Month: May 2014

Finally, though, the marauding Muslims
had been dealt a blow for all of history’s crimes. From Chengiz to Babur
and Jinnah to Dawood, everything had been avenged in one fell swoop.
And for this they gave credit to one man. Narendra Modi. For once a
Hindu had stood up, and how.
   
We can add the Bangladesh genocide and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pak/Bangla and many others to that long bloody list (see also Tipu Sultan). Never forget, their heroes are our villains.

The Muslims do not really have much with which to retaliate with against this tidal wave of hate: respond with bombs or threats of partition, and the backlash is (will be) overwhelming. The only option is to sue for peace and to live in ghettos (the Sri Lankan model). 

Sad to say, this is how things will be, from now on to infinity. Hindus will (have already) disappear from a large part of the South Asian land-mass. The muslims will face the sword of injustice everywhere, in India for just being a muslim, in Pakistan (and Bangladesh) for being the wrong type of muslim. 

We actually agree with Arundhati Roy that the new govt does not have an agenda for explicit harm towards muslims, but there are many indirect ways in which the screws can be tightened.

How about Muslims joining hands with the other minorities – the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Buddhists and the Parsis to face a common threat? Sorry, it is not going to happen. The Christians are secure in their fortresses in the South and in the North-East (except the tribal communities dispersed all over, and even in that case, elite Christians do not have much sympathy to spare) . The Sikhs are already in alliance with the Hindu Brotherhood. The Jains and Parsis are actually pillars of the Brotherhood, they are some of the biggest supporters of Modi.

Not to forget, the Muslims are at fault as well. Everywhere in South Asia, and if history is any guide, there is not one minority community which will feel inclined to be friendly or accommodative towards muslims. If Muslims in India can harass Tibetans because of what is happening to Rohingyas in Burma, then why should any neo-Buddhist feel kindly towards them?

Our only quibble with Anand Soondas is that Congress knows why it failed the Indian people, but it will not have the guts to do a proper introspection and take necessary steps for re-invention. As a wise BPite says, Congress is doomed with the N-G family at the top, and it is equally doomed without them.
…….

…..
Link: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/onefortheroad/the-making-of-narendra-modi-unmaking-of-india/
…..

regards

We have something to add to the points that Anand makes so well. There is now a perception (amongst politicians and much of the elite class) that India is being unfairly targeted by the media. 

Rapes happen everywhere (it may even happen at a higher frequency someplace else), so why the spotlight on India? 

And why are journalists (part of the elite class themselves, many of them foreigners) being so insensitive: “Aapko toh khatra nahin hua?”
….
The competition was tough from the word go — Smriti Irani’s
discrepancies in her affidavits, Modi’s man Nripendra Misra getting the
top job with the help of a hurriedly drafted ordinance, DDA lining up
27,000 flats, the row over Article 370, IPL 7 entering the final lap. 

The two little girls, sisters as it turned out, in faraway Badaun in
Uttar Pradesh who were raped, beaten and hung from a tree didn’t stand a
chance even in such medievally administered death to make it to the
front pages of Delhi’s big newspapers.



One had it as a small single column inside on day 1, the other, also a
national daily, as a brief, again in an inside page. That such things
happen in today’s India, in 2014, and that such barbarism continues to
exist in a country whose first-world aspirations have just decimated a
non-performing party and thrust into power another that sells dreams
well didn’t merit more space.


It needn’t have been so.


There is a thought, in my view somewhat misplaced and erroneous, that
readers of newspapers in the metropolises aren’t concerned or
particularly keen about reports, however tragic, gory or shattering,
coming from the interiors. Therefore, often datelines kill bylines.


Around the time that Nirbhaya died after being violated in a Delhi
bus, there was another, equally brutal, gang rape that happened in
William Nagar in the Garo Hills of Meghalaya. Sixteen men, some of them
boys, on the night of December 13, 2012 waylaid a teenager returning
home after attending a winter festival and, just for kicks, first
thrashed her and then took turns to rape her. Some of them wanted, and
tried very hard, to finish her off. She survived, to be denied admission
in schools, to be boycotted by society and teased by former friends.


