Interpreting Ghare-Baire in 2017

Tagore’s Ghare-Baire was published in 1916, eleven years after the partition of Bengal and five years after its reunification. The story revolves around the nationalist movement, Swadeshi, in the backdrop of a partitioned Bengal. There are three main characters in the story, Sandip the revolutionary, Nikhil the rich but rationalist landlord and his newly emancipated wife, Bimala. Tagore has manifested his dislike for violent nationalism in the story. Sandip, a dear friend of Nikhil, is a strong proponent of Swadeshi and has a huge fan following. He wants to achieve his objectives at any cost. So much so that he would not shy away from acts like arson, sabotage and spreading communal venom. Nikhil on the other hand doesn’t believe in violence as a means to achieve Swadeshi. While the ideological clash is happening between Sandip and Nikhil, Bimala enters the plot and falls for Sandip and his ideology. The ambitions of Sandip pushes the estate into communal violence and in the end consumes Nikhil. Bimala, now a young widow has realised her folly, but it is too late.

Satyajit Ray’s cinematic adaptation of the novel by the same name was released in 1984 and was a huge success. Ray was a lifelong Leftist and the story more or less served his ideology. Like most of Tagore’s work Ghare-Baire is still very relevant. It resonates with readers even though it is was written a hundred years ago. We still see Sandip around us carrying on with similar agenda, not afraid of using violence as a tool to achieve his goals. But India has changed a lot in the past hundred years. The India of 2017 is polarised between the Left and the Right, between the conservatives and the socialists/liberals.

Today we have TV debates on, who is a nationalist and who is not? Who defines nationalism? Can nationalism be forced upon us? And sure enough Tagore has been extensively quoted in the context. You can read it here and here. Sadly the people who quote Tagore to drill down the point that he was against nationalism, do not tell us that he was against violent nationalism, not the concept per se. His writings were influenced by the nationalist movements happening in Europe and the subsequent rise of Fascism. European countries were carrying out war in name of saving the nation and Tagore must have felt that the violent streak of nationalism in Indian would probably destroy the multi-cultural, multi-lingual India. But this selective quoting is hardly surprising. Media houses today are sharply divided on ideological lines and the viewers/readers are left to do their own research.

Bimala, are you listening?

Back to Ghare-Baire. The story portrays Sandip, the revolutionary, as a selfish man. He would entice others to give up imported food, clothing and accessories, while he himself is unable to give up imported cigarettes. He puts up an appearance of a simple man with only national interest at heart but prefers to live in luxury. He says, poverty drags down the energy of leaders. But his charm is such that Bimala, who has recently, at her husband’s coaxing, stepped out of the women’s quarter, falls for him. She believes every word he says and goes to the extent to stealing money from the family vault, to help him.

As I said earlier, all of Tagore’s works are timeless. They will resonate with us, no matter when you read them. So is Ghare-Baire. The three characters developed by Tagore are three categories, in which most of us would fit in. The Sandips – activists, orators, messiahs of the poor but at the same time extremely selfish and dual faced. The Nikhils – rational, won’t fall for mass movements, take their own informed stand, would not be popular with masses and would eventually succumb to actions of Sandips. Bimalas – fresh arrivals into the real world, gullible, passionate, impressionable, wannabe saviours and eventually disillusioned.

Since Tagore portrayed the nationalist side of Sandip, let us try the other side. The Socialist Sandips. These are the D. Rajas, Brinda Karats, Hardik Patels and Tessta Setalvads of today. They would masquerade as mass leaders, the face of farmers, Dalits, the minorities and the disenfranchised. They would take the stage and give a brilliant speech. They would try hard to win over the Nikhils but would eventually make do with Bimalas. They are the ones who would wear Khadi and cotton to public rallies and would silently enjoy their single malts after a hard day at “work”. They are the ones who would decry privatisation and American capitalism but would send their children to American universities. They are the D. Rajas who appear to be the representatives of the poor but claim 65 lakhs as air travel expense in a year. In the film, when Bimala confesses to Nikhil about the theft from the family vault, Nikhil says, “Now you know how difficult it is to say no to Sandip”. This is pretty much what the Bimals of today experience. They know they are being cheated but are so in awe of the Sandips that they simply brush aside such double standards and follow them religiously.  

The Bimalas of today are mostly university students, the painters, the writers, the actors, the historians, the theatre walas and other such. Mostly young, impressionable and wannabe saviours. They want to save the world, from nationalism, Trumpism, capitalism, Fascism and other isms. They all look up to the Sandips. They are ready to jump in at the slightest nudge. They form self-help groups where they help each other by sharing, loving, commenting, on the social media contents put up by the Sandips. No matter how stupid, incorrect or immoral the content is, it gets widely circulated and soon becomes popular. They are the Humans of Hindutva, The Wire, The Scroll and such. Spreading pure hatred and claiming victimhood. Many of these Bimalas end up disillusioned sooner or later. Remember the Bimalas of Delhi who rallied behind Kejriwal?

Finally the Nikhils. They are the worst off. No one wants to listen to them. Because they talk of taking a rational stand. And that requires a lot of research and tough decisions. They tell people not to blindly follow an ideology or an ism just because others are doing so. They tell people not to believe everything that appears on the internet. They tell people to see things in a context and make sense of it. But then The Nikhils are asking for too much. If every one of us were so adept at rational thinking we would not have seen outdated ideologies like Communism getting elected. We would not have seen people getting hysterical about a cinema that they haven’t even seen. Then we would not have seen people shamelessly defending Aurangzeb for his ruthless and communal reign over India. But just like in the novel, Nikhils are meant to die, metaphorically at least. 

Why are we scared of history?

We all know at least one person who is scared of mathematics. The numbers are their worst enemies and even calculators do not turn out to be of much help. But recently there is emerging a section of people who are scared of history. Especially if they are told that what they believed to be true, is not really true. They will get angry. Accuse the others of distortion. Find reasons to trash the counter view. And above all demonise the ones who come up with alternate history.

