community to judge which of the atomic-weapons-holder countries is ‘Most Likely to Use’ them and to put the required mechanism in place. Till this international mechanism is put in place, India should declare this new policy temporarily that if Pakistan provokes India by its hostile acts enough it is not Pakistan but India that MAY use its atomic arsenal and not the other way round. Also India should get its own missile-shield, AWAKs etc. in place.
6. Develop technology fast and fast enough, at whatever cost. Put all planning and money in speeding up ‘Start Ups’ by removing any conceivable bottlenecks. Foreign investment must be welcome with red-carpet but with the condition of technology transfers / manufacturing facility on Indian soil. Foreign investment in obsolete technologies should be discouraged by applying stringent labour welfare laws and costly inputs for their facilities. In the cases of cutting-edge technologies, just reverse the treatment.
7. Along with the fast technological development, India must also advance speed of the development of her economy, again at whatever the cost – defeating in whatever way possible the internal political opposition to such growth. Internal political opposition to such move for fast pace on the part of the ruling dispensation is bound to come in our democratic country but it should be defeated by the adequate use of political acumen and strategy – all for the sake of making India strong and modern. Remember, recently China had thrown a challenge to India’s rising efforts by declaring: ‘We bet that India can not overtake China (as a world power) simply because we have no elections but in India Indians (opposition political leaders) will not allow India to overtake us’. It is a challenge to India and India must accept this challenge, and defeat this prophecy – by whatever political strategy that is needed in Indian democracy.
8. Coordinate with the anti-terrorist plans and initiatives of the countries that are the sufferers of this menace, be they US or Israel or Russia.
9. Try to create understanding with China; give the reasons to Chinese – loaded with their loss and profits – that they understand best.

And the last, but the most important, step is to guard the boarders – with the aid of force and technology, and particularly technology – against the infiltration of Pakistani terrorists; and replying fitingly any misadventure by that country.

A relevant video towards the solution of this Pakistani menace:

War and Peace, and Yoga


By: Shreepal Singh

All humans are anatomically similar – two hands, two feet, one mouth etc. Out of these similar humans, some become very kind heart, benevolent in their dealings, having piety for others problems, even ready to sacrifice their own life; while some others become outright cruel, killers of fellow humans, ready to take undue advantage of others weakness. How this difference is made out of the same stock? It is their thoughts that make them different. Thoughts may be different and these thoughts motivate humans to act. These thoughts are translated into one’s conduct. It is so simple.

Often times we happen to have different thought of things around us. And, sometime these thoughts are found so different from each other that they do not find a remotely meeting point. I do not agree with your thought and you do not agree with the one I have. As thoughts are often not mere thoughts but get translated into our conduct – our actions – we have times when we confront each other. If you happen to be the leader – the head of a nation – and do not find enough reason in my thoughts and, likewise, I too happen to be the leader of my nation and do not sense any reason in your behavior, then we are on the way to fight. Then, we are nations and we fight with armies. Then, there remains no more peace but war between two nations; and, if you have the courage – or I have the courage – to go to the logical end of your – or my – thoughts, this war between our two nations may even expand into the World War. Such is the power of thoughts.

Thoughts are ‘thoughts about things’ around us and like things of the world around us these thoughts may be simple and plane in their formation and nature. If these thoughts are tested by some method in a systematic manner and found matched with reality, these are labeled as ‘scientific thoughts’; or reasonable thoughts. But thoughts are not always simple and plane; these may be weird, idiosyncratic, absurd, fluid like dreamy etc.

But how these thoughts are made? They have their foundation in human biology (neurons and all that stuff), for sure; but they are not entirely made out of one’s biology. One’s thoughts have a vast – very vast – spectrum, just like the world in which one lives. In a way, one’s thoughts are almost a reflection of the outside environment in which he or she lives; but this natural process too doesn’t cover the entire spectrum of the space occupied by one’s thoughts.

There are many psychological theories – like Freud, Jung et al – that try to explain the process of thought formation. Still, all such psychological theories only partially explain the origin of thoughts.

Explanation of the origin of such behavior on our part makes us wise; in our wisdom we avoid pitfalls in our ways – in our mutual dealings and mutual understanding.

There is one view from India on the problem of the origin of human thoughts. This view from India deals with the entire personality of an individual, wherein the origin of thoughts is merely its part and incidental one, and is called Yoga.

Yoga is a comprehensive science of human well-being. This well-being is so comprehensive that it is not limited to one’s this single present life. It is a science dealing with mystery – mystery of life and mystery of this universe.

Yoga as a science is formulated and enriched by a long series of Yogis, like Rama, Sri Krishna, Mahavira, Buddha, Buddhist Christ, Baba Farid, Guru Nanak, Nizam-ud-din, Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Prabhupad Swamy etc.

One who has an acumen to go to the essence of all these seemingly diverse spiritual personalities would find a harmoniously whole discipline of knowledge put in place from many – diverse – angles. Of course, a superficial glance would find them all diverse.

One can see this world composed of multitude of diverse things but when he or she goes to the root – the essence – of all these diverse things, surely one would find only atoms – simply combined differently.

Our modern age is called the ‘Age of Reason’ and of all these Yogis, Sri Aurobindo talks to us in this language of reason. What does Sri Aurobindo say about the origin of our thoughts?

Sri Aurobindo says, “The most disconcerting discovery is to find that every part of us – intellect, will, sense-mind, nervous or desire-self, the heart, the body – has each, as it were, its own complex individuality and natural formation independent of the rest; it neither agrees with itself nor with the others nor with the representative ego which is the shadow cast by some central and centralizing self on our superficial ignorance.

“We find that we are composed not of one but many personalities and each has its own demands and differing nature. … We find that inwardly too, no less than outwardly, we are not alone in the world; the sharp separateness of our ego was no more than a strong imposition and delusion; we do not exist in ourselves, we do not really live apart in an inner privacy or solitude. Our mind is a receiving, developing and modifying machine into which there is being constantly passed from moment to moment a ceaseless foreign flux, a streaming mass of disparate materials from above, from below, from outside.

“Much more than half our thoughts and feelings are not our own in the sense that they take form out of ourselves; of hardly anything can it be said this is truly original to our nature. A large part comes to us from others or from the environment, whether as raw material or as manufactured imports; but still more largely they come from universal Nature here or from other worlds and planes and their beings and powers and influences; for we are overtopped and environed by other planes of consciousness, mind planes, life planes, subtle matter planes, from which our life and action here are fed, or fed on, pressed, dominated, made use of for the manifestation of their forms and forces.”

Can one stop the influx of one’s unwanted thoughts? Yes, one can. How can we stop the entry of unwanted thoughts – the thoughts that disturb the serene equilibrium of our being? It is the subject matter of Yoga – Yoga, an elaborate science with its peculiar inbuilt safety precaution rules. The purpose – the aim – of Yoga is not to make a person proficient in controlling his or her thoughts and, thus, avoid conflicts and wars – though this benifit is a byproduct of Yoga. The purpose of Yoga is to enable you to serve your supreme personal interest, which interest is not confined to ensuring your well-being in this your present life alone. It is the supreme personal interest that Yoga serves for you but the nature of which you do not have the means (in an ordinary state of your being) to know. Though again by walking the path of Yoga you reap the benifits for this life – your life – too, like avoiding conflicts and wars.

Indians Stand with Their Army – Without a Single Exception


Constitution Countenances the Ban on Cow Slaugher


By: Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court

For the last nearly a fortnight, the Central Government’s new Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Rules have led to heated debates and agitations in many states particularly by those, who wish to fish in the troubled waters as they have their own axes to grind. Rules do not say anything about beef eating or not eating but effectively prohibit the sales of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets.

While the Kerala High Court out-rightly dismissed the Petition filed against the implementation of Rules, the Madras High Court has given four weeks’ time to the Central government to clarify the doubts raised by the Petitioners. Thus, apart from political turmoil, legal and constitutional fault lines have also been opened.

Cow slaughter has always been an emotive issue. The matter was discussed and debated at great length in the Constituent Assembly. Many freedom fighters had promised that the first goal of the Swadeshi government would be to impose a ban on cow slaughter.

In 1940, a special committee of the Congress had also opined for the protection of cows. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi had once declared that a prohibition on cow slaughter was more important to him than swaraj itself.

The proponents of the cow protection law in the Constituent assembly included Seth Govind Das, Pandit Thakurdas, Shibban Lal Saxena, Ram Sahai and Raghu Vira among others. Just a few days before India got Independence Babu Rajendra Prasad, who later became the President of India, wrote a letter to Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru saying that “I have been flooded with postcards, letters, packets and telegrams making demand that cow slaughter should be stopped by legislation. The Hindu sentiment in favour of cow protection is old, widespread and deep-seated. The Hindu feeling on account of recent happenings is very much agitated and this movement… is bound to gain strength more rapidly than we can imagine.”

In fact, it was the religious argument that rooted the ban on cow slaughter in the reverence attached to the cow in the Hindu culture. The economic argument was based on the multifarious utilities of the cow in an agrarian economy – the medicinal value of urine, usefulness of cow dung, hides and bones etc.

Pandit Thakurdas, a prominent leader from Punjab and a vociferous advocate of the ban on cow slaughter opined that ‘the best way of increasing the production (of food crops) is to improve the health of human beings and breed of cattle, whose milk and manure and labour are most essential for growing food. Thus, the whole agricultural and food problem of this country is nothing but the problem of improvement of cow and her breed.’ On religious plank he emphasised that, ‘our ancient sages and rishis, realising her (cow’s) importance, regarded her as very sacred. Here in this land Lord Krishna was born, who served cows so devotedly that to this day, in affection he is known as ‘Makhan Chor.’ In all, they brought forth two strands of argument – religious and economic.

A Muslim member of the Constituent assembly Zahir-ul-Hasan Lari also supported the ban on cow slaughter and said, ‘If the House is of the opinion that slaughter of cows should be prohibited, let it be prohibited in clear, definite and unambiguous words… I submit that this is the proper occasion when the majority should express itself clearly and definitely.’

The ban on cow slaughter was thus put under Article 48 of the Constitution, one of the Directive Principles, which would guide the State in policy making and not as the part of the enforceable and justiciable fundamental rights. Needless to say, that fundamental rights inhere only in human beings not in the animals.

Article 48 of the Constitution reads: ‘The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.’

There is no doubt that Article 48 was adopted as a compromise formula and the many members of the Constituent Assembly like Shibban Lal Saxena vehemently opposed to such back door tactics and told the Drafting Committee of not being ashamed of providing for the ban on the cow slaughter frankly and boldly.

Way back in 1958 in ‘Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and others vs State of Bihar this issue was agitated before the Supreme Court. Bunch of petitions were filed against the Bihar Act, which prohibited the slaughter of cattle. The petitioners were Kasais (butchers) who contended that the Act infringes their religious rights to slaughter the cow(s) on Bakr-e-Eid and also hits at their profession. The Court ruled that after giving careful and anxious consideration to the pros and cons of the problem and in view the presumption in favour of the validity of the legislation, we feel that we must approach and analyse the problem in an objective and realistic manner. So, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Article 48; (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

The judges said that the ban on slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) which are useful is reasonable but of those which are not useful is not valid. The question as to when a she-buffalo, breeding bull or working bullock (cattle and buffalo) ceases to be useful and becomes useless and unserviceable is a matter for legislative determination. It is, therefore, not possible to apply the doctrine of severability and uphold the ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) which are useful as milch or breeding or working animals and strike down the ban on the slaughter of those which are useless. The result is that we uphold and declare that the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, is constitutionally valid and slaughter of she- buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo), without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness infringes the rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void.

Later, the Supreme Court in State of Gujrat vs Mirzapur Moti Quereshi Kasab Jamat (2005) further elucidated the definition of other cattle by  observing that,  ‘having specifically spoken of cows and calves, the framers of the Constitution  chose not to catalogue the list of other cattle  in Article 48 and felt satisfied by employing a general expression other milch and draught cattle, which in their opinion any reader of the Constitution would understand in the context of words ‘cows and calves’.

There is hardly any doubt that the thousands of cattle were being smuggled to Bangladesh via Nepal from India for their slaughtering under the garb of trade. These rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which allows sale of cattle from one farmer or breeder to other will deal with severe blow to the beef traders. And, therefore, naturally they will make hullaballoo against the new rules.

Legal aspect is absolutely clear in view of the catena of judgments of the Supreme and other High Courts but will the government be able to withstand the political onslaught that it is going face in the Monsoon session of Parliament is to be seen.

Why India is defamed in the name of ‘Caste Discrimination’


By: Maria Wirth

Intellectual integrity and truth are obviously unwanted in our times. These have been displaced by political correctness. Why this happened is a mystery, but mainstream media and other agencies vehemently enforce the politically correct opinion.

They drum into us powerfully what we should think even if it goes against common sense. Let me give an example.

When in 1999, the Pope declared in India that the Church will plant the cross in Asia in the 21st century, media portrayed it as ok. After all, the Church has the duty to spread Christianity all over the world, so the Pope is just doing his duty.

When people like Zakir Naik conduct mass conversion of Hindus to Islam, media ignores it or tells us that it is ok. After all, Islam also needs to spread till all of humanity has become Muslims.

When, however, a Hindu group brings back some of those who had converted out of Hindu Dharma, the media goes hyper: those Hindu groups are communal and divisive forces who want to disturb the plural fabric of our society and establish an intolerant Hindu rashtra.

The ranting goes on for days on TV channels.

Why do media get it so wrong?

Clearly, the truth is the opposite. Of the three religions, only Hindu or Sanatana Dharma is not divisive and not communal. Only this eternal Dharma considers all as family – Vasudaivam kutumbakam – without any precondition.

In contrast, Christianity and Islam, which are sort of newcomers in the religious field, divide humanity into believers and unbelievers. The believers are right and the unbelievers wrong. The believers are loved by the Supreme and can go to heaven and the unbelievers, even if they lived a virtuous life, are thrown into hell by the Supreme personally. And all those claims are made without any proof.

Are these unsubstantiated claims not intolerant, communal and divisive, apart from not being true?

So in all fairness, the term “divisive forces” must be applied to Christianity and Islam and not to Hindu Dharma.

Yet even suggesting this is likely to get the ‘liberal’ elite into fits. They are dead sure that only Hindu Dharma is divisive and needs to be stopped from spreading. But WHY are they so sure?

To explain it, let’s go back to the 18th and 19th century, when the ancient knowledge of the Vedas first reached western universities. The intellectual elite there were deeply impressed and wanted more of it.

Prominent personalities like Voltaire, Mark Twain, Schopenhauer, the Schlegel brothers, Paul Deussen and many others spoke in glowing terms about India’s heritage. In the early 20th century scientists like Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Oppenheimer, Einstein or Tesla were in their research inspired by Vedanta and acknowledged it.

So what changed? How did Hindu tradition lose the esteem of people worldwide – so much so that now it is considered even by western academics as the worst of all religions?

The reason for all this hostility dawned on me when I recently read that Voltaire, too, had praised the Vedas as the greatest gift for humanity.

Voltaire was in the forefront of fighting the Church. He went to prison for it.

Clearly the Church was not amused that western intellectuals praised Indian wisdom as much superior to Christianity. There was real danger that the Church would lose her sheep as it had already lost the power to punish those who dared to disagree with the Church.

The Christian view of the ‘true’ God, who sits in heaven, is jealous of other gods and sends all those who are not baptized into eternal hellfire, was no match for the Indian concept of Brahman which is the one conscious essence in all the different forms, like the one ocean is the essence in all the different waves.

“Brahman is not what the eyes can see but That whereby the eyes can see. Brahman is not what the mind can think but That whereby the mind can think” (Kena Upanishad).

Such profound insights severely challenged the simplistic view of a personal God who cruelly punishes all those who worshipped him under another name or form.

The Church must have been genuinely worried that the ‘Christian’ God would be seen as an invention by the Church to keep its members under control and submissive – which in all likelihood comes close to the truth but of course must never be known to the common people.

So it would make sense that the Church – in collaboration with state powers which also had an interest to keep the myth of western superiority intact – developed a strategy to put an end to this praise of India’s great civilization.

And the strategy was simple and time-tested: Teach children all over the world negative aspects about Hinduism (all Indian traditions got an “ism”- ending in the English language which made them look dogmatic) and after some 15 years, the new generation will not even want to know anything about Hinduism. They will be convinced that it is worthless because their teachers said so.

And what were these negative aspects they wanted students to associate with Hinduism?

Obviously first and foremost an “oppressive caste system” and next “idol-worship”.

The most unfortunate part was that this strategy was implemented in India, the source of this ancient knowledge, as well.

Thomas Macauley correctly analyzed that the Sanskrit culture is India’s backbone. It needed to be broken if the British wanted to subdue the ‘natives’.

Macauley’s advice was followed and the Sanskrit education system was replaced with the English one. And even more unfortunate – this English education system continued even after Independence till now.

The strategy worked.

Already in primary school in a small Bavarian town, I knew that India had a terrible caste system and untouchables. We saw pictures of poor, miserable Indians and it left a bad, lasting impression.

At that age, I knew nothing about the Holocaust of Jews and gypsies in Germany. It was left to the initiative of our Latin teacher in High School to impress on us what happened in the concentration camps by showing us a documentary.

Neither were we told in school that all societies have a caste or class system and that the Vedic analogy of a society being like a human body was actually ingenious. Caste as such is not bad. Every society needs to be structured. Looking down on lower castes is bad. Yet this is a human weakness all over the world and not advocated by sacred texts.

Since the claim “India has the most terrible caste system” was, and still is, a strategy to put Hinduism and Hindus down, fairness was not to be expected.

Otherwise it would become quickly clear that the sins against humanity by the Whites and Arabs were far greater than those by Indians. Slavery, colonialism, the Christianization of the Americas, the Muslim invasions, and even today discrimination against women, racism especially against Jews and Blacks, cruel oppression and terrorism in the name of religion took the lives of many millions of human beings.

Indians come nowhere near their horrific record and have no need to go on the defensive.

Yet unfortunately Hindus fall into the trap and become defensive.

They enact more laws in favour of backward castes or women, but they of course cannot satisfy those who do not want to be satisfied.

Virulent attacks on Hindus and their tradition continue in Indian and foreign media, often from persons with Hindu names – Macauley’s children.

These attacks have the same purpose as the indoctrination of kids with distorted, insincere info on Hinduism: nobody should discover the depth and profundity of the Indian tradition, least of all Hindus.

Fortunately for India and the world, there are still highly knowledgeable Sanskrit pandits. Yet the mainstream, especially the youth, tends to look west for inspiration which will make them feel lost and without direction in the long run.

Isn’t it time to set things right, turn around and ask uncomfortable questions for example during the next Interfaith Dialogue?

Ask on what basis Christianity and Islam claim that the Supreme Being, the creator of us all, is so cruel and unfair that he throws billions of humans, including all Hindus, for all eternity into hell after one single life, that might have lasted only a few days or may have been lived virtuously and with greatest integrity for 100 years?

If they say that the Highest himself has revealed this truth, tell them that the Vedas also have been revealed by the Highest (as well as other scriptures) and the Vedas claim that the Supreme Being is present in all as blissful awareness and nobody is damned forever. All get chance after chance to realize their divine essence.

So (they need to be told that) since there are divergent views, there needs to be an intelligent debate about which view is more likely to be true and which can possibly even be proven to be true.

However, Christian and Muslim delegates may not be interested in truth as this would endanger the basis on which their whole religious system is built – blind belief in unverifiable dogmas.

Therefore, to bring truthfulness to the discourse is the sole responsibility of the Hindu delegates.

That they fulfill their responsibility is in the interest of all humanity, including Christians and Muslims, except maybe of those who earn their livelihood by peddling religion.

Many Christians turned atheists, because they lost faith in ‘God’, but didn’t realize that there is a very different perspective of ‘God’ possible which makes far more sense than atheism – the perspective of the Indian Rishis.

If Hindu Dharma were better known (and for this very reason it needs to be spread for the benefit of humanity) it will become clear that it was portrayed as the worst option for humanity, so that nobody should know that it is actually the BEST option.

(Note: this article was originally posted Here )

You may read a related article HERE.

NDTV and Fali Nariman at the Press Club


By: Shreepal Singh

Fali Nariman – the supposed best jurist ever born – and a bunch of high profile old faces convened a press meeting at the Press Club today on 10th of June, 2017. Nariman read out a press statement.

As per this statement, the maker of this statement was requested to do so by Pronny Roy of NDTV.

This statement makes a grievance that Pronny Roy of NDTV – the accused in the case – was not first informed about the accusation and questioned before registering of an FIR against him on 2.6.2017.

This FIR was registered against him on a complaint made by a private person – Sanjay Dutt – on 28.5.2017.

The statement insinuates that it was all done at the behest of the government because BJP’s spokesperson Sambit Patra was insulted by NDTV’s anchor on 1.6.2017 during a TV show on his (Patra’s) making a statement that NDTV has an agenda to serve (and not giving innocuous news).

This statement uses a flowery language and decorates it with quotes from the Indian Supreme Court and an ancient US judicial authority to buttress the point that often one party majority government is a risk to liberty and that it is advisable to err on the side of freedom.

Nariman even quotes Indira Gandhi’s emergency to raise his objections against the raids conducted by CBI on the NDTV premises.

Though, being a master blaster of the art of playing with words that he is, Nariman could have with equal force and justification played for India “whatever it is today”  and (could have) said that India had suffered enough until recently at the hands of “unstable coalition” governments; that Indian people were extremely fortunate and wise in accomplishing a seemingly impossible task – the task of putting a “stable – one party majority government” in place; and that India because of this feat has been able to gain an enhanced prestige among the comity of nations.

But Nariman chose to play on the other side and against this India.

Nariman, entering the arena (the debate over the NDTV raids by CBI) with an innocuous intention, takes the side of law by opening his statement with his stand that he is satisfied – if not happy – with the right of the investigating agency to prob any illegality that might have been committed by Prannoy Roy and that he has no objection against this right of CBI but an objection against the “manner and circumstances” in which the FIR was registered against him.

But he, after thus preparing the ground with these soft words, pounces upon the Modi Government with his full force with an exhortation to the Indian media to rise in support of NDTV in unison. An adept in using words as weapons, he quotes the victims of the Hitler’s holocaust, “When they came for Communists, I did not care because I was not a Communist; then they came for Trade Unionists and I did not care because I was not a Trade Unionist; then they came for Jews and I did not care because I was not a Jew; and then they came for me but then there was nobody left to care for me.”

Who is “they” in the Indian context? It is the central government led by Narendra Modi. And, we are made to believe and get ready to face the scary moments in coming times in India, just like in Hitler’s Germany: Auschwitz Gas Chambers!

One may, Like Fali Nariman, equally say that he has no objection to what Nariman said but to the “manner” in which he says what he said: stealthily and silently approaching the unsuspecting prey and then pouncing upon it with full force!

First, F Nariman would be well advised to know – as he very well knows but plays ignorant of – that investigating agencies – like CBI – conduct raids without informing the accused so that the evidence in the case is not destroyed. Here in this case, it was vital for the CBI to recover documents linking Pronny Roy with the concerned Bank officials in the conspiracy to defraud the Bank, and recover them before they (documents) were destroyed by the accused. The entire success of the case depended on the swiftness of this operation.

Secondly, complaint was made on 28.5.2017, which was much before 1.6.2017 when the alleged spat with Patra took place. On that ground there exists no reason to take revenge against NDTV.

Should we not conclude that in this Press Club antics, the bunch of people seen there on the table (in the Press Club) had to do what they did to repay the debt they owe to the ex-rulers who were unseated by Modi?

Law will take its own course; and all the incriminating material against Prannoy Roy of NDTV will go before the court for judicial scrutiny. But that apart, the real question – with which the people of India are more concerned – still remains to be answered.

What if the NDTV has an “agenda” to serve instead of disseminating the innocent news? Suppose it is so. Government of the day is nothing less than a government. It is the legitimate government. It owes certain duties to the people: say, ensuring security of the country against internal and external threats. Licence is given to a TV channel not to serve an agenda but to broadcast news and information. Suppose, NDTV is serving an agenda, which issue was raised by Sambit Patra during the show of this NDTV, the agenda to unseat Modi and his government!

Suppose for a moment, it is so! We are back to square one, notwithstanding the Nariman’s statement, on the issue facing this country. Nariman should not try by his ‘wordy weapon’ to undo the work of Indian government – the responsibility of the Indian government – to ensure that an electronic media, like NDTV, does not serve an agenda: the agenda to destabilize a duly elected government … so that India again becomes weak and prey to foreign evil designs!

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: