New York Times Spews Venom against India, Again – A Sample !


By: Shreepal Singh

Best of brains have been flocking to the U.S. for decades running into a couple of centuries now and the U. S. people by and large are the best of human beings in the world. Temperamentally, the U. S. citizens are objective in their outlook, honest in assessment of things around them and bold in making their judgments of the situations they care to look at.  It is not amazing that their country’s well known newspaper “New York Times” does regularly propagate anti-India stories, which are out of sync with reality, biased in nature and obsessive in habit. The amazing thing is how these sober people of the U. S. silently suffer such misdeeds of this newspaper. This newspaper is a giant of media and holds colossal amount of money at its disposal but still these advantages are not enough to make it withstand people’s censure. We wish to examine how this newspaper is committed to twist the objective reality and serve an agenda, which is not only against the people of India but also against the people of the U. S.

The ordinary people around the world – including the people of the U. S. and the people of India – are suffering twin pains: unbearable pressure of economic circumstances on their peaceful life; and, threat to the physical security of their life. This newspaper has no space or time for these common concerns of the ordinary people. What interests it more is to obstructs those – either in the U. S. or outside of the U. S. – who seek to address these concerns and seek an international collaboration in that work. The U. S. has seen 9/11 at World Trade Center and India has seen 11/9 at Bombay and they both – and many more around the world – know this lurking danger of terrorism to their people. But the New York Times would feel no concern on this count; it has some other priorities. While the U. S. is doing what it can do to address this concern in its own way, India too is trying its best to save its own people; but this newspaper is more interested in defaming India and India’s efforts in this direction.

New York Times is so partitioned in its biased mission that it would find no time to check with the objective data on the subject of its writings and rush to blame its target. In the case of India, this newspaper was scornful of this country before the present Prime Minister of India – Mr. Modi – assumed power in this country and prefixed its name with a wretched third world country. And, now when India is making its efforts under Modi to change things for the better for its people, this newspaper has become full of hatred and disdain for India. The editor of this newspaper – Mr. Joseph Hope – has got together a host of paid writers, who are expert in writing against India. Here we are analyzing a sample of its work – an article written by Robert F. Worth and published by it on July, 26, 2018. This article looks like it is against Swami Ramdev (a Hindu Yoga-guru) but in fact it is against the Indian State, its political leaders and the Indian people who elected these leaders. Here in this response to this article we are not concerned with nations or nationalism – either of the U. S. or India – but only with the truth.

The editorial team of this newspaper in propagating such material on the sheer strength of its money is not only unwise in its tracks but also arrogant. Such acts on its part, destroy the goodwill between the two peoples and ruffle the sentiments of the affected people pushing them to form mutually antagonistic blocks at the international level. Perhaps, the arrogance knows no limits! This newspaper, under the mistaken idea of it being the crusader of democracy in other countries, is doing a great disservice to the global peace, established international order and goodwill among the comity of nations.

The link to this article is given at the end of our response.

Robert F. Worth says:

“But the B.J.P.’s ambitions go well beyond 2019. Unlike the Congress party, the B.J.P. doesn’t just want to govern; it wants to transform the country, politically and culturally. The Indian state and its business allies have become increasingly enmeshed in Hindu religious education and promotion, funding ashrams, gurukuls  (where students apprentice themselves to a guru and study Sanskrit) and priest education. Modi’s government has also helped empower figures like Yogi Adityanath, a right-wing Hindu firebrand who has said he wants to install statues of Hindu gods in every mosque, and who last year became chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state.”

Dear Worth, we challenge you – if you are of any worth to justify your name – to quote with the appropriate proof where Yogi Adityanath has said – before or after he became the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – that “he wants to install statutes of Hindu gods in every mosque.” Even if you quote one instance of his saying so, we would admit all what you are saying here in this article; else, we would request you stop spreading canard against India and its democratically elected political figures. This is our first request to you, if you have any sense of self esteem and public responsibility.

Secondly, you say, “Unlike the Congress party, the B. J. P. doesn’t just want to govern; it wants to transform the country, politically and culturally.” You very well know, “the Congress party just governed” this country (for 70 long years) and, we dare say, you also know where this country has stood so far: a wretched third world economy, earning your scorn and disdain! Do you not want this country to transform itself, politically (dynastic rule) and culturally (corrupt)? Surely, you should! This is your hate for India, that speaks so badly against India, its people and their political representatives. Indian people are good to the core of their heart, please do not hate them; it does no good to any person of conscience.

Thirdly, you say, “The Indian state and its business allies have become increasingly enmeshed in Hindu religious education and promotion, funding ashrams, gurukuls  (where students apprentice themselves to a guru and study Sanskrit) and priest education.” This is our second challenge to you, to respect your name and worth, please cite one example – just one example – where the “Indian state” has funded an “Ashram or gurukul”. If you are able to provide such information, it would be an addition to our knowledge – and to the knowledge of the whole world; else, we again request you not to spread canard and hate against India and its people.

Fourthly, your grievance is that the Indian state’s “business allies have become increasingly enmeshed in Hindu religious education and promotion, funding ashrams, gurukuls (where students apprentice themselves to a guru and study Sanskrit) and priest education.” Dear Robert, are you so simpleton not to be aware of the fact that in the U. S. there are countless business houses who fund Christian colleges, universities, research facilities and public educational institutions? It can’t be the case with you, we hope! So, according to you, it is not bad if it is done in the U. S. by its businessmen  in the service of Christianity but it is really objectionable if the same is done by Indian businessmen in India in the service of Hinduism!

Please educate yourself: Hindus are not bad people; Hinduism is not bad in its attitude towards others; Hinduism seeks no conversion of the whole world to its own side, just as Christianity (and the other branch of Abrahamic faith) is hell-bent upon with its world-wide programs, mission and targets. And, also it may not be wrong to say that the learning and promotion of Greek and Latin languages is a commendable thing, and that likewise the learning and promotion of Sanskrit language is a good thing too. Like these two languages are ancient ones, Sanskrit too is an ancient language; and, in addition Sanskrit is the mother of the family of all Indo-European languages. You possibly cannot have any objection if these young students in this North East part of India are encouraged under Gurus to learn Sanskrit as aprentice.