Most of the anger and disregard for the alternate history is not based on facts. In most of the cases, if not all, the anger stems only because the “new facts” go against what we were taught at school. Or what is widely accepted as truth. Combine it with the personal hatred to a certain ideology and the entire effort of uncovering new facts is branded as politically motivated.

I am Tipu from TV.
For the authentic version please read books
Picture courtesy: Google search

A recent instance where people got very upset with history was the decision to celebrate “Tipu Jayanti” by the Karnataka government. While the Congress government projected Tipu as a “freedom fighter” and hence justified the celebrations. The BJP, on the other hand, said Tipu was actually a tyrant and a religious fanatic hence he should not be celebrated.

If one really wants to get into the details of what really Tipu did during his days, one has to read, a lot. This is obviously a tedious task. So people take to the easy way. They just see who is saying what, with complete disregard to fact, and take sides. If one hates Modi then Tipu was a hero. If one hates Congress then Tipu was a tyrant. It is that simple. Facts have no meaning.

But how did this come about? Well it is not surprising that it has. For a very long time we were fed with history, which was liberally coated with ideology. Starting from our ancient history to years leading up to independence, we have read what a handful of people thought was right for us. For a really nuanced reading on how our history has been adapted, manipulated and changed, one can read “Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their line, Their fraud” by Arun Shourie.

For long we have been fed a filtered out version of history, which suited the establishment. From vehemently supporting the Aryan Invasion Theory to painting a false picture of “Mahatma” Gandhi, it was all done to align the establishment thought with the popular narrative. Though the Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discarded and was replaced with “Aryan Migration Theory” (which also remains controversial), the Mahatma is still the father of the nation. There are many uncomfortable instances from his days in South Africa and later in India. If one really gets to read about them, Gandhi would become a fit case to be tried for domestic violence and abetting man slaughter. But that is a different story.

Back to history. There was a particular interest in canonizing the Mughals by historians. The Indian historians have done it and so have foreign historians. It is because of these efforts that today we fondly remember the Mughal rule as the “golden age” of India. The moment an alternate fact comes to light, we flare up and denounce the messenger as, a “Sanghi”, “fascist”, “nationalist”, “ultra nationalist”, etc. again without any regard to the facts presented. How can we forget the noise created when the name of Aurangzeb Road was changed.

But why are people so upset at someone coming up with a set of historical facts that challenge the status quo? Isn’t that what scholarship is all about? New discoveries, findings and updating our understanding of the past? A simple explanation can be traced to how people read such new facts.

The alternate history of Tipu or that of Aurangzeb, are being seen as anti-Muslim. The narrative being built is that, criticising the Mughals or any of the Muslim rulers from history is an excuse to criticize the entire Muslim community. You can read such instances here and here. Naturally, such reports make people think.

What we do not understand is that what someone did in the middle ages has nothing to do with what is happening today. We as individuals understand that we cannot and should not punish the family, for a criminal act committed by a family member.

Here we are talking about things done hundreds of years ago. How can the Muslims today be held responsible for what Aurangzeb or Tipu did all those years ago? Should be hold responsible the entire Austrian population for the birth of Adolf Hitler? Or for ever be in debt to the Americans for giving us Lincoln? 

History needs a dispassionate mind and a holistic approach for us to understand it. We should not see the acts of medieval and ancient personalities with the lenses of 21st century values. Every single historical figure, from Buddha to the Mahatma, is bound to fail such a test. History should be read and studied as it was. Not as we want it to be.  

Why Women and gender issues activism is becoming farcical

How important are the issues related to woman and gender? Most of us would agree that they are extremely important, since they form almost half of the population. Should we then give priority in dealing with them? Again, most of us would agree to give it a top priority.

India has dedicated a ministry for Women and Child Development with a vision, which states. “Empowered women living with dignity and contributing as equal partners in development in an environment free from violence and discrimination. And, well nurtured children with full opportunities for growth and development in a safe and protective environment.”

Like all the government bodies this ministry is also a bureaucratic machinery, where the wheels of progress turn very slowly. In most of the countries, where it is allowed, a vibrant civil society acts as the conscience keeper of the government. They push, protest and collaborate with the government to ensure the wheels of progress are well oiled and turn at a faster rate.

Various NGOs, international organisations, UN sanctioned organisations and student movements collectively form the civil society that the common woman looks up to. But there is something very disturbing that is emerging in the recent America born and globally dispersed social movements. These movements, mostly organised and controlled on social media, threaten to undo all the good work the civil society has achieved so far.

In the name of social justice and gender equality the social media movement are becoming funnier by the day. From movie reviews to global surveys we have some outrageous things thrown at us as facts. Then there is the trend of innovative hashtags. On the internet, there is no dearth of content to get outraged. Activists get outraged over a film and pour their anger masquerading as a review. In their world there is no scope of artistic freedom of a director, or that of a consenting adult woman who has portrayed the character. They just want to outrage.

The civil society also gangs up against the very women they claim to protect. We saw this happen in the recent events of Supreme Court’s ruling on triple Talaq. Ms. Indu Agnihotri, director of “Centre for Women’s Development Studies”, wrote in Left leaning The Wire on how the BJP government’s interest in abolishing Triple Talaq is more of a political tool than anything else. She is less bothered about the inhuman practice of a unilateral, instant divorce but is casting doubts at the intent of the government. One can assume that for women who suffer such barbarity, it does not really matter who is assisting them.

How can illiterate women know what they want?
Picture courtesy: Google

The case of Flavia Agnes, a women’s right worker and a founding director of Majlis (an NGO). She even submitted a “model nikahnama” to the Supreme Court, which would apparently prevent the cases of Triple Talaq. She believes that interfering in minority affairs is not a good thing and a simple two page nikahnama can stop the problems Muslim women face.