Her story, in many ways, is more harrowing than Nirbhaya’s because
she continues to live that horror every day of her life. It wasn’t
compelling enough though — or so felt some of our papers coming out of
the cities — for the urban readers. There wasn’t much about it anywhere.
The glossing over and ignoring of the story was scandalous, to say the
least.


In the name of core readership, it’s become almost routine for
stories from our villages and towns to be summarily dismissed. Many,
even those with larger ramifications, that speak of us as a people,
disappear without a trace.


But is that how readers themselves look at things? I am not too sure.
For one, there is so much migration from hinterland to heartland that
large chunks of consumers of newspapers in metro cities aren’t its
native residents. 

Second, a newspaper’s readership these days is in
reality larger, more amorphous than the numbers for it that various
surveys give. For example, someone who doesn’t take The Times of India
may on any given day read an article in it that is suggested by a
friend, or click on a TOI link shared by another, or go through it on
the FB wall of a colleague, perhaps scan it quickly on Twitter. 

Most
importantly, are we assuming that someone in Delhi will not be
interested in, say, the persecution of a group of PUU (people unlike us)
that’s happened in Bareilly? If something is important, interesting,
engrossing, he will. It’s a talking point like any other. News by
definition is, and should be, all-encompassing. As far as possible, at
least. There is a world beyond Gurgaon on one side and Noida on the
other, and it ought to be acknowledged.


Yes, space is shrinking in the papers because of the costs involved
in printing and it makes sense to give the immediate surroundings
priority. But it is imperative that we strike a balance. My mother is
always searching for stories from Darjeeling and Sikkim, my next door
neighbours, the Joshis, are perpetually hunting for tidbits from
Uttarakhand, and the Beheras on the ground floor complain regularly that
Odisha is all but forgotten by the publications in New Delhi.


Moreover, just because we think the poor and the uneducated unwashed
don’t read the flashy dailies and aren’t our target audience, we cannot
stop writing about them when they need to be written about the most. We
will be unfair to them, to our readers and to ourselves as people in the
media.


One story almost everyone in my building — the Joshis, the Beharas,
the Gangulys, my mother — seemed to have read recently was the one about
a fire flattening out a cluster of jhuggis in Vasant Kunj. Some of them
went out in the evening with money, food and clothes to comfort the
hapless dwellers there.

……….

Questioned
by reporters over the inexcusable rise in violence against women in Uttar
Pradesh, an edgy Akhilesh Yadav on Friday shot back at the journalists,
“Aapko toh khatra nahin hua? (it’s not as if you faced any danger?)”
The chief minister’s insensitive counter-question left most mediapersons
stunned.

Akhilesh was in Kanpur on personal work when city reporters buttonholed him
over the alarming rise in rape cases in the state, apart from an abysmal slide
in the rule of law.  

There have been four rapes in the last two days in UP,
beginning with the sexual assault and murder of two dalit teenagers in Badaun,
followed by rape of another dalit teenage girl in Azamgarh. On Friday, a fourth
girl was raped in Sharawasti.

Addressing a rally in Moradabad in April, Mulayam had said, “Ladkiyan pehle dosti karti hain. Ladke-ladki
mein matbhed ho jata hai. Matbhed hone key baad usey rape ka naam dey deti
hain. Ladko sey galti ho jati hai. Kya rape case mein phansi di jayegi?
(First, girls and boys become friends. Then, when differences occur between
them, the girls accuse boys of rape. Boys may make mistakes, but should they be
hanged for it?)”
……..

Link(1): http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/onefortheroad/the-girls-who-were-hanged-by-the-tree-and-other-stories/

Link (2): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Asked-about-UP-rapes-CM-Akhilesh-Yadav-says-But-youre-safe/articleshow/35800676.cms
….

regards

To expect India to make ‘concessions’ to Pakistan when this country is
caught in such dire straits is to be naïve. India would rather add to
our miseries than bend. Let’s get it straight: whatever the government
in power in New Delhi, India has no intention of resuming meaningful
talks with Pakistan — Mumbai and terrorism being useful, ever-green
pretexts. 

Looking back, what was the primary cause behind the South Asian partitions? It was primarily because opposing elites were seeking parity with respect to each other (not just independence from each other).

If one considers Partition I in South Asia in an unbiased manner then it appears that Nehru (representing Congress) unfortunately made a few terrible mistakes. He was a Fabian socialist and was impatient to run the country HIS way. Religion as an ornament was fine by him, but (we presume) that he was put off by Hindu as well as Muslim precepts as something backward (if not outright evil) and deserving to be put in the rubbish bin.

Nehru’s mistake was two-fold: at a theoretical level he misjudged the appeal of muslim nationalism (he thought he was more popular amongst muslims than Jinnah!!!), and at a practical level he underestimated the antagonism and mistrust felt by both sides meaning there was a total absence of trust. Muslims simply did not trust Nehru that there will be adequate safeguards in India for them to lead life in their own way, AND a pathway to parity. Parity meant equality of privilege. And parity was something that Nehru was unwilling to give.

Partition I happened not just because muslims in South Asia were
looking for a homeland for themselves, it happened because they felt
that they deserve parity with the Hindus of India. For
historical reasons it was never possible to imagine a situation where
Pakistan < India. This is the reason Pakistan always has had a subservient relationship with the USA (and subsequently China and Saudi Arabia), because only with these nations as allies can Pakistan hope to achieve parity with India.

Partition II also happened because Bengalis were looking for parity (with Punjabis). The thinking was straight-forward, culturally, scientifically, Bengalis were equal or even superior to Punjabis. Economically, Pakistan was beholden to jute from the East and the jute money was being spent disproportionately in the West. Only in military prowess the Bengalis were lagging. And to seek parity in this sphere the Bengalis turned to India.

The powers that be in Pakistan made (unfortunately) the same mistakes that Nehru did a few decades ago. They underestimated the appeal of Bengali nationalism and they did not grasp the level of mistrust between Bengalis and Punjabis. When Bhutto made the offer for parity, it was too little, too late.

Indeed we believe that the secularism (plus) model as adopted by Nehru and the Congress and applied to India was because of the belated
realization that you cannot demand trust from your sworn enemies, you
can only hope that with time, the change will come from within the
community. Thus while Nehru joined hands with Ambedkar and blew up
existing Hindu society with the Hindu Civil Code, for muslims his answer
was (now in opposition to Ambedkar) that as a community they are simply
not ready. This is why we have (constitutionally) Uniform Civil Code as
a desirable goal but something that will never be implemented (not even
BJP has the willpower to do it, though they will use the resentment to
catch votes). In this sense having a personal code is also an imperfect declaration of parity. 

When people talk of secularism in the Indian context it is a search for parity in as many spheres as possible. Mindless application of this principle however can lead to policy incoherence. As an example take the case of minority educational institutions. While all mainstream organizations
(with a few notable exceptions) must obey the standard 50 (general) + 50
(quota) reservation policy (for students and faculty alike), the MEIs do
not have to follow this rule. In this way the MEIs are able to guarantee a few seats for Christians, Muslims etc. but the overwhelming composition is forward caste!!! How is this anyway fair and useful??
…..
During the first decades after independence Pakistan was indeed superior to India by most measures. India was a poor country trying to experiment with imperfect democracy, while Pakistan was being run by the military (leading from the front or from behind) with an efficient bureaucracy and fueled by a powerful, unifying, ideology.

The impact of ideology was most clear in the way the two countries played cricket (and also hockey), especially against each other. Pakistan has always been blessed with rare talent, but due to the lifting power of ideology Pakistanis managed to rise even above the sum of their talents. India on the other hand mostly played below par (this has changed of late). Gandhiji’s statement of Hindus being weak and Muslims being strong was exactly a reflection of the respective ideological strengths.

In the long run however this search for muslim (now explicitly Sunni Punjabi) parity seems headed for the quick-sands. It is not just that Hindus out-number Muslims, it is that elite Hindus out-number elite S-P Muslims. Further, the way the partitions and the aftermath have played out, elite Hindus can now co-opt muslims to fight against muslims (see Kargil war) but the reverse is not possible. This is the exact opposite of what happened during the glory days of Islamic rule when Akbar had a galaxy of Hindu generals (and Hindu soldiers) fighting against the Rajputs and the Marathas. 

To his credit, Bhutto recognized this when he talked about eating grass in order to fund a nuclear weapons program (which will provide parity in face of a much larger Indian army equipped with conventional weapons). The jihadi army would then act as a force-multiplier and this is how we get to parity (+). 

But as is clear from the cold war experience, this equality seeking exercise in the military domain is bound to exact a terrible penalty in economic (hard power) as well as the cultural domain (soft power). And a Pakistan which is weaker economically may not be able to withstand the pressures emanating from an economically dominant India. Most alarmingly, the economic partnerships that India now may choose to develop with China, USA and even the Middle East may outweigh (or at the least counter-balance) the strategic relationships these countries have with Pakistan.  

When we reach that point (and we feel it is inevitable), the battle for parity will be lost. Perhaps it is already lost (only historians will be able to tell for sure…in a few decades time).

……………………
‘STRUCTURED talks’ is a piece of nonsense that was first
heard in the South Asian context possibly in the ’90s. Since then, the
talks charade between Pakistan and India has assumed many nomenclatures —
peace process (God bless Henry Kissinger for coining this phrase),
‘composite dialogue’ in the wake of Vajpayee’s visit to Islamabad to
attend the Saarc conference in 2004, and — thanks to Hina Rabbani Khar —
‘not only uninterrupted but uninterruptible’ dialogue.

The
prime minister’s adviser on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz now adds the
prefix of ‘re’ to make it an impressive-sounding epithet — ‘restructured
talks’. The result is India’s unqualified victory in refusing to talk
turkey, thus freezing the Kashmir issue.

Statements made on
Wednesday by the two foreign policy managers now stand out in contrast,
one by Mr Aziz; the other by the Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj;
the latter has substance brimming with confidence bordering on
arrogance; the former’s a poor attempt at claiming success which is not
there. The latter was blunt to the point of crudity, mercifully after
the visitors had left the former full of diplomatic clichés and
inanities and pleading for the process to be “restructured and updated”.

Two points highlighted Ms Swaraj’s policy statement, made not at a
press conference but given to the Press Trust of India (PTI), the
official news agency, showing her eagerness to clarify the BJP
government’s policy with regard to Pakistan in the wake of the
swearing-in ceremony on Monday and the meeting between Nawaz Sharif and
Narendra Modi.

We do not know the sequence in which the Indian
foreign minister spelled out the BJP government’s priorities in the
realm of foreign affairs, but going by what appeared in print she spoke
first of Pakistan — in the most bullying style — and then concentrated
on how India would project itself to the world. It is the latter part
that is significant and gives an inkling of the ‘big power’ status that
has been the obsession of Indian leaders and strategists from the
founding father Jawaharlal Nehru and Subramanian to this day.

As
paraphrased by the PTI and reported by our New Delhi correspondent, Ms
Swaraj said her priority would be to ‘showcase India’s strengths to the
world and improve relations with neighbouring countries, strategic
partners, Africa, Asean member countries, Europe and others’.
India’s strengths — yes, the plural. 

Indeed, India has many ‘strengths’
to flaunt, not only the size of its territory and population but the
breakthrough it has made in economy and the efforts it is making to have
a military-industrial complex.

Slowly but to good effect, India
has begun to act on the advice of its friends in the West. How long will
you remain bogged down in your obsession with the infinitely small
Pakistan? If you want China status, have a higher vision, go beyond
Pakistan, treat your western neighbour with contempt, think of greener
pastures, and do what Ms Swaraj aptly did with all seriousness on
Wednesday — ‘showcase India’s strengths to the world’.