You have many grievances against India and its people. You say in your article:

“Hindu nationalism rarely made headlines in the West until the 1990s, when images of communal riots and chanting B.J.P. supporters introduced many Americans to the idea that there was another, different kind of fundamentalism to worry about in South Asia. But as a political force, Hindu nationalism predates India’s independence in 1947 and reflects centuries of resentment among the subcontinent’s Hindu majority. Hindus submitted reluctantly to waves of Muslim conquest from the north starting almost a thousand years ago, and then to almost 300 years of British domination. After World War I, when the British Empire started to crack, some Hindu ideologues saw an opportunity to regain the upper hand. They began calling for an explicitly Hindu state and society, in which Muslims (and other minorities) would be tolerated only if they respected the majority culture. In one respect, it was an effort to counter political Islam, which was already gaining adherents in India and elsewhere in the early 1920s. But building a cohesive movement was not easy. Classical Hinduism is more a conglomeration of sects than a single religion; it has many ancient scriptures but no single, foundational text, like the Bible or the Quran. Its ancient caste hierarchy perpetuated divisions and did not translate easily into the unifying slogans of modern mass politics.”

Dear Robert your grievance is, “After World War I, when the British Empire started to crack, some Hindu ideologues saw an opportunity to regain the upper hand. ….. But building a cohesive (Hindu) movement was not easy. Classical Hinduism is more a conglomeration of sects than a single religion; it has many ancient scriptures but no single, foundational text, like the Bible or the Quran. Its ancient caste hierarchy perpetuated divisions and did not translate easily into the unifying slogans of modern mass politics.” You are parroting the Sheldon Pollock’s “thesis” when you say, “Classical Hinduism is more a conglomeration of sects than a single religion”, which thesis is being used as a tool for the “Break India” project. We dare say, by subscribing to this imaginative “Pollock Thesis” you definitely place yourself as the part of this “Break-India” project.

You parrot these words – without knowing their meaning. What is your knowledge of Hinduism? Is Hinduism a religion? What is a religion? How many sects are there among Hindus and what do they teach? Is there a common connecting thread in all these sects? It is a serious matter and you need a life-time to learn it. It is very easy to say that since Hinduism does not have a single book like the Bible or the Koran, it is not a religion or it is a conglomeration of sects. What is the definition of ‘religion’? With common sense, one may say it a matter of the relation of humans with God. How does the possession of a single holy book, like Bible or Koran, become the testing anvil for being declared a religion? Are you aware that the Bible and Koran have their own and exclusive God / Allah? Which one of the two is correct? Will it be decided by swords, or inquisitions, or strength of number of people converted to one’s side? Will it not be more correct to say that these two peoples possessing two books are sects, which are different from one another, while these “Hindu conglomeration of sects” do not contradict each other or fight with each other?

In case you have wish and will, you can discover for yourself that all the sects among Hindus are one on the central connecting point. Please, do not be hateful to Hindus.

You continue in your supposedly intellectual tirade against India. You said:

“In an effort to overcome these internal fissures, the early Hindu nationalists built a regimented anticolonial social movement in the 1920s, which later formed links with Italian and German fascism; the main branch was known as the RSS, from the Hindu words for “national organization of volunteers.” In place of black shirts and armbands, they wore khaki shorts and carried bamboo sticks. This association tainted them in the decades that followed, especially after so many British and Indian soldiers died fighting the Axis powers in World War II. Another serious blow came in 1948, when a Hindu nationalist zealot assassinated Mohandas Gandhi, modern India’s saintly father figure. Afterward, Nehru, Gandhi’s political heir, suppressed Hindu nationalist organizations and fostered his own countervailing conception of India as a pluralist, secular state. Although he was a Brahmin, Nehru was a passionate cosmopolitan who saw Hindu identity as narrow and tribal. He wanted India to be defined by its diversity, not by any one faith. It was an idea shaped in part by his British education at Harrow, Cambridge and the Inns of Court in London, and one shared by many of his peers. For decades after independence, India’s ruling class was mostly a “thin layer of brown Englishmen,” in the phrase of an Indian friend of mine who heard it from his grandfather, a friend of Nehru’s. They were patrician figures who rebelled successfully against the British but absorbed many of their ideas about how the country should be governed.

By the 1990s, Nehru’s Congress party had become almost synonymous with the Indian state, but his tolerant, worldly vision was starting to fray. The Hindu nationalist movement anointed the B.J.P. as its political vehicle, and the party slowly gained strength, fueled by perceptions of corruption and entitlement in the secular political elite.”

So, dear one, here comes your master stroke. You open your heart that is full of hate for Hindus. You say:

Early Hindu nationalists “later formed links with Italian and German fascism; the main branch was known as the RSS, from the Hindu words for ‘national organization of volunteers.’ In place of black shirts and armbands, they wore khaki shorts and carried bamboo sticks. This association tainted them in the decades that followed, especially after so many British and Indian soldiers died fighting the Axis powers in World War II” and if we make no mistake you mean here Subhash Chandra Bose, an iconic leader of Indian people then, both Hindus and Muslims. So, the RSS is no less in its design and mission than the Italian and German Fascism, except that the Indian variety wears khaki shorts and carried bamboo sticks in place of the Germanic ‘black shirts and armbands’!

Dear Robert, you are not naive not to know that Subhash Candra Bose was never a part of RSS (he was a Congress party member – and once its president) and that German fascism asserted Aryan supremacy by the strength of arms, war on other ‘inferior’ peoples and their subjugation to the ‘pure and Aryan’ Germans. Hitler had his ‘Mein Kampf” to guide him. Do you need to be told by us that the RSS has Gita in its hand, and not ‘Mein Kampf ‘ of Hitler? It (RSS) believes, as taught by Gita, that in every living being – including human beings – there is an ‘Atma’ (not ‘soul’, that goes to sleep after death), which has its right to do its ‘karma’ as it wills and nobody has any right to kill any person (the body that this ‘Atma’ wears like we wear cloths). This is the difference between the RSS of India and Fascism of Italy and Germany. This difference – the difference between Gita and ‘Mein Kampf’ – makes them pole apart. Surely, you could not have missed this difference. We request you not to spread canard against Hindus.

You seem to be not content with this much reviling of Indians, their faith and their state. Enough is not enough for you. You nurse a grudge against Hinduism, which you cannot resist. Your tirade continues:

“This narrative about yoga’s ancient roots has become a sacrament for Hindu nationalists, and it is echoed in the West. But it is mostly myth, an idealized origin story of the kind so many would-be nation-builders, from ancient Rome to the Zionists, have fostered about themselves. The oldest Hindu scriptures contain almost no mention of physical postures. Even the Yoga Sutras, the so-called bible of yoga, include only a few short verses suggesting comfortable postures for sitting. Many of the postures practiced in yoga today appear to have emerged in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Dozens of modern ashtanga yoga postures are similar or identical to those found in a gymnastic routine introduced to India by the British in the first decades of the 20th century and originally developed by a Danish fitness instructor named Niels Bukh, who later became notorious for his pro-Nazi sympathies. Bukh, needless to say, has been conveniently forgotten by both Indians and the yoga-loving celebrities of Hollywood.”

