- Americans Liking Hindu BajansHindu Bajans are devotional songs about Hindu Gods.
- They are greatly appreciated and listened to by Hindus.
- They are sung by great artists and heard by many Indians.
- But, recently Bajans are becoming popular among Americans.
- The Americans are going and paying a good amount of money to listen to American bands sing Bajans.
- This is a new phenomena.
- I had a Sivananda Yoga Center in Delaware and every Sunday we used to sing Bajans. Mostly Americans used to come to my center for Satsang.
- I was recently talking to one of our regular attending American men and he has recently formed a band to sing Bajans. Many Americans come to hear his Bajans.
- Many Bajans are in Sanskrit and Hindi. I hear there are many bands that have developed in America that sing Bajans.
- Richard Alpert, the professor of Harvard University, went to India and became Hindu and he changed his name to Ram Dass.
- He has written many books on Hindu philosophy. One is a very popular book, "Be Here and Now." He is very popular among young Americans. He started singing Bajans.
- One of his disciples is a great singer of Bajans. His name is Bhagavan Das. "He brought traditional Indian chants together with contemporary beats and loops," says his official website. He goes around the world to sing his Bajans and people pay money to listen to him. He has many recordings and they are very popular.
- Even my wife bought his Bajan records and I remember she enjoyed listening to them. He has made Hindu Bajans very popular in America. If you are interested, you should look into his music and songs.The International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) not only spreads Hinduism around the world but singing Bajans.
- They are also contributing to this new trend in America for sure, but I don't know about overseas.God is always there and when you sing his glory, it brings love and peace in peoples heart. It does not matter if you sing in English, Sanskrit, Hindi or any other language.Bharat J. Gajjar
Saturday, January 19, 2008
WhY american Like our Bajans
Friday, January 18, 2008
Soon Muslim will rule India
The Secular Road to Hell
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14590568
Ramananda Sengupta Sify.comjanuary 17, 2007
Secularism.
I have always wondered how such a seemingly innocuous word has turned into such a politically loaded noun in India.
By definition, the word essentially means separating religion from matters of state.
'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens,' goes the first line of the Preamble to our Constitution.
But hold on a second.
The original framers of our constitution did not put the word Secular there.
It was added by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, along with 58 other changes. The word 'Socialist' too was added, while 'Unity of the nation' was changed to 'unity and integrity of the nation.'
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was well intentioned. But the road to Hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.
Also read: 'Secular' Muslims want Taslima back in Kolkata Temple demolitions: Why is our govt mum?
After having inserted the word, however, the 'secular' Congress Party blocked all subsequent attempts to officially define it. And that has been the bane of our polity - and our nation - since then.
Because without a clear definition, secularism means nothing. Or rather, it means different things to different people.
For politicians, it means liberty to play vote bank games based on religion. In the same way that VP Singh, the 10th Prime Minister of India, brutally and callously divided the nation along caste lines for political mileage in 1990.
For religious leaders, it means liberty to exploit politicians for their own petty gains, in return for assuring them the vote of 'their people.'
For the common man, it means confusion, chaos and often violence spawned by the viciously divisive 'Us and Them' philosophy promoted by our religious and political leaders.
Attempts were even made recently – on the basis of something called the High Level Committee for Preparation of Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, better known as Rajinder Sachar Commission Report -- to introduce this division among the most secular institutions in the country, the Indian Army.
Thankfully, the Army would have none of it.
But we haven't heard the last of that yet; because reservation for minorities is seen as a sure way to get their vote.
This divide and rule policy that our politicians practice ensures that We the People of India, as the framers of our constitution so grandly described us, cannot agree even on things that are obviously good for us all. Like secularism as the dictionary defines it.
Instead, even as we proudly tout our so-called secular credentials, successive governments have clearly used religion for political gain.
But how can we be a secular state when we have separate laws based on religion?
How can we be a secular state when the government selectively funds pilgrimages and religious institutions?
How can we be a secular state when the government allows schools and colleges to have quotas based on religion, and actually tries to extend that to the corporate sector and even to the armed forces?
How can we be a secular state when politicians campaign on purely religious platforms, and win?
And most importantly, how can we be a secular state without clearly defining what it means?
Yes, we are certainly better off than some of our neighbours, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and perhaps even Nepal, till recently known as the only Hindu kingdom.
Pakistan and Bangladesh (and a host of nations in the Persian Gulf and Africa) proudly declare Islam as their state religion, and make no pretence about being secular.
Who killed 254 Hindus in Gujarat? 'Let us all salute Narendra Modi'
Pakistan was born because Indian Muslims -- egged on by the devious departing British -- demanded a separate state for themselves. And despite separating from Pakistan in 1971, Islam is the state religion of Bangladesh too. Which explains why the non-Muslim population in both these nations is rapidly dwindling.
Our politicians, however, in order to prove that we are secular, and of course, in order to garner our votes, have gone to the other extreme, taking steps which can easily -- and in most cases correctly -- be construed as "minority appeasement."
Things have reached such a pass that whoever uses that last phrase is immediately branded as 'anti-secular' and a right wing bigot.
Things have reached such a pass that some years ago, some Muslim men prevented firemen from rescuing a woman from a burning Kolkata tenement, saying it would be against their religion to let an unknown male touch her. The woman burned to death.
Instead of booking the men for murder, as any 'secular' state would have, however, the West Bengal government grandly declared that they would induct women fire fighters to assist in such cases.This peculiar brand of secularism trumped free speech, also enshrined in our Constitution, when it came to Taslima Nasreen, a rather insipid but feisty writer who invoked the wrath of the mighty Maulanas of our Islamic neighbour, Bangladesh.
Her crime? To attest that "If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept that religion." Taslima fled, and finally landed on Secular India's shores. But not to be outdone, our very own Maulanas too started baying for her head. And we all know what happened since: Goodbye free speech. Hello secularism.
Many many moons ago, I came across an old school friend of mine whose family owns a large, upmarket tailoring shop in Kolkata. He was going to get married, he told me; for the third time.
"My Maulana has told us that being a democracy, we can turn India into a Muslim country purely on the basis of votes. And we will. Perhaps not today. But someday, our children will rule, for sure. Nothing can stop us," he said matter of factly, before going on to explain how that would be a wonderful thing, where the rule of God and the rule of the land would be synchronised. A land where everyone could live without fear, and so on.
At that time, I had laughed out loud, saying that he obviously had not paid attention during our classes on "civics", where we had learnt all about "unity in diversity" and the unflinchingly Secular ethos of our nation.
Today, I flinch when the word is mentioned.
Secularism should be made of sterner stuff.
The author is the Chief Editor of Sify.com.
The views expressed in the article are of the author's and not of
Sify.com.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14590568
Ramananda Sengupta Sify.comjanuary 17, 2007
Secularism.
I have always wondered how such a seemingly innocuous word has turned into such a politically loaded noun in India.
By definition, the word essentially means separating religion from matters of state.
'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens,' goes the first line of the Preamble to our Constitution.
But hold on a second.
The original framers of our constitution did not put the word Secular there.
It was added by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, along with 58 other changes. The word 'Socialist' too was added, while 'Unity of the nation' was changed to 'unity and integrity of the nation.'
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was well intentioned. But the road to Hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.
Also read: 'Secular' Muslims want Taslima back in Kolkata Temple demolitions: Why is our govt mum?
After having inserted the word, however, the 'secular' Congress Party blocked all subsequent attempts to officially define it. And that has been the bane of our polity - and our nation - since then.
Because without a clear definition, secularism means nothing. Or rather, it means different things to different people.
For politicians, it means liberty to play vote bank games based on religion. In the same way that VP Singh, the 10th Prime Minister of India, brutally and callously divided the nation along caste lines for political mileage in 1990.
For religious leaders, it means liberty to exploit politicians for their own petty gains, in return for assuring them the vote of 'their people.'
For the common man, it means confusion, chaos and often violence spawned by the viciously divisive 'Us and Them' philosophy promoted by our religious and political leaders.
Attempts were even made recently – on the basis of something called the High Level Committee for Preparation of Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, better known as Rajinder Sachar Commission Report -- to introduce this division among the most secular institutions in the country, the Indian Army.
Thankfully, the Army would have none of it.
But we haven't heard the last of that yet; because reservation for minorities is seen as a sure way to get their vote.
This divide and rule policy that our politicians practice ensures that We the People of India, as the framers of our constitution so grandly described us, cannot agree even on things that are obviously good for us all. Like secularism as the dictionary defines it.
Instead, even as we proudly tout our so-called secular credentials, successive governments have clearly used religion for political gain.
But how can we be a secular state when we have separate laws based on religion?
How can we be a secular state when the government selectively funds pilgrimages and religious institutions?
How can we be a secular state when the government allows schools and colleges to have quotas based on religion, and actually tries to extend that to the corporate sector and even to the armed forces?
How can we be a secular state when politicians campaign on purely religious platforms, and win?
And most importantly, how can we be a secular state without clearly defining what it means?
Yes, we are certainly better off than some of our neighbours, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and perhaps even Nepal, till recently known as the only Hindu kingdom.
Pakistan and Bangladesh (and a host of nations in the Persian Gulf and Africa) proudly declare Islam as their state religion, and make no pretence about being secular.
Who killed 254 Hindus in Gujarat? 'Let us all salute Narendra Modi'
Pakistan was born because Indian Muslims -- egged on by the devious departing British -- demanded a separate state for themselves. And despite separating from Pakistan in 1971, Islam is the state religion of Bangladesh too. Which explains why the non-Muslim population in both these nations is rapidly dwindling.
Our politicians, however, in order to prove that we are secular, and of course, in order to garner our votes, have gone to the other extreme, taking steps which can easily -- and in most cases correctly -- be construed as "minority appeasement."
Things have reached such a pass that whoever uses that last phrase is immediately branded as 'anti-secular' and a right wing bigot.
Things have reached such a pass that some years ago, some Muslim men prevented firemen from rescuing a woman from a burning Kolkata tenement, saying it would be against their religion to let an unknown male touch her. The woman burned to death.
Instead of booking the men for murder, as any 'secular' state would have, however, the West Bengal government grandly declared that they would induct women fire fighters to assist in such cases.This peculiar brand of secularism trumped free speech, also enshrined in our Constitution, when it came to Taslima Nasreen, a rather insipid but feisty writer who invoked the wrath of the mighty Maulanas of our Islamic neighbour, Bangladesh.
Her crime? To attest that "If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept that religion." Taslima fled, and finally landed on Secular India's shores. But not to be outdone, our very own Maulanas too started baying for her head. And we all know what happened since: Goodbye free speech. Hello secularism.
Many many moons ago, I came across an old school friend of mine whose family owns a large, upmarket tailoring shop in Kolkata. He was going to get married, he told me; for the third time.
"My Maulana has told us that being a democracy, we can turn India into a Muslim country purely on the basis of votes. And we will. Perhaps not today. But someday, our children will rule, for sure. Nothing can stop us," he said matter of factly, before going on to explain how that would be a wonderful thing, where the rule of God and the rule of the land would be synchronised. A land where everyone could live without fear, and so on.
At that time, I had laughed out loud, saying that he obviously had not paid attention during our classes on "civics", where we had learnt all about "unity in diversity" and the unflinchingly Secular ethos of our nation.
Today, I flinch when the word is mentioned.
Secularism should be made of sterner stuff.
The author is the Chief Editor of Sify.com.
The views expressed in the article are of the author's and not of
Sify.com.
Unholy ways of Holy
Unholy ways of Holy Missionaries
U. Mahesh Prabhu.
Recently I happened to read Edward Gibbons 'Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'. In the book he makes observation on early Christians and their tactics for conversion. Here he quotes a Roman proconsul who wrote that Christians have a very effective method of getting noticed and portraying themselves as 'Victims' in order to advance their cause.
Whenever, a minute transgression or even an attempt is made to implement law against them they make such a fuss and in such a rowdy manner that one would think that a 'great injustice' had been committed to them.
Christianity does not have a notable reputation for tolerance and respect for other religions. 'The Christian need to convert the entire world' has been an historical obsession that continues in major Christian fundamentalist groups even today, both Protestant and Catholic.
The Christian Missionary's failure to honor other religions, particularly non-biblical traditions, is well known, with Christians still denigrating the sophisticated yogic traditions of Asia as mere superstition, idolatry and polytheism. Christian missionaries have had a reputation for using methods to promote conversion that are not always honest, including employing military and political force during the colonial era.
Their targeting of the poor and illiterate for conversion shows that they don't like open debates in the light of the day. Yet Christians like to ignore such inconvenient facts while posing as peaceful people concerned with human welfare, not with conversion. They are surprised if members of other religion are suspicious of them, even if they look at these religions and condemn them as works of the Devil. They feel easily hurt and insulted should anyone question their motives.
They offer no freedom of choice about the 'savior' or the book or the creed that can bring salvation and there is little tolerance for those who choose another way outside their faith. Europe had to reject the church and Christian dogma in order to become democratic over the past several centuries, considering this; Christian churches are the last people on earth who should be talking about 'democratic rights'. It is merely a smokescreen for promoting their own agendas, spreading their authoritarian and exclusivist beliefs, recklessly eliminating other cultures and religions along the way.
Years before there were serial church bombings in South India.
It proved that the charges made by Christian leaders against Hindu organizations for the bombings were unfounded, if not malicious. However instead of admitting their mistake Christian leaders and organizations started a propaganda campaign, again blaming the Hindu organizations for 'creating an atmosphere' that led to these crimes!
U. Mahesh Prabhu.
Recently I happened to read Edward Gibbons 'Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'. In the book he makes observation on early Christians and their tactics for conversion. Here he quotes a Roman proconsul who wrote that Christians have a very effective method of getting noticed and portraying themselves as 'Victims' in order to advance their cause.
Whenever, a minute transgression or even an attempt is made to implement law against them they make such a fuss and in such a rowdy manner that one would think that a 'great injustice' had been committed to them.
Christianity does not have a notable reputation for tolerance and respect for other religions. 'The Christian need to convert the entire world' has been an historical obsession that continues in major Christian fundamentalist groups even today, both Protestant and Catholic.
The Christian Missionary's failure to honor other religions, particularly non-biblical traditions, is well known, with Christians still denigrating the sophisticated yogic traditions of Asia as mere superstition, idolatry and polytheism. Christian missionaries have had a reputation for using methods to promote conversion that are not always honest, including employing military and political force during the colonial era.
Their targeting of the poor and illiterate for conversion shows that they don't like open debates in the light of the day. Yet Christians like to ignore such inconvenient facts while posing as peaceful people concerned with human welfare, not with conversion. They are surprised if members of other religion are suspicious of them, even if they look at these religions and condemn them as works of the Devil. They feel easily hurt and insulted should anyone question their motives.
In the modern secular world, Christians along with Muslims, now demand conversion as a democratic right, even though their religion is authoritarian, and not democratic, accepting only one way, and not honoring pluralism in approaching the Divine.
They offer no freedom of choice about the 'savior' or the book or the creed that can bring salvation and there is little tolerance for those who choose another way outside their faith. Europe had to reject the church and Christian dogma in order to become democratic over the past several centuries, considering this; Christian churches are the last people on earth who should be talking about 'democratic rights'