Against
this ‘showcasing’, consider her advice to Pakistan whose prime minister
had met hers a day earlier — “stop terrorist activities”, because talks
get subdued in the “din” of bombs. This then is Pakistan’s status in her
eyes and this in a nutshell is the outcome of the prime minister’s
visit to New Delhi.

Finally, we have to note what most Pakistani
commentators miss. India has no reason to give relief to Pakistan,
knowing well that this country is in a nutcracker situation. Half the
army is either already bogged down in the west to combat the Taliban or
is perhaps mobilising more troops for an operation. Balochistan is in
the grip of a low-intensity insurgency. The economy is in a shambles.
Blasphemy and YouTube are national issues. The ISI, one of the world’s
most powerful and resourceful spy agencies, is waging a war of its own
against a media group by mobilising mullahs.

Development activity
has ceased to exist in three of the provinces. There are polio
restrictions on Pakistani travellers. Afghanistan is breathing down our
neck. America and the West consider us little better than an exporter of
terrorism. China has expressed behind-the-scenes concern to Pakistan
over the situation in Xingjian, and the state’s writ is absent not only
in Fata but in many other areas too.

To expect India to make
‘concessions’ to Pakistan when this country is caught in such dire
straits is to be naïve. India would rather add to our miseries than
bend. Let’s get it straight: whatever the government in power in New
Delhi, India has no intention of resuming meaningful talks with Pakistan
— Mumbai and terrorism being useful, ever-green pretexts.
…….
Link: http://www.dawn.com/news/1109487/nonsense-no-less/
…..

regards

To update the Two Nation Theory: their maximum villain-enemies are our maximum hero-friends and vice versa.
……

To his Israeli partners, Modi’s profile
as an opponent of Muslim extremism—a perceived common enemy,
particularly in the wake of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai—only
made him more appealing.

Surveys
by the Israeli Foreign Ministry have found that Indian support for
Israel is higher than in any other country polled, beating out even the
United States. “Rural Indians see Israel as an agricultural superpower,”
said Shimon Mercer-Wood, Southeast Asia desk officer at the Israeli
Foreign Ministry. “Urban India sees Israel as a leader of innovation and
entrepreneurship.”
………. 

It is actually high time that Israel and India take the partnership to the next level in the civilian domain (military links are already strong).

Technology wise India needs Israel..desperately. But (as we imagine) a country with one billion friends is what Israel needs India far more, in particular in the coming days as the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaign picks up steam in the West.

In the near future, it may well be that the European doors will close. Anti-semitism is right now rampant and deadly across the continent and is likely to accelerate as the Left-Islam alliance grows in strength. In the mean-time India under the Hindu Brotherhood will be shining brightly (welcome sign: swastika?)

At the same time we wish Palestine and Kashmir to remain peaceful (it will never be resolved because their sacred ground is ours as well).  
It is beyond pathetic (but understandable) that people cannot see beyond their artificial communities…..all of them .
……..
Israelis who have met Narendra Modi, India’s newly elected prime
minister-designate, gush about him and what he means for Israel. At a
recent event at the Institute for National Security Studies, in Tel
Aviv, he was described in glowing terms: “outgoing”; “assertive”;
“extremely, extremely clever”; and “very tachles, very direct,
very Israeli.” 

Among the calls Modi received congratulating him on his
win last week was one from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
who told
his cabinet at their weekly meeting that Modi had replied by expressing
the desire to “deepen and develop economic ties with the state of
Israel.”



….When Modi, the head of the Hindu nationalist BJP party, is sworn in
as prime minister on Monday, he will become the only Indian premier to
have ever visited the Jewish state. He has close relationships with
Israeli business leaders, and his landslide victory has left many
anticipating the possibility of a great leap forward in Indian-Israeli
relations—and with it, a billion new customers and allies.



Israel’s relationship with India has long been a quiet affair, with a
lot going on behind the scenes, but not much happening in public.
 

Though India voted to recognize Israel in 1950, successive governments
in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s avoided public ties with Jerusalem,
partly to appease India’s large Muslim minority and partly out of a
desire to avoid alienating Arab allies. India didn’t establish official
relations with Israel until 1992, making it the last non-Arab,
non-Muslim country in the world to do so.



Despite this, commercial ties, technology sharing, space exploration,
and military cooperation between the two countries have all grown
vigorously in recent years. Bilateral trade has shot up from less than
$200 million in 1992 to almost $4.4 billion in 2013 (not including
weapons sales, which account for billions more). The growth in bilateral
trade has been driven largely by precious stones and by defense
spending. The exception is in Gujarat, the state where Narendra Modi has
served as chief minister for the past 13 years.



In Gujarat, Israeli industry was not only welcomed by Modi but actively pursued. Huge tenders for a semiconductor plant , a new port , and a desalination plant
were awarded to Israeli bidders. Israeli agriculture, pharmaceutical,
alternative energy, and information technology companies have flourished
there. This isn’t incidental: Modi’s campaign was based on replicating
his economic success in Gujarat on a national scale, and much of that
success was tied up with Israel.





In Gujarat, Modi emphasized privatization and small government. He
opened financial and technological parks, brought in foreign investment,
and cracked down on corruption. Under his administration, the state’s
economy expanded by more than 10 percent annually. In 2010, in Modi’s third term in office, Forbes named Gujarat’s largest city, Ahmedabad, as the third-fastest growing city in the world.



Modi’s career was nearly derailed in 2002 when riots broke out in
Ahmedabad; an estimated 1,000 Muslims were killed by Hindu radicals
during the violence. Modi’s government was accused of not doing enough
to stop the massacre, and while Modi was cleared of any wrongdoing by
the Indian Supreme Court’s Special Investigation Team in 2009, he was banned
from visiting the United States over his role in the violence—a
circumstance that drove Modi to develop relationships with other foreign
partners, particularly Israel and Japan, instead.



In 2006, Modi accepted an invitation to visit Israel for an
agricultural technology conference. The five-day trip sparked an ongoing
relationship; Modi began encouraging partnerships with Israeli
ministries and advised his constituents to study Israeli agricultural
and water-management systems. 

To his Israeli partners, Modi’s profile
as an opponent of Muslim extremism—a perceived common enemy,
particularly in the wake of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai—only
made him more appealing.



Modi’s BJP has often been supportive of Israel. Though diplomatic
relations between New Delhi and Jerusalem were first officially
established under the dominant Congress Party in 1992, it was during the
last BJP coalition government, between 1999 and 2004, that the
relationship blossomed. India’s Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, of the
BJP Party, visited Israel in 2000, and in 2003 Ariel Sharon became the
first Israeli leader to visit India.



According to a report in the International Business Times,
Modi has suggested that he may make the first official state visit by a
sitting prime minister to Israel during his term of office. His timing
is impeccable: The Indian public seems especially well primed for a
closer alliance with Israel as well. 

Surveys
by the Israeli Foreign Ministry have found that Indian support for
Israel is higher than in any other country polled, beating out even the
United States. “Rural Indians see Israel as an agricultural superpower,”
said Shimon Mercer-Wood, Southeast Asia desk officer at the Israeli
Foreign Ministry. “Urban India sees Israel as a leader of innovation and
entrepreneurship.”


…
In the last few months a string of cooperative anti-terror agreements
was signed between the two countries; negotiations over a Free Trade
Agreement are ongoing. One of the largest Indian business delegations
ever to visit Israel will be attending the MIXiii conference in Tel Aviv this month. But Modi’s victory has the potential to send these efforts into overdrive.


….
“Modi likes Israeli Chutzpah,” said a senior member of the AgileTree
investment company who has dealt personally with him in Gujarat for
years and asked to remain anonymous because of continuing business
operations with both major parties. “If only a fraction of what happened
in Gujarat will happen in India as a whole, the state of Israel will be
one of the biggest beneficiaries.”
……
Link: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/173767/modi-israels-new-best-friend
….

regards