Your grudge is that the narrative of “yoga’s ancient roots” has become a sacrament for Hindus and even in the West. You proclaim that it is a “myth”; that the “oldest Hindu scriptures” make no mention of physical postures of yoga; that the Yoga Sutras include “only a few short verses” suggesting comfortable postures for sitting. And, then in your zeal to demolish this narrative of the olden roots of yoga, you declare, “Dozens of modern ashtanga yoga postures are similar or identical to those found in a gymnastic routine introduced to India by the British in the first decades of the 20th century and originally developed by a Danish fitness instructor Niels Bukh, who later became notorious for his pro-Nazi sympathies.” Thus, according to you the ashtanga yoga is recently sourced out of the Danish fitness instructor Niels Bukh!

When was ‘Yoga Sutra’ written? In this Sanskrit treatise, in the very first opening verse the definition of Yoga is given: Yoga is the disciplining of one’s psychological proclivities. But why discipline them? There is a purpose for that. Physical postures are the ‘means’ and not the ‘end’ in themselves; these have nothing to do with physical fitness – as you dear Robert or Niels Bukha might have thought. Physical postures are not the substance of Yoga. Yoga is something else, far removed from your imagination of physical fitness. And, it is a very old discipline; tons of old Sanskrit sacred books deal with this subject.

Robert F. Worth, as an admirer of Christian Missionaries work of conversion in India, has a great resentment against those Indians who try to re-convert the “converted Christians” to their thousands of years old faith. He says:

“The RSS has become more visible since Modi’s 2014 victory. The group and its affiliates have built hundreds of schools and job-training centers in Assam and other northeastern states in recent years. I visited several and saw unmistakable signs of the RSS ideological program. At one school, young children — some of whom had been raised Christian — recited Hindu prayers and sang songs to Lord Ram before starting their lessons, which include Sanskrit instruction.”

If children have been raised as Christians by handing them over Bible and praying to God, what is the objection of Robert F. Worth if those children are handed over a Ramayana in their other hand and compare the two to chose from? We suppose that the author knows that in this part of India in 1901, the Christian population was 00.50 % and now in 2001 it became 90%. Wow, dear Robert for you, who has objection to children praying to Rama, an incarnation of Divine, instead of God, the father of His only son Jesus Christ of Bible. If he does not know this conversion “achievement” of Christian Missiontaries in this part of India, let him visit this link and educate himself.

https://indianpeoplescongress.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/how-nehru-helped-convert-ne-to-christianity/

What is that which makes the likes of Robert F. Worth and the New York Times fear the new dispensation in India? It is not the alleged Hindu nationalism but something else. This fear of the types of Robert F. Worth and his New York Times is exposed by an American accounts professor at a seminar sponsored by CFA (Chartered Financial Accounts Association of America). The American accounts professor is talking  in this video about Modi’s clean governance and says that his commerce and diplomatic policies are superior to those of USA and that USA must fear him.

Watch the video:

 

This offending article may be read at this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/magazine/the-billionaire-yogi-behind-modis-rise.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Robots, Economics and Politics


                  By: Shreepal Singh
Nobody wants to work; it needs compulsion to make – to force – him or her to work. Work here means a productive activity that consumes one’s physical or mental energy. Nobody wants to work but he or she needs a multitude of items of basic necessities, and extended necessities. But all of these items need the work of humans (and now-a-days robots) to be produced. Nothing is free in this world and there is no item that does not cost something – an amount of work. Then, everybody has to be somehow compelled to work. Which way can one be compelled to work? There are many ways to do this and there are as many economic theories and political ideologies.

Work consumes energy, which energy is available in human’s biological body in a limited quantity and needs replenishment again and again on daily basis. It requires food and other items to replenish this energy and keep this physical human body healthy and its reservoir of energy inexhaustible, which food and items are not available for free. It is a cycle of give and take and one has to pay (in the form of work) for what one gets for replenishing one’s reservoir of energy. Human biology forces him to conserve his energy by avoiding work or at least by minimizing this work.

If you allow a person the right to take work from others, and the right to fire if these others do not work, then it is capitalism – an economic theory – of democracy, a political ideology.

If you allow the state – as against an individual – the right to take work from its citizens, and the right to physically coerce these citizens in case they do not work, then it is collective commune – an economic theory – of socialism or communism, a political ideology.

If you allow the king – and lords or zamindars under him – the right to take work from his subjects, and the right to confiscate land, houses, household items if these subjects do not work, then it is feudalism – an economic theory – of monarchy, a political ideology.

If you allow the tribe – as against an individual, state or king – the right to take work from the members of its community, and the right to deny a share in the common produce of the tribe, then it is primitive economy of the tribal society.

We do not want to work but we need to work. This has been our story so far – from the cave dwelling days to the days of modern technology. But now robots have come on the scene to take over this need to work. It is an entry of a new factor in human society. Humanity has to reconcile itself with the new situation. The story that has been so far has to change in some way. It is a turning point in our story. Which way we need to change the direction, is the matter of great importance that we will have to consider very soon.

Imran Khan, a Don Juan, Will Dance to the Tune of Rogue Pakistani Army


Parmanand Pandey, Secretary General: IPC

     Mr Imran Khan, a Don Juan, is now set to become the new Prime Minister of Pakistan as his Pakistan Tahrik-e- Insaf (PTI) has emerged the largest party in the National Assembly. He is famous in the entire cricketing world, particularly in Pakistan, India and England. His image of a philanthropist and a corruption-free politician has also helped his Party to win the largest number of seats. However, what has helped him most in coming to power is Pakistani Army. The Army will now rule with a remote control having a civilian face as the Prime Minister, who is more a Casanova than a politician. He will be nothing more than the puppet of the Pakistani Army.

       He made his foray into politics some two decades ago and now he has achieved his ambition to head a state which is a known rouge state all over the world. What has disappointed most the people all over the world was his address to the nation the day it became clear that he was sure to become the Prime Minister. His address to the nation made it crystal clear he would be a handmaiden Prime Minister of the all-powerful army of Pakistan, which is known for its phenomenal notoriety for providing safe haven to terrorists in Pakistan.