Recently the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charity arm of Thomson Reuters, carried out their annual poll on “world’s most dangerous megacities for women”. A credible name like Thomson Reuters is expected to carry out a thorough job. They chose 19 megacities (as listed by the UN). One would imagine that they would have done some field work, identified the population and the sample size and interviewed women. But all they did was call up 20 “experts” from these cities and take their word for granted. You can read the methodology here. Here the statistics do not matter because for some strange reason the 20 “experts” are the oracles who know everything. The assumptions and beliefs of these experts became data and the results were published. An actual survey/poll would have given a similar result but publishing results based on mere conjecture is taking a serious issue to ludicrous levels.

There are many other instances where one finds that these so called feminist and gender activists are less concerned about the actual issues and are more inclined to grab attention. Why else would these activists indulge in opposing the very values they claim to fight for? 

What we need today is social and financial inclusion of women in our society. We may march down the Rajpath, holding candles, but real women empowerment will not happen unless they are financially independent and at least have access to formal banking. What we need today are organisations that can help women in rural areas to ensure institutional child delivery and immunisation. We need to ensure that all girls have access to schools and proper sanitation facilities. We need people and organisations who can do these dull, tiring and thankless jobs.  

Why does the radical Left warms up to Islamists?

Kashmiri Hindus were killed because they had jobs

We have all heard the proverb, “birds of a feather flock together”. The equivalent Hindi version would be, “ek he thayli ke chatte batte”. The proverb is used to describe similar behaviour of humans with similar traits. Sportspersons take extreme care of their daily exercise routines and physical fitness, musicians practice on their instruments for hours to get that perfect note, children show curiosity to know the unknown. They all share a common passion and work to achieve it. It is this common passion or values that make them behave in a similar manner.

The radical Left and the Islamists too share common values and ideals. This is the reason why we see the Left apologising for the Islamists after every terror attack. From the liberal shores of Vancouver to the ghats of Varanasi, the Left always tries to cover up the horrors of Islamists by blaming it on bizarre things like an impending divorce. The Left shields the Islamists from negative public opinion and tries to build a positive narrative by using emotional blackmail. This usually comes in form of images, of wailing children of Gaza or painting a terrorist as the son of a “poor headmaster”. They even go as far as to blame employment as the reason for getting killed.

But how can the godless Left have any similarity with the deeply religious Islamists? On the face of it, they do not have any similarities. In fact they appear to be the complete opposite of each other. But scratch the surface and one finds that they are similar in more ways than one.

The similarity of ideology

Both the Islamists and the Left believes that the current society is not ideal. Both believe in a utopian idea of a perfect world where everyone in the world will be same. The Islamists believe that the entire world will be one large Islamic Caliphate and Sharia will become the universal law. The Left believes that Communism will rule the world and every single individual will become equal. The ideology of Islamists and the Left arise out of different sources. But in the end, however, they both seek to destroy the diversity and individuality of society and replace it with a uniform, authoritarian ideology.

We saw such attempts in Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. Both went against the diversity of society and individual liberty to impose an authoritarian rule. We see the same with the Islamists. Whenever they manage to capture territory they impose their authoritarian rule and an otherwise diverse society becomes a monolithic entity. Taliban in Afghanistan and ISIS in Iraq are examples of such brutal repression of diversity.

Similarity of the means to achieve

Both Islamists and the Left believes that the only way their ideology can be propagated is by a revolution, an armed revolution. The utopian society they both want to create can only result from a complete overhaul of what exists today. An armed revolution, like the October Revolution or the takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban, will remove the evils of the society. The new society will be free from the infidels and the bourgeois. The only way to achieve utopia is to eliminate everyone who opposes them.

Similarity of not learning from the past

An armed revolution may bring in change but we have seen what follows. The great revolutions in Soviet Russia and Communist China killed millions of people in forced labour camps and by extra-judicial killings. The Taliban killed hundreds of thousands to establish an Islamic Caliphate. The result was not the utopia they wanted to achieve but utter misery on the people living under their control. Russia and China moved towards a liberal market economy and the Taliban is struggling to strengthen its foothold. But the past is no learning for the Left and the Islamists. They both firmly believe that the previous revolutions were not pious enough and the next one will change everything.

Similarity of my way is the right way

While both the Left and the Islamists fight for their cause, there seems to be a great degree of disagreement among themselves. The Islamists have different ideas of achieving the Caliphate. They often do not agree on the process and split, with a firm belief that their way is the right way. We have the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, LeT, etc. who wants to achieve Islamist supremacy but for some reason can’t work together. The Left started as a monolith but soon met the same fate as that of the Islamists. In India alone there are at least 10 versions of mainstream Communist party. Though the ideals of these communist parties are same, they somehow find it difficult to sit under the same roof.

Similarity of disregard of science

The Islamists believe the earth is flat and horses can fly. The Left questions the Big Bang theory and Black holes. The Left goes on to label the widely accepted Big Bang Theory as, “creationist”. They reduced the theory to mere Church propaganda.

Similarity of dedication to the Book

Both Islamists and the Left derive and justify their actions based on teachings of the Book they consider sacred. Both cite their prophet’s words as the justification of their actions. Both fail to realise that the world has changed since their respective Book was written. Both fail to understand that the needs of society and humans are no longer the same as they used to be. But still, both firmly believe in one man’s version of truth, written a long time ago.

Similarity in radicalising the believers

The Islamists brainwash their potential recruits by highlighting the atrocities by the Western governments and the heretic governments of Islamic countries. The Left brainwashes their carder by highlighting similar atrocities by the Western governments and “fascist” countries. Both employ the power of consistent fear mongering and distortion of events to suit their agenda.

There may be many more similarities between the Islamists and the Left. These similarities of world dominance and armed revolution makes them birds of similar feather. That is the reason why the Left is always at the forefront when it comes to supporting the radical Islamists or apologising for their terror activities. The Islamists and the Left have found common ground and probably a shared dream of world dominance that they think can be achieved by supporting each other. 

पश्चिम बंगाल: तुष्टिकरण, साम्प्रदायिकता और अराजकता

Youth Ki Awaaz पर प्रथम प्रकाशित 

पश्चिम बंगाल एक बार फिर ख़बरों के घेरे में है। कारण एक बार फिर साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा है। पश्चिम बंगाल में साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा पहली बार नहीं हुई है। भारत विभाजन पूर्व, १६ अगस्त १९४६ के दिन जिन्नाह द्वारा डायरेक्ट एक्शन डे घोषित किया गया था। उस कत्लेआम में सैंकड़ो लोग मारे गए थे।भारत की आज़ादी के बाद भी हिंसा का दौर चलता रहा। मुर्शिदाबाद में १९८८ में एक मस्जिद में प्रार्थना के

चित्र आभार: Youth Ki Awaaz

अधिकार को लेकर पश्चिम बंगाल मुस्लिम लीग ने कासिम्बाज़ार में हिंसक प्रदर्शन किया. प्रदर्शन कारियों ने बंगाल के पाकिस्तान में विलय के भी नारे लगाए. पर इतिहास को दोहरा कर हम आज की उपेक्षा नहीं कर सकते। 

वर्तमान पश्चिम बंगाल में वामपंथी पार्टियों ने सत्तर के दशक में क्रान्ति के नाम पर सशस्त्र गिरोहों का गठन किया. उन्ही गिरोहों ने वाम दलों को तीन दशकों तक सत्ता में बनाये रखा. आज वही गिरोह जिहने काडर भी कहा जाता है, वर्तमान तृणमूल सरकार का सहयोग कर रहे है. 

पश्चिम बंगाल में पनप रही हिंसा की एक जड़ बंगलदेश तक जाती है. वहां के कट्टरवादी संगठन, जैसे जमात - ए - इस्लामी, बांग्लादेश को एक इस्लामिक देश बनाना चाहते हैं. २००९ में शेख हसीना के पद सँभालने के बाद वहां इस्लामी कट्टरवाद पर निहाना साधा गया और आतंकी संगठनों का दमन किया गया. नतीजा यह हुआ की बांग्लादेशी कट्टरवाद सीमा लांघ कर पश्चिम बंगाल आ पहुंचा. 

ममता बनर्जी की तुष्टिकरण की नीति और बांग्लादेश से कट्टरवाद और अवैध घुसपैठ का नतीजा आज यह है की बंगाल के कम से कम तीन जिलों में प्रशासन अपना नियंत्रण खो चूका है. अफीम की खेती हो या आतंकी घुसपैठ, इन जिलों में सब खुलेआम हो रहा है. मुर्शिदाबाद, मालदा और उत्तर २४ परगना, तीन ऐसे जिले हैं जहाँ पिछले सात वर्षों में व्यापक साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा हुई है. 

वोट की राजनीति और तुष्टिकरण के चलते बंगाल में साम्प्रदायिक तनाव बढ़ रहा है. इमामों को दिए जाने वाला मासिक भत्ता हो या स्थानीय मीडिया पर सांप्रदायिक हिंसा के प्रसारण पर रोक हो, बंगाल सरकार इस्लामिक तुष्टिकरण को खुलेआम प्रोत्साहन दे रही है. जहाँ वामपंथी पूँजीवाद विरोध की आड़ में हिंसा फैलाते थे वहीँ ममता सरकार इस्लामी हिंसा की और आँखे मूंदी बैठी है. 

हिंसा और सांप्रदायिक तनाव तृणमूल सरकार का हथियार बन चुके है. अवैध हथियारों और विस्फोटकों का पकड़ा जाना या लगातार हो रहे देसी बेम विस्फोट हो, यह सरकार की अक्षमता या विध्वंसकारी ताकतों से सांठ गांठ का प्रतीक है। प्रेस पर सरकार का कड़ा नियंत्रण इस लेख से आँका जासकता है. मिडिया द्वारा हिंसा के समाचार प्रसारित करने पर उनके खिलाफ पुलिस में प्राथमिकी दर्ज़ कर दी जाती है. 

इस सप्ताह बशीरहाट में हुए साम्प्रदायिक दंगे भी देश की नज़र में नहीं आते अगर सोशल मीडिया पर स्थानीय लोगों ने तस्वीरें और वीडियो नहीं डाले होते। आखिर क्या चाहतीं हैं ममता बनर्जी? क्या देश में साम्प्रदायिकता से जूझ रहा एक राज्य, कश्मीर, काफी नहीं है? क्या बंगाल को भी वोट की राजनीति के वेदी पर कुर्बान कर दिया जायेगा? क्या मालदा की तरह बंगाल के बाकि हिस्सों में भी इस्लामी कट्टरवाद सर चढ़ कर बोलेगा? इसका जवाब शायद ममता बनर्जी के पास ही है. परन्तु राजनितिक दल तो सत्ता की धुन में अंधे हो जाते है. 

शायद हमें अपने बुद्धिजीवी वर्ग से उम्मीद लगनी चाहिए. बुद्धिजीवी जो फिलिस्तीन से लेकर परमाणु बिजलीघरों तक पर प्रदर्शन करने से नहीं कतराते, क्या वह बंगाल में हो रही कट्टरवादी हिंसा के खिलाफ प्रदर्शन करेंगे? यहाँ आश्चर्य यह है की बुद्धिजीवी वर्ग को हिंसा नहीं दिखाई देती. दिखाई देता है तो केवल राज्यपाल और मुख्यमंत्री के बीच चल रहा पत्राचार. 

हमारा संविधान सभी नागरिकों को सामान अधिकार देता है. फिर क्यों एक और भारत "लीनचिस्तान" बन जाता है पर वही दूसरी ओर उतनी हे वीभत्स हिंसा को केवल क़ानून व्यवस्था का मामला बताकर हम किनारा कर लेते हैं? 

India, Israel and the irrelevance of the Middle East

Oh! I managed the GCC
PC: Hindustan Times

The historic visit of PM Modi to Israel is important on many fronts. The first is the dehyphenation of Israel from Palestine. The importance of dehyphenation was discussed widely on TV debates last night. Pro BJP panellists and BJP spokes persons drew analogy from the dehyphenation of India and Pakistan by America and by other western countries. This is important because international diplomacy does not depend on keeping everyone happy. Diplomacy is an act of shrewdness, where the sole aim is self-preservation. But is that the only reason India changed its seventy year old stand?

There are other factors that have led to this change. For starters it is the realisation that the Indian Muslims are not going to go berserk over India’s close ties with Israel. This might sound a bit strange but it is the truth. Read what Al Jazeera has to say on this. In fact all previous governments were probably aware of this misconception. They simply lacked the courage to take the step.

It finally took a non-Gandhi Congress Prime Minister to established full diplomatic ties with Israel, twenty five years ago. That was the time for India to shake away the imagined fear and go ahead with closer ties with Israel. But Political instability and ascend of Sonia Gandhi to the throne dragged India back into its shell. It is hard to imagine why the Congress and the UPA were so scared of taking Indo-Israel relations forward. The loudest pro-Palestinian voices one hears are either from the loony Left or their foot soldiers on Twitter. Majority of Muslims in India are more worried about jobs, education and healthcare like other Indians.

Secondly the politics in the Middle East has changed completely. It was thought that supporting Israel will isolate India in the Arab world, especially the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Millions of Indians work in the GCC countries and remit billions of dollars every year.

The seventy or so years of Palestinian support has not got India anywhere with the Arab world. India, despite its multiple efforts, was not allowed to join the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). India never got support from OIC on Kashmir and probably never got any favourable deal on the oil imports. So there was no real benefit to India from its pro Palestine stand.

The other change that happened in the Middle East was the internal feud of the GCC countries. Before the Arab Spring, the only factions in the Middle East were the Sunnis led by the Saudis and the Shias represented by Iran. Their attempts to dominate the Muslim world resulted in regional wars. Post the Arab Spring, things changed and a third country emerged as a power broker. The Qataris sitting on huge gas reserves have the cash to extend influence. In a new three cornered Arab world it is easy to play one against the other. More over the internal frictions often result in extremely favourable oil prices for rest of the world. Saudi Arabia increased its oil output in 2012 only to render the Iranian oil cheaper. Qatar is doing the same today.

Cheap oil is one thing but we all know this will never last. What is, perhaps, prompting India to take the risk of being deprived of gulf oil is its huge domestic market and its increasing shift towards renewables. India is too big to be ignored by anyone, including the oil exporters. OPEC has never been united on oil production and it probably never be. There will always be willing exporters ready to send oil to Indian refineries.

On the renewable front India has made great progress and as much as 17% of its installed capacity supplies clean energy. In fact the actual price of solar energy has gone below the per unit price of thermal energy. So the future belongs to clean energy and not oil. The confidence with which India has adopted 2032 as the year of zero carbon powered cars clearly shows the intent. The only reason the GCC and Iran are relevant to India, may not exist in future.

Thirdly there is Make in India. The western countries have shown their interest and intent but the works that have or may arrive to Indian shop floors are not cutting edge. Chinese manufacturers are bringing in mobile assembly plants and other low tech manufacturing but that can only provide low tech jobs. Israel on the other hand is willing to transfer technology in the high tech sector. That is where the real gains are to be made.

So there might be some extraneous noise on the deepening ties of India and Israel (mostly from the opposition and some attention seeking activists), the ground realities are very different. 

Wendy Doniger: Psychoanalysis of ISRO

Retro is the new black. PC: Google

I have written a lot on Hindus and exposed them as probably the most violent cult in the world. Currently I am working on my new book, How Hitler was inspired by Ramayana, and it will make its debut in fall 2017. I would like to use this article to seek your inputs on other topics on Hinduism you would like me to write on. My assistants take a long time to read and translate the Sanskrit texts and it will help me a great deal if you can send your ideas in. But I am not writing to you about my next book or complaining about my lazy assistants. I want to talk about the new Hindu mind set.

This year has been particularly disturbing for the liberal minded Indians. India’s space agency has sent too many satellites into space. Now we all know how a satellite launch causes millions of tonnes of carbon emission in both earth’s atmosphere and in the outer space. It is harmful to both life on earth and that in the outer space. Also the act of moving the satellite to its launch site causes a lot of noise pollution, which aggravates the harmful impact of carbon emission. The take-off is so deafening that it can almost kill many small animals in the vicinity. We all know these facts, but I am digressing by reiterating them.

The most harmful impact of ISRO’s launch programme is on the Indian society. Every single launch by ISRO propagates patriarchy and Hindu beliefs. Are you surprised? Read on to know how. It is so blatantly evident that it is almost hidden in plain sight. One doesn’t have to be a Robert Langdon to see this. The first thing that comes to mind it the shape of the launch vehicle. It is conveniently shaped like a phallus to assert male dominance over the Indian society. Since phallus worship is an ancient ritual in the Hindu cult, it gives legitimacy to the cult and propagates its patriarchal mind set. A good question for the so called space scientists of ISRO would be, “Why can’t you design a launch vehicle that is less aggressive”? Perhaps in the shape of a puppy or a kitten. The phallus shaped launch vehicle is clearly an attempt to silence the Indian feminists and appease the Indian men.

See the Phallus and the outstretched arms

Coming to the propagation of Hindu cult beliefs. I would like to point to the contraption that is used to keep the phallus erect during its performance. The agency again, very conveniently, places the cranes around the launch vehicle in such a manner that it appears like Kali, the goddess of death. With all her arms spread out and spitting fire. The psychoanalysis of ISRO reveals that this arrangement of phallus like launch vehicle and Kali like contraption is the manifestation of the sick Hindu mind. A mind that wants to control the minorities, liberals, feminists, subalterns, Dalits, adivasis, Dravidians, Rahul Gandhi, NDTV and Sonu’s dad.

My detailed psychoanalysis of ISRO has exposed their agenda and their plans to force their majoritarian beliefs on millions of Indians. I call upon all Right right minded Indians to assemble at Jantar Mantar on 31^st June at 10 AM to protest against ISRO and its patriarchal and majoritarian project to take over India.

If you still haven’t realised this is a satirical piece, please get introduced to humour. 

The Aryan migration theory is true. Is it?

We are a band of all male migrants from Central Asia. Don't ask why we left our women behind. 

Image: The Hindu

The colonial history writers were fascinated by the ancient Indian literature, especially the Rigveda. Translations were done and they realised that the text speaks of non-existent rivers and strange fire sacrifices, which people no longer performed. It also laid out elaborate procedures, including complex geometrical altars, to carry out the fire rituals. All this seemed too sophisticated for the uncivilised Indians to have mastered. Then came the chance discovery of remains of an ancient civilisation in Harappa, now in Pakistan. The discovery, in 1856, of burnt brick wells and brick walls was made by following the leads from local folklore. The engineers laying the East India Railway Company’s tracks from Karachi to Lahore used the four thousand year old bricks to lay ballast along the track.

It was not until 1921 that a proper excavation of Harappa began. The missionary zeal to civilize the Indians and the concept of racial superiority together with justifying colonial occupation of India gave birth to the Aryan invasion theory of the old civilisation excavated in Harappa. The Aryans were said to be “fair skinned warriors” who came on horses and destroyed the Indus civilisation. With them they brought Sanskrit and the Vedas. The Aryan Invasion theory was based on a finding of a little over forty skeletons on the streets of Mohenjo-Daro. The rest of historiography followed the Aryan Dravidian discourse and in mid twentieth century we even saw a “Dravidian political movement”. Almost all political parties of Tamil Nadu today have “Dravid” in their name.

Then came the genetic and DNA studies and the absence of any form of weapons at the IVC sites that destroyed the Aryan Invasion theory. The Aryan Invasion Theory became the Aryan Migration Theory. Mitochondrial DNA study suggested there was no evidence of any intermixing of genes from outside India (or the subcontinent). The debate seemed to have settled for good, until now. A recent paper published in the BMC Evolutionary Biology, titled “A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals” has once again opened the debate. The study now claims to have settled the question beyond any doubt, as this article in The Hindu claims. According to this new study the Y-Chromosome data was studied together with Ancient DNA on a worldwide canvas. The study concludes that there was a strong, male-driven genetic influx from Central Asia into India during the Bronze Age.

The Study establishes that there was an influx from Central Asia and it coincides with the decline of Indus Valley Civilization and rise of the Vedic civilization, based on a strict caste system. The study puts the overall prevalence of haplogroup R1a at 17.5% in the Indian population, up to 50% in Indo-European speakers and 14% in South India. The study however leaves many unanswered questions. The most important one being, why was there a “male-driven” migration? There is plenty of evidence of sex-biased migration in animals and birds. But humans are a different story altogether. Evidence suggest that human migration has always been in small bands of 20 – 50 or 50 – 100. These numbers were minimum requirements for either hunting large game or for pastoral activities. We also know that the family was always the smallest unit of the band. Why would a large band of men migrate from Central Asian Steppes to plains of India? And how could they pass on their genes to 17.5% of the Indian population and 50% to the Indo-European speakers?

Long distance migrations usually do not happen the way we see them today. The migration process must have been a very slow one. The Central Asian migrants moving from one place to the next and passing on their genes to the local population, could not have happened in a span of few years. The population of Bronze Age Central Asia would not have been larger than the Indus Valley’s. To populate 50% of the population would have been a difficult task and would have required a lot of men.

The idea here is not to negate the scientific findings of the paper. Science definitely comes up with more powerful evidence than ideology. The study itself refrains from deriving conclusions based on linguistic groups. But what explains the high concentration of the Haplogroup R1a in northern and northwestern India? Did the incoming “Aryans” bring Sanskrit and Veda with them? We can only speculate.

It is likely that there was a high prevalence of endogamy, post the alleged migration, among the Indo-European speakers that led to concentration of the R1a haplogroup. On account of the “Aryans” and their language being an import is highly unlikely. For starters, a sophisticated civilization like that of Indus Valley is unlikely to be influenced by a band of Central Asian Nomads. The geography, flora and fauna described in Rigveda are exclusively of Sub-continental origin, implying that either the Rigveda existed before the “Aryans” arrived on their horses in the Indus plains or it was written by the “Aryans” many centuries after they arrived on their horses. Both these assumptions upset a lot of other established beliefs. In case the Rigveda existed before the Central Asian influx then Sanskrit was a language in use already. So there goes the belief of an Indo-European root from Central Asia. In case the Rigveda was composed centuries later (once the “Aryans” got used to the geography and gave up their barbaric lifestyle and got exposed to concepts of contemplation, philosophy and rituals), the description of Vedic geography does not hold good. It is now accepted that the Saraswati (mentioned extensively in Rigveda) started drying up in third millennium BCE and completely dried up towards the end of second millennium BCE. Much before the horse riding Aryans arrived.

The article in The Hindu puts a seal of finality on the conclusion. But the research itself puts in a disclaimer saying the Y-chromosome studies are in a nascent stage, unlike the mitochondrial DNA studies. Whatever the truth be, it is definitely far from known. 

Neo-Brahmins and a post-truth world

For thousands of years the Brahmins dominated the social and political narrative in India. They were always at the top in the social hierarchy and controlled the way rest of the society behaved. They laid down rules and acceptable behaviour for the rest to follow. Anyone who questioned the status-quo was branded anti-dharma. The Brahmins prescribed how the rest should treat them. They set the quantum of punishment to be meted out to those who rejected dharma. They created a system where they always had the final say, no matter what. They were the sole repository of truth.

Times changed and the role of the Brahmins was no longer relevant. But they were too clever to be left behind. They too changed and monopolised the modern system. They even managed to hoodwink the Imperial forces from Europe. They established themselves in administrative posts, became, clerks, accountants, mathematicians and professors. Their strangle hold was always strong. Just like it was thousands of years ago.

Time never stops but it sure throws surprises. According to the Brahmin declared cycle of time we are living in Kalyug. But wait, the old order has long been dismantled and a new breed of Brahmins has taken over. They are the neo-Brahmins. Like the Brahmins of antiquity, they have established their own repository of truth. They have laid down rules, which tell the rest how to treat them and what happens when someone digresses from their truth. They call the present time, “Post-Truth”. It is the Kalyug equivalent of the old Brahmin order.

Anyone who speaks against the established truth of these Neo-Brahmins is shamed and ridiculed publicly. The Neo-Brahmins firmly believe, much like the old order, that theirs is the purest version of truth. The rest have limited intellect and hence have to follow what they are told.

But who are these Neo-Brahmins? Not surprisingly they are the ones who are occupying influential positions, just like the old order. They are the liberal, fiercely honest, secular, decorated journalists. They are the socialist, people friendly, left of centre, liberal politicians. They are the independent, scholarly, brave, students studying liberal arts. They have collectively taken over the old order and established their Neo-Brahmin order to dictate new rules.

When my truth no longer matters
Image: oxforddictionaries.com

Like the Brahmin of the yore, the Neo-Brahmins have drawn clear boundaries around them. If the rest tries to cross over, they will be condemned to eternal hell in the fascist nether earth. It is advisable that the rest silently follow their rules. So when the Neo-Brahmins tell the rest that Modi is Satan personified, the rest should have voted against him. But then 2014 happened. They said Brexit is bad and the rest should have voted “remain”. But guess what, the rest voted, “leave”. They told the Americans, Trump is a clear and present danger to the American constitution. He now sits in the Oval Office. Shattered and devastated the Neo-Brahmins declared the arrival of Post-Truth.

It is the time where truth no longer matters. Because people are no longer acknowledging the Neo-Brahmins as a repository of truth. They are called out every single day. On social media. On news debates. Almost everywhere where the rest can find a voice.

So when a student stands up and uses her right to free speech, they make her a hero. But when someone counters her opinion, all hell breaks loose. Because it goes against the established truth. The Neo-Brahmin truth. The old order would have condemned the anti-dharma others to eternal hell. The Neo-Brahmins condemn the rest to a modern version of hell. They are labelled misogynists, communal, fascists, jingoists, far-right, and much more.

The question is, when the modern society gave us the opportunity to break away from the Brahmin dominance, should we appoint a new order? A new order, which is repeating what the old order did, although in English and dressed smarter than the old order. 

Urdu, a language, which walked a country to its dismemberment

It was early spring in Dhaka, the then capital of the province of East Bengal in Pakistan. Students from the University of Dhaka started gathering for a protest on 21^st February 1952. The protest was a result of more than four years of petitions and requests to give Bengali the status of the national language. A resolution passed in 1947 in Karachi made Urdu the only national language. This meant approximately two thirds (44 million Bengali speaking people out of 69 million Pakistanis) of the population was rendered illiterate and ineligible for government jobs. The Bengalis saw this as an attempt by West Pakistani political machinery to dominate them and eradicate their rich cultural and linguistic history.

Image: Google search

The February protests obviously did not go down well with the administration. Section 144 was imposed to prevent “unlawful” assembly by protesters. Students were arrested and teargas was fired. In their attempt to meet the legislators the students faced gun fire and many were killed. The iron hold of the administration to stifle the movement was understandable. In 1948, none other than the Qaid himself has declared that Urdu and Urdu alone represents the spirit of a Muslim nation.

The language movement or Bhasha Andolan as it was called in Bengali lasted for another four years and the issue was settled with a constitutional amendment of 29^th February 1956. Bengali was accepted as the second national language of Pakistan. The issue may have been settled constitutionally but it continued to be controversial. During the Martial Law imposed by Ayub Khan, attempts were made to reverse the constitutional amendment but it did not succeed.

Bengali was not the only reason for the bitterness between the eastern and western halves of Pakistan. It had much to do with the assumed racial supremacy of West Pakistanis over their eastern brethren. The army was dominated by recruits from West Pakistan and state aid hardly reached the flood and cyclone prone East Pakistan. Amidst all this the final blow came with the overwhelming victory of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s Awami League in the general elections of 1970. West Pakistan never allowed the transfer of power to the legitimate contender, leading to a standoff between Mujibur Rehman and West Pakistan. It led to the Bangladesh’s liberation in 1971 and a humiliating defeat of Pakistan. Ironically the instrument of surrender was signed at the Ramana Race Course, the same place from where the Qaid has once declared that Urdu alone represents the spirit of a Muslim nation.

The polarisation unleashed by Urdu proved to be stronger than the Two Nation Theory on which Pakistan was created. The liberation of Bangladesh was proof that the Two Nation Theory was not only flawed but failed to act as the cohesive bond between the two halves of Pakistan.

The dominance of Urdu in Pakistan happened at the expense of local languages like Punjabi, Baluchi and Sindhi. A section of undivided India, which had many different languages was forced to accept an alien language. A language, which the elite imported from India, a country they refused to call their own.

Urdu influenced literature in much of Northern India and continues to do so. It has given us poets like Ghalib and Mir. It was once the language of the Delhi elite and represented the high culture of cities. Sadly, the language that once incited romance also incited hatred and bloodshed.

Scroll and its lies

So it happens again. Scroll, is a so called “liberal” online publication which usually dishes out stories on social issues. These stories sometimes have a liberal sprinkling of lies on them. You can read more on the lies here. So in its latest attempt, Scroll has “revived” one of its old articles written by Girish Shahane. Now Girish sits in the same row as Shoaib Daniyal (also writes for Scroll), another habitual liar. Both Girish and Shoaib have an unexplained hatred for Indian history. That is probably the reason they never bother to really dig deeper to understand what the recent developments in archaeology suggest about India’s history. Maybe they both had to suffer a boring history teacher in school and hence are so disgusted with the subject that they decided to singlehandedly distort it.

In the latest “revived” article, Girish tries hard to “expose” the historical myths of India. A very challenging task, especially if one has to distort and hide facts. Let us examine the exposes one at a time. By the way, the article starts with invocation of BJP for some strange reason. But let it be.

Expose 1. The myth of rani Padmini

Here Girish makes the effort to establish the fact that Padmini is a fictitious character, who appears in the epic written by Jayasi, almost two centuries later. The records suggest that Padmini was also mentioned as Padmavati, thus introducing the element of myth to the story. Padmini may well have been a name given to the queen by Jayasi and later poets. But does that take away the fact that women of Chittor committed Jauhar once the city fell to Khilji? Jauhar has been recorded many times in Medieval India. Mostly in the then Rajputana but also in other parts of India. The South East Asia equivalent of Jauhar (Puputan) was recorded as late as the early twentieth century. The king with his entire family and the city dwellers would commit mass suicide by stabbing themselves with a Kris (dagger), when faced with imminent defeat. So yes the name Padmini may be fictitious but the other details stand true. The then prevailing war rules of the Muslim armies would allow the sack and plunder of the city for three days after its fall. The soldiers were allowed to take booty and slaves, a fifth of which would belong to the sultan. The women preferred to die instead of being humiliated in the slave markets.

Girish here goes one step further and appoints Khilji as “one of the finest generals in India’s military history”. What is not clear here is whether Girish considers burning of libraries and Buddhist places of worship as a qualification to be the “finest general”.

Expose 2. The myth of Prithviraj Chauhan

Here Girish contests the poem written by Chand Bardai, where Prithviraj is depicted as blind man, captured by Mohammed Ghori. Prithviraj, with the help of a companion kills Ghori by an arrow. Here again, Girish relies on a poem, which by no account should be considered history. But probably Girish learnt Greek history from Iliad and Odyssey and actually believes that there was indeed a Cyclops settlement in ancient Greece.

In both expose 1 & 2 Girish relies on poetry. He forgets that what people believe to be the words of god, were written down by humans. The new testament, the koran, the hadith were all written down, as we know them, centuries after Jesus and Mohammed died. These in no way these should be considered history and then rebutted. It is a fool’s job, really.

Expose 3. The myth of a non-violent India

Here Girish rebuts the “myth” of a non-violent India and quotes Vivekanand’s speech in Colombo. “…our religion is truer than any other religion, because it never conquered, because it never shed blood.” He then goes on to highlight the Chola naval expeditions to Sri Lanka and South East Asia. Hence proving that India was not a non-violent country. As it happens, a quote is taken out form a speech and is “adjusted” to suit the writer’s narrative. You can read the full text of the 1897 speech Vivekanand delivered here. Here the context in which the remark of India being a non-conquering nation was made was that of propagating ideas and probably religious beliefs through war. And in this context he says that India has never propagated her ideas through war. He was probably referring to the Crusades or the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. Later in the speech Vivekanand mentions the Greeks and Romans who waged great wars but were ultimately erased and sent to the pages of history while India as a civilisation still stands.

Expose 4. The myth of Sanskrit

Girish firmly believes that Sanskrit is not the “mother of all languages”. He mentions the research which puts Proto Indo European (PIE) as the source of Indo European languages. According to the research the PIE originated in the Anatolian region and by that logic Sanskrit cannot be the mother of all languages, since Sanskrit itself is derived from an ancient language.

Girish in his claim does not tell us which research he is actually talking about. A quick Google search revealed that a research with the same conclusion was published in the Science in 2012. The new item in Times of India suggests that the research took into consideration 6,000 cognates, fed them into a computer programme and came up with the conclusion. Now it is interesting that the study claims to have come up some “convincing” evidence based on mere 6,000 cognates. But that is not all. Academicians and archaeologists have disputed the claims of the research. You can read the views here.

So is Sanskrit the mother of all languages? Yes and no. It may not be the mother of Arabic or Chinese but it surely is the mother of almost all Indian languages, except for maybe Tamil. The influence of Sanskrit is evident is the grammar and alphabets of the Indian languages and that of Tibet, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. All these languages use the principles of Pannini of arranging the alphabet and have the same sound as those of Sanskrit. So yes, Sanskrit is the mother of all languages if you look South East.

Expose 5. The myth of a 5,000 year old civilisation

I am Bhirrana, I am 8,000 years old
Image: ASI

This is probably the lamest of the five rebuttals that Girish has concocted. He says, “In truth, almost nothing in India is 5,000 years old. The ruins of the Harappan civilisation come closest, but the artefacts that have survived, aside from a few pot shards, don’t date earlier than 2500 BC”. If the claim made by Girish is to be believed the Archaeological Survey of India is definitely an organisation that is spinning lies. Because the ASI has submitted a report suggesting the archaeological remains excavated at Bhirrana village date back to between 7570 – 6200 BCE. The entire history of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation has been pushed back by almost 3,700 years. So yes, the Indian civilisation is not 5,000 years old but more like 8,000 years old.

It is sad that for the sake of ideological leanings people not only distort data but also manufacture lies.