    The debonair politician has not spoken a word against the terrorists like Hafiz Saeed or even against the fugitive and a bully like Parvez Musharraf, who still continues to enjoy the support of the Army. As everybody in India knows that it was the late General Zia-ul-Haque and Parvez Musharraf, who throttled the democracy. In fact, democracy has never been able to take roots in Pakistan right from its inception. There is no doubt that Nawaz Sharif was a corrupt Prime Minister but so have been all politicians and other establishments of Pakistan without exception. Almost all Army Officers of any significance in Pakistan live like feudal Lords because they have amassed the enormous amount of wealth through corrupt means. A novice like Mr Imran Khan is, therefore, the most suitable and pliant person for the Army to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

     With the amount of popularity that he enjoys in India, it was expected that this man would work for the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan, but his speech dashed all hopes as it was so disappointing that nothing can be hoped from him. Now it is clear that he will play and dance only to the tune of the Army. In his speech, he spoke like a parrot on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir as was dictated by the Army. He has not spoken a word against the Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations which export terror to other countries, particularly to India. Obviously, because these terror outfits are nurtured by the vagrant and in-disciplined Army. It is hoped that he will avoid adopting the misadventures of the Army, which resulted in the vivisection of Pakistan in 1971 and crushing defeat during the Kargil war.

    However, it will be too much to expect anything innovative from this womaniser Prime Minister. It is an open secret that the Pakistani Army rigged the elections in favour of Imran Khan. His address on television was shocking as he relegated India to the last step of the ladder of his priorities. Even Afghanistan and Iran were kept above India. China was eulogized by him as his Army masters wanted him to do.

    Sometimes it is seen that even newcomers in the power politics do wonderful works but that is when they have an independent mind. Here, in this case, Imran Khan’s mind has already been toxified against India by the corrupt Army.

    Let us see what is in store for Pakistan under his premiership. As they say that ‘coming events cast their shadows before’, therefore, we in India cannot expect much from Imran Khan. India will have to be vigilant as the notorious may again create mischiefs behind the veneer of this seducer of women, Imran Khan.

Economic History of India: 1 AD to 2017


By: K.I.P.

The Economic history of India is one that evokes strong reactions. It is a topic on which the reactions of both the Right and Left are at odds with the mainstream view of economists. Let’s study the principal reactions, and in the process survey the Economic history of India! There are 3 views of reflecting different reactions:

  1. Mainstream view : India was a subsistence economy for much of its history until it started growing in the past 3-4 decades
  2. Nationalist view (Right): Ancient India was a Sone ki Chidiya (Golden Bird) which was impoverished by Muslim and later British rule

  3. Nationalist view (Left): Mughal India was a Sone ki Chidiya (Golden Bird) which was badly impoverished by colonial era free trade, and has recovered since independence.

All these three views have their merit, in parts, though I am most critical of the third view reflecting the Indian Left’s reaction. Before we get into the details, let’s get a macro-view of the Indian economy over the past 2000 years, as per Angus Maddison – a mainstream British economist.

This chart is based on Maddison’s famous paper in 2001 titled “The World Economy – A Millennial Perspective”. The chart comes from this link –

And the paper can be accessed here –

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

Here’s a chart that sums up Maddison’s PPP-adjusted PCI estimates for India in 1990 international $

Here’s an examination of Maddison’s chart in more concrete terms using precise numbers, in a table (which I have updated till 2017). It is one little excel table that is more provocative than most tables on India. Let’s study it closely.

So we know that Maddison’s view corresponds to the “Mainstream” view we have outlined at the start – India was not much richer than a subsistence economy from 1 AD right up to 1973. Its share of world GDP was merely a reflection of its population share.

But Maddison is not stating this about India per se. His view that right up to the Industrial Revolution, GDP shares merely reflected the Population share, is held across all geographies.

It is in line with the orthodox Malthusian perspective. Let’s examine more.

Here’s Maddison on the Per-capita GDPs across many parts of the world in 1 AD and 1000 AD.

It is a problematic chart – as we will discuss soon.

What is remarkable about the above chart is that Maddison doesn’t explicitly discuss (at least in the paper) on why he places India or the current “US” at $450 in 1AD.

There appears to be an implicit Malthusian assumption.

But these numbers contradict our historical understanding. We all know that back in the year 1 AD, North America was a wilderness, and a hunter gatherer society. India was a society with large empires, considerable urbanization, copious literature, among other things. Western Europe was a part of the massive Roman Empire!

Yet as per Maddison, Western Europe, India and China (three very advanced societies in many ways) were only marginally richer than the hunter gatherers in North America!

It seems incredible, yet nobody has challenged Maddison sufficiently on this yet. Will a society close to subsistence have the surpluses necessary to produce  Mahabharata, Ramayana, Manu Smriti, Arthashastra, Aeneid, Homeric epics, Bible and numerous other Latin / Greek works?

Question worth asking is: Back in 200CE, the population of the city of Rome was estimated to be 1MM inhabitants. The population of Pataliputra at the height of the Gupta period in circa 400 CE is also estimated to be several hundred thousands. These were extremely large cities. Yet Maddison regards India, China and Western Europe to be not much richer than the hunter-gatherers of America 2000 years ago!

This suggests a somewhat slavish adherence to the Malthusian maxim, that appears to be in defiance of historical records and memory.

As per Broadberry / Bishnupriya, there was quite a significant decline in Per-capita GDP between 1600 and 1800. And this was the period of Mughal zenith! So clearly the numbers here don’t speak too well for Mughal India.

1600 PCI : $682 (this was when Akbar ruled over North India, but not the South)
1700 PCI : $622 (clearly a decline….a period when Mughal empire covered all of India)
1800 PCI : $569 (after a century of anarchy and Mughal decline, but still preceding pan Indian British rule)

So clearly the decline of the Indian economy started long before the establishment of British Raj, and coincides with the heyday of the Mughal Empire.

In fact it is striking that PCI in India in 1600 (at the start of the decline) at $682 was higher than the PCI in 1950 of $619!

Now let’s look at the last 500 years. Let’s compare the estimates of Braoadberry, Bishnupriya and Custodis (2014) with those of Maddison. Their paper can be accessed here –

https://t.co/J0vk1nmLDM?amp=1

Also when we discuss India as a whole, the regional variation is something that has to be borne in mind.

Circa 1800 while Indian PCI is estimated to be close to $500, the PCI of Mysore was estimated to be well in excess of $1500 and close to $2000 (by Sashi Sivaramakrishna)

But what’s undeniable however is that all data points to a decline starting 1600 and continuing unabated till 1870s. And we must be careful to note that the first part of this long period of decline actually corresponds to Mughal heyday and precedes the Empire’s decline!

And now coming to the absolutely best part: Economic history post 1870.

As you can see growth resumes circa 1870. But then this is also the period of the Industrial Revolution, when the gap between the West and the rest massively widened because of industrial revolution & subsequent colonization.

Conclusion:

1) India was on average a developed society till Islamic invasions started.

2) Mughal empire did not generate wealth as is commonly claimed by leftist historians but collapsed it.

3) Socialist policies pursued by India post independence period lead to a worse gap in income between west and India than it was during the hay days of colonial loot.

So what had happened to India after  the period of colonization was over? One would expect the growth of India to be faster than  it was during the colonization period! Correct? No!

Socialist policies pursued by the first PM  of India made gap between India and west wider than what it was during hey days of  the British Raj!

In fact the gap between India and the West was way bigger circa 1998 and even marginally bigger in 2017 than in 1870, that is, during the heyday of the British Raj.

In fact the gap between US and Indian per-capita incomes was much wider in 1998 than in 1950! And it is almost twice as wide in 2017 as it was in 1870!

This helps us understand why there is so much rage against the era of Nehru-Gandhi rule from 1950 till 1990.

Sure, the “Nehruvian” growth rates were higher than growth rates at any point in Indian history. Yet they were awfully low relative to the growth rates in the rest of the world.

So while India did start growing post 1870, we have only regressed in a relative sense, because we have been totally out of step with the pace being set in much of the developed world.

सनातन धर्म मे नारी का बहुत ऊँचा स्थान है !


वेद नारी को अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण, गरिमामय, उच्च स्थान प्रदान करते हैं| वेदों में स्त्रियों की शिक्षा- दीक्षा, शील, गुण, कर्तव्य, अधिकार और सामाजिक भूमिका का जो सुन्दर वर्णन पाया जाता है, वैसा संसार के अन्य किसी धर्मग्रंथ में नहीं है| वेदों में नारी को दिए गए इस ऊँचे स्थान के महत्त्व को हम तभी समझ सकते हैं जब हम इसकी तुलना अन्य उन सभी धर्म ग्रंथों से करते हैं जहाँ नारी को “पुरुष के आधे के बराबर”, “पर्दे  के भीतर बंद रखने की चीज”, “अकेले ही अपने मर्द के बिना घूमने पर पाबन्दी”, “अनजान मर्दों से मिलने और बात करने की मनाही” या “पाप की जड़” आदि बताया गया है।

वेद उन्हें घर की सम्राज्ञी कहते हैं और देश की शासक, पृथ्वी की सम्राज्ञी तक बनने का अधिकार देते हैं। वेदों में स्त्री यज्ञीय है अर्थात् यज्ञ समान पूजनीय। वेदों में नारी को ज्ञान देने वाली, सुख – समृद्धि लाने वाली, विशेष तेज वाली, देवी, विदुषी, सरस्वती, इन्द्राणी, उषा- जो सबको जगाती है इत्यादि अनेक आदर सूचक नाम दिए गए हैं।

वेदों में स्त्रियों पर किसी प्रकार का प्रतिबन्ध नहीं है – उसे सदा विजयिनी कहा गया है और उन के हर काम में सहयोग और प्रोत्साहन की बात कही गई है। वैदिक काल में नारी अध्यन- अध्यापन से लेकर रणक्षेत्र में भी जाती थी। जैसे कैकयी महाराज दशरथ के साथ युद्ध में गई थी।

कन्या को अपना पति स्वयं चुनने का अधिकार देकर वेद पुरुष से एक कदम आगे ही रखते हैं। अनेक ऋषिकाएं वेद मंत्रों की द्रष्टा हैं – अपाला, घोषा, सरस्वती, सर्पराज्ञी, सूर्या, सावित्री, अदिति- दाक्षायनी, लोपामुद्रा, विश्ववारा, आत्रेयी आदि।

तथापि, जिन्होनें वेदों के दर्शन भी नहीं किए, ऐसे कुछ रीढ़ की हड्डी विहीन बुद्धिवादियों ने इस देश की सभ्यता, संस्कृति को नष्ट – भ्रष्ट करने का जो अभियान चला रखा है – उसके तहत वेदों में नारी की अवमानना का ढ़ोल पीटते रहते हैं। आइए, वेदों में नारी के स्वरुप की झलक इन मंत्रों में देखें –

यजुर्वेद २०.९
स्त्री और पुरुष दोनों को शासक चुने जाने का समान अधिकार है।

यजुर्वेद १७.४५
स्त्रियों की भी सेना हो | स्त्रियों को युद्ध में भाग लेने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करें।

यजुर्वेद १०.२६
शासकों की स्त्रियां अन्यों को राजनीति की शिक्षा दें | जैसे राजा, लोगों का न्याय करते हैं वैसे ही रानी भी न्याय करने वाली हों।

अथर्ववेद ११.५.१८
ब्रह्मचर्य सूक्त के इस मंत्र में कन्याओं के लिए भी ब्रह्मचर्य और विद्या ग्रहण करने के बाद ही विवाह करने के लिए कहा गया है | यह सूक्त लड़कों के समान ही कन्याओं की शिक्षा को भी विशेष महत्त्व देता है।

कन्याएं ब्रह्मचर्य के सेवन से पूर्ण विदुषी और युवती होकर ही विवाह करें।

अथर्ववेद १४.१.६
माता- पिता अपनी कन्या को पति के घर जाते समय बुद्धीमत्ता और विद्याबल का उपहार दें | वे उसे ज्ञान का दहेज़ दें।

जब कन्याएं बाहरी उपकरणों को छोड़ कर, भीतरी विद्या बल से चैतन्य स्वभाव और पदार्थों को दिव्य दृष्टि से देखने वाली और आकाश और भूमि से सुवर्ण आदि प्राप्त करने – कराने वाली हो तब सुयोग्य पति से विवाह करे।

अथर्ववेद १४.१.२०
हे पत्नी ! हमें ज्ञान का उपदेश कर। वधू अपनी विद्वत्ता और शुभ गुणों से पति के घर में सब को प्रसन्न कर दे।

अथर्ववेद ७.४६.३
पति को संपत्ति कमाने के तरीके बता। संतानों को पालने वाली, निश्चित ज्ञान वाली, सह्त्रों स्तुति वाली और चारों ओर प्रभाव डालने वाली स्त्री, तुम ऐश्वर्य पाती हो। हे सुयोग्य पति की पत्नी, अपने पति को संपत्ति के लिए आगे बढ़ाओ।

अथर्ववेद ७.४७.१
हे स्त्री ! तुम सभी कर्मों को जानती हो। हे स्त्री ! तुम हमें ऐश्वर्य और समृद्धि दो।

अथर्ववेद ७.४७.२

तुम सब कुछ जानने वाली हमें धन – धान्य से समर्थ कर दो। हे स्त्री ! तुम हमारे धन और समृद्धि को बढ़ाओ।

अथर्ववेद ७.४८.२

तुम हमें बुद्धि से धन दो। विदुषी, सम्माननीय, विचारशील, प्रसन्नचित्त पत्नी संपत्ति की रक्षा और वृद्धि करती है और घर में सुख़ लाती है।

अथर्ववेद १४.१.६४

हे स्त्री ! तुम हमारे घर की प्रत्येक दिशा में ब्रह्म अर्थात् वैदिक ज्ञान का प्रयोग करो। हे वधू ! विद्वानों के घर में पहुंच कर कल्याणकारिणी और सुखदायिनी होकर तुम विराजमान हो।

अथर्ववेद २.३६.५

हे वधू ! तुम ऐश्वर्य की नौका पर चढ़ो और अपने पति को जो कि तुमने स्वयं पसंद किया है, संसार – सागर के पार पहुंचा दो। हे वधू ! ऐश्वर्य कि अटूट नाव पर चढ़ और अपने पति को सफ़लता के तट पर ले चल।

अथर्ववेद १.१४.३

हे वर ! यह वधू तुम्हारे कुल की रक्षा करने वाली है। हे वर ! यह कन्या तुम्हारे कुल की रक्षा करने वाली है। यह बहुत काल तक तुम्हारे घर में निवास करे और बुद्धिमत्ता के बीज बोये।

अथर्ववेद २.३६.३

यह वधू पति के घर जा कर रानी बने और वहां प्रकाशित हो।

अथर्ववेद ११.१.१७

ये स्त्रियां शुद्ध, पवित्र और यज्ञीय ( यज्ञ समान पूजनीय ) हैं, ये प्रजा, पशु और अन्न देतीं हैं। यह स्त्रियां शुद्ध स्वभाव वाली, पवित्र आचरण वाली, पूजनीय, सेवा योग्य, शुभ चरित्र वाली और विद्वत्तापूर्ण हैं। यह समाज को प्रजा, पशु और सुख़ पहुँचाती हैं।

अथर्ववेद १२.१.२५

हे मातृभूमि ! कन्याओं में जो तेज होता है, वह हमें दो। स्त्रियों में जो सेवनीय ऐश्वर्य और कांति है, हे भूमि ! उस के साथ हमें भी मिला।

अथर्ववेद १२.२.३१

स्त्रियां कभी दुख से रोयें नहीं, इन्हें निरोग रखा जाए और रत्न, आभूषण इत्यादि पहनने को दिए जाएं।

अथर्ववेद १४.१.२०

हे वधू ! तुम पति के घर में जा कर गृहपत्नी और सब को वश में रखने वाली बनों।

अथर्ववेद १४.१.५०

हे पत्नी ! अपने सौभाग्य के लिए मैं तेरा हाथ पकड़ता हूं।

अथर्ववेद १४.२ .२६

हे वधू ! तुम कल्याण करने वाली हो और घरों को उद्देश्य तक पहुंचाने वाली हो।

अथर्ववेद १४.२.७१

हे पत्नी ! मैं ज्ञानवान हूं तू भी ज्ञानवती है, मैं सामवेद हूं तो तू ऋग्वेद है।

अथर्ववेद १४.२.७४

यह वधू विराट अर्थात् चमकने वाली है, इस ने सब को जीत लिया है।

यह वधू बड़े ऐश्वर्य वाली और पुरुषार्थिनी हो।

अथर्ववेद ७.३८.४ और १२.३.५२

सभा और समिति में जा कर स्त्रियां भाग लें और अपने विचार प्रकट करें।

ऋग्वेद १०.८५.७

माता- पिता अपनी कन्या को पति के घर जाते समय बुद्धिमत्ता और विद्याबल उपहार में दें। माता- पिता को चाहिए कि वे अपनी कन्या को दहेज़ भी दें तो वह ज्ञान का दहेज़ हो।

ऋग्वेद ३.३१.१

पुत्रों की ही भांति पुत्री भी अपने पिता की संपत्ति में समान रूप से उत्तराधिकारी है।

ऋग्वेद १० .१ .५९

एक गृहपत्नी प्रात : काल उठते ही अपने उद् गार कहती है ” यह सूर्य उदय हुआ है, इस के साथ ही मेरा सौभाग्य भी ऊँचा चढ़ निकला है। मैं अपने घर और समाज की ध्वजा हूं , उस की मस्तक हूं । मैं भारी व्यख्यात्री हूं। मेरे पुत्र शत्रु -विजयी हैं। मेरी पुत्री संसार में चमकती है। मैं स्वयं दुश्मनों को जीतने वाली हूं। मेरे पति का असीम यश है। मैंने वह त्याग किया है जिससे इन्द्र (सम्राट ) विजय पता है। मुझेभी विजय मिली है। मैंने अपने शत्रु नि:शेष कर दिए हैं।

वह सूर्य ऊपर आ गया है और मेरा सौभाग्य भी ऊँचा हो गया है। मैं जानती हूं , अपने प्रतिस्पर्धियों को जीतकर मैंने पति के प्रेम को फ़िर से पा लिया है।

मैं प्रतीक हूं , मैं शिर हूं , मैं सबसे प्रमुख हूं और अब मैं कहती हूं कि मेरी इच्छा के अनुसार ही मेरा पति आचरण करे। प्रतिस्पर्धी मेरा कोई नहीं है।

मेरे पुत्र मेरे शत्रुओं को नष्ट करने वाले हैं , मेरी पुत्री रानी है , मैं विजयशील हूं। मेरे और मेरे पति के प्रेम की व्यापक प्रसिद्धि है।

ओ प्रबुद्ध ! मैंने उस अर्ध्य को अर्पण किया है , जो सबसे अधिक उदाहरणीय है और इस तरह मैं सबसे अधिक प्रसिद्ध और सामर्थ्यवान हो गई हूं। मैंने स्वयं को अपने प्रतिस्पर्धियों से मुक्त कर लिया है।

मैं प्रतिस्पर्धियों से मुक्त हो कर, अब प्रतिस्पर्धियों की विध्वंसक हूं और विजेता हूं। मैंने दूसरों का वैभव ऐसे हर लिया है जैसे की वह न टिक पाने वाले कमजोर बांध हों ।मैंने मेरे प्रतिस्पर्धियों पर विजय प्राप्त कर ली है। जिससे मैं इस नायक और उस की प्रजा पर यथेष्ट शासन चला सकती हूं।”

इस मंत्र की ऋषिका और देवता दोनों हो शची हैं। शची इन्द्राणी है, शची स्वयं में राज्य की सम्राज्ञी है ( जैसे कि कोई महिला प्रधानमंत्री या राष्ट्राध्यक्ष हो )। उस के पुत्र – पुत्री भी राज्य के लिए समर्पित हैं।

ऋग्वेद १.१६४.४१

ऐसे निर्मल मन वाली स्त्री जिसका मन एक पारदर्शी स्फटिक जैसे परिशुद्ध जल की तरह हो वह एक वेद, दो वेद या चार वेद , आयुर्वेद, धनुर्वेद, गांधर्ववेद , अर्थवेद इत्यादि के साथ ही छ : वेदांगों – शिक्षा, कल्प, व्याकरण, निरुक्त, ज्योतिष और छंद : को प्राप्त करे और इस वैविध्यपूर्ण ज्ञान को अन्यों को भी दे।

हे स्त्री पुरुषों ! जो एक वेद का अभ्यास करने वाली वा दो वेद जिसने अभ्यास किए वा चार वेदों की पढ़ने वाली वा चार वेद और चार उपवेदों की शिक्षा से युक्त वा चार वेद, चार उपवेद और व्याकरण आदि शिक्षा युक्त, अतिशय कर के विद्याओं में प्रसिद्ध होती और असंख्यात अक्षरों वाली होती हुई सब से उत्तम, आकाश के समान व्याप्त निश्चल परमात्मा के निमित्त प्रयत्न करती है और गौ स्वर्ण युक्त विदुषी स्त्रियों को शब्द कराती अर्थात् जल के समान निर्मल वचनों को छांटती अर्थात् अविद्यादी दोषों को अलग करती हुई वह संसार के लिए अत्यंत सुख करने वाली होती है।

ऋग्वेद १०.८५.४६

स्त्री को परिवार और पत्नी की महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका में चित्रित किया गया है | इसी तरह, वेद स्त्री की सामाजिक, प्रशासकीय और राष्ट्र की सम्राज्ञी के रूप का वर्णन भी करते हैं।

ऋग्वेद के कई सूक्त उषा का देवता के रूप में वर्णन करते हैं और इस उषा को एक आदर्श स्त्री के रूप में माना गया है।

कृपया पं श्रीपाद दामोदर सातवलेकर द्वारा लिखित ” उषा देवता “, ऋग्वेद का सुबोध भाष्य देखें |

सारांश (पृ १२१ – १४७ ) –

१. स्त्रियां वीर हों | ( पृ १२२, १२८)

२. स्त्रियां सुविज्ञ हों | ( पृ १२२)

३. स्त्रियां यशस्वी हों | (पृ १२३)

४. स्त्रियां रथ पर सवारी करें | ( पृ १२३)

५. स्त्रियां विदुषी हों | ( पृ १२३)

६. स्त्रियां संपदा शाली और धनाढ्य हों | ( पृ १२५)

७.स्त्रियां बुद्धिमती और ज्ञानवती हों | ( पृ १२६)

८. स्त्रियां परिवार ,समाज की रक्षक हों और सेना में जाएं | (पृ १३४, १३६ )

९. स्त्रियां तेजोमयी हों | ( पृ १३७)

१०.स्त्रियां धन-धान्य और वैभव देने वाली हों | ( पृ १४१-१४६)

Rahul’s Ridiculous Conduct Lowered the Dignity of Lok Sabha


Parmanand Pandey, Secretary-General : IPC
The puerile behaviour of Shri Rahul Gandhi on the floor of the Lok Sabha has become a butt of joke across the Country. Immediately after finishing his speech Shri Gandhi left his seat, crossed the aisle to reach the Prime Minister and forcibly hugged him. The Prime Minister was startled, and the entire Country was stunned over this dramatics of Shri Gandhi.
His ridiculous behaviour and acting became an instant delight for the cartoonists and meme generators. Millions of others are angry over it for belittling the seriousness of debate in the Lok Sabha by a person who himself is aspiring to become the Prime Minister of the country.
The Prime minister’s position is highly exalted one in the parliamentary democracy and, that too, of the Prime Minister of India who is the leader of more than 13 hundred million people.
Rahul Gandhi wanted the Prime Minister to get up and hug him, but the Prime Minister maintained the dignity, sobriety and equanimity and did not do what Mr Gandhi wanted him to do, albeit, he patted him like an avuncular statesman.
Low and behold! After coming to his seat Mr Gandhi made another spectacle of himself by winking and suggesting to one of his party members that how he has made a joke of the Prime Minister by hugging him after delivering his speech. This exposed him further that how idiotically (not in a derogatory sense but in the sense, it is used under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code) he can behave in the public life.
The Prime Minister in his speech made a big fun of the childish behaviour of Mr Gandhi, thanks to his exceptional oratorical skill.
Rahul Gandhi, although a Parliamentarian of many terms, must learn to behave in a manner befitting of a leader of a national party. There is no need to go into the speeches of politicians because there was hardly any substance and the issues highlighted by them could not appeal to anybody. Most of them spoke the clichés and the Prime Minister debunked them. In fact, this no-confidence motion came as a blessing in disguise to the Prime Minister, who used the opportunity to the hilt in exposing the shallowness of the opposition and in enumerating the achievements of his government.
This was, therefore, like a windfall for Shri Narendra Modi who addressed the country and successfully reached in millions of houses without any efforts.

भारतीय संसद में गरीमा और हिमाकत का मिलन !


संजय कुमावत

भारत की संसद मे कल 19 जुलाई   2018 को एक अजीब सीन देखने को मिला । यह भारत और उसके प्रधानमंत्री की गरीमा का एक औछे संसद-सदस्य राहुल गांधी की दिखावटी सदाशयता के मुखोटे के पीछे छुपी हिमाकत का मिलन था।

लोकसभा में अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर राहुल गांधी के नुक्कड़छाप भाषण के बाद जो हुआ, वह लोकतंत्र को कलंकित करने वाला है! यह तो हमें प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का आभार व्यक्त करना चाहिए कि उन्होंने प्रधानमंत्री पद के रुतबे को झुकने नहीं दिया, अन्यथा कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष राहुल गांधी ने तो पूरी कोशिश की थी कि उन्हें अपने इशारे पर सीट से उठाकर देश को यह संदेश दे कि प्रधानमंत्री कोई भी बन जाए, आदेश तो गांधी परिवार का ही चलेगा! लोकतंत्र के चुने हुए प्रधानमंत्री ने राजतंत्र के अहंकारी युवराज को झुका दिया!

झूठ के आधार पर गढ़े हुए अपने भाषण के बाद राहुल गांधी प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी की ओर बढ़े, इसे सभी ने लोकसभा चैनल पर देखा। लेकिन जनता और तथाकथित मीडिया बुद्धिजीवियों ने एक बार नोट नहीं किया, या फिर जानबूझ कर उसकी उपेक्षा की। वह एक क्षण था, जिसने साफ-साफ लोकतंत्र और राजतंत्र की मानसिकता के बीच के अंतर को स्पष्ट कर दिया।

प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के पास पहुंच कर राहुल गांधी ने हाथ से बार-बार इशारा कर उन्हें अपनी सीट से उठने को कहा। एक नहीं, दो नहीं, तीन बार उन्होंने हाथ दिखाकर प्रधानमंत्री को अपनी सीट से उठने को कहा ! आश्चर्य है कि किसी ने भी इस ओर ध्यान क्यों नहीं दिया? प्रधानमंत्री का पद इस लोकतंत्र का सबसे बड़ा पद है। राजसत्ता की मानसिकता वाला कोई गांधी इसका अपमान नहीं कर सकता है। पूर्व प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह को जिस तरह से सोनिया-राहुल उठ-बैठ कराते थे, वही कोशिश राहुल गांधी ने नरेंद्र मोदी से कराना चाहा, लेकिन यह मोदी हैं, जिन्होंने सदन में प्रवेश करने के बाद उसे लोकतंत्र का मंदिर कहा था, उसकी चौखट को चूमा था।

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ने भी इशारा किया कि किसलिए उठूं? और क्यों उठूं? मोदी के चेहरे पर उस वक्त की कठोरता नोट करने लायक थी और वह कठोरता प्रधानमंत्री पद की गरिमा को बनाए रखने के कारण उत्पन्न हुई थी। राहुल को समझ में आ गया कि यह व्यक्ति मनमोहन सिंह नहीं है जो उसके कहने पर किसी ‘नट’ की तरह नाचे। थक-हार कर राहुल गांधी झुका और जबरदस्ती पीएम मोदी के गले पड़ गया। इसके बाद फिर वह अहंकारी पीछे मुड़ कर चलने लगा। गले मिलना उसे कहते हैं, जिसमें सदाशयता हो, उसे नहीं, जिसमें अहंकार हो। अहंकार से गले मिलने को गले पड़ना कहते हैं। राहुल गांधी पीएम से गले नहीं मिला, बल्कि उनक गले पड़ा !

पीएम के गले पड़कर वह मुड़ा और जाने लगा। पीएम मोदी ने उसे आवाज देकर बुलाया और सीट पर बैठे-बैठे ही उससे हाथ मिलाया, मुस्कुराए, उसकी पीठ ठोंकी, उसे शाबासी दी! बिल्कुल एक अभिभावक की तरह !
राहुल गांधी पीएम मोदी से गले मिलने नहीं, बल्कि वह गले पड़ने गया था। उन्हें आदेश देकर अपनी सीट से उठने के लिए कहने गया था।

मेरा मानना है कि नरेंद्र मोदी के अलावा खुद भाजपा का भी कोई दूसरा नेता होता तो गांधी परिवार के इस अहंकारी उद्दंड राजनेता के कहने पर उठ कर खड़ा हो गया होता! देखा नहीं आपने, जब राहुल गांधी पीएम मोदी के पास आए तो पिछली सीट पर बैठे कितने ही सारे भाजपाई नेता उठ कर खड़े हो गये थे, ताली बजा रहे थे! दरअसल यह सब पीएम नरेंद्र मोदी के नाम पर जीत कर आए हैं, लेकिन बीमारी तो वही कांग्रेस वाली लगी है, किसी वंश या परिवार की चाकरी करने की!

इस मामले को लोकसभा अध्यक्ष सुमित्रा महाजन ने भी नोट किया कि राहुल गांधी ने सदन और प्रधानमंत्री पद की गरिमा का हनन करने का प्रयास किया है। सुमित्रा महाजन ने बाद में सदन में कहा, “जिस तरह राहुल गांधी प्रधानमंत्री के पास पहुंचे, उन्हें उठने को कहा, वह अशोभनीय था। प्रधानमंत्री अपनी सीट पर बैठे थे। वह कोई नरेंद्र मोदी नहीं हैं, बल्कि देश के प्रधानमंत्री हैं। उस पद की अपनी गरिमा है। इसके बाद राहुल उनके पास से जाकर अपनी सीट पर फिर से भाषण देने लगे और आंख मारा, यह पूरे सदन की गरिमा के खिलाफ था।”

अपने अध्यक्ष की अशोभनीय आचरण को ढंकने के लिए एक गुलाम की भांति कांग्रेस के नेता मल्लिकार्जुन खड़गे ने लोकसभा अध्यक्ष के कहे पर आपत्ति दर्ज कराना चाहा। इस पर लोकसभा अध्यक्ष सुमित्रा महाजन ने कहा, “मैं किसी को गले मिलने से थोड़े न रोक रहीं हूं। मैं भी एक मां हूं। मेरे लिए तो राहुल एक बेटे के समान ही हैं। लेकिन एक मां के नाते उसकी कमजोरियों को ठीक करना भी मेरा दायित्व है। सदन की गरिमा को हम सबको ही बनाए रखनी है।”

इसके उपरांत गृहमंत्री राजनाथ सिंह ने थोड़ा दार्शनिक अंदाज में राहुल की हरकतों पर कटाक्ष कहते हुए कहा, “जिसकी आत्मा संशय में घिर जाती है, उसके अंदर अहंकार पैदा हो जाता है। यही आज सदन में देखने को मिला है।”

प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी, यह लोकतंत्र आपका आभारी है कि आप अपनी सीट पर बैठे रहे। यह हमारे वोट का सम्मान है। हमने लोकतंत्र के लिए अपना प्रधानमंत्री चुना है, कोई कठपुतली नहीं। कोई प्रधानमंत्री यदि राजशाही के अहंकार वाले किसी व्यक्ति के लिए अपनी सीट से उठ जाए तो यह न केवल प्रधानमंत्री पद के सम्मान का और सदन की गरिमा का अपमान होगा, बल्कि देश की उन सभी जनता का अपमान होगा, जिसे लोकतंत्र में आस्था है और जिसने अपने प्रधानमंत्री के लिए मतदान किया है। धन्यवाद प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी, एक अहंकारी उद्दंड को उसकी औकात दिखाने के लिए !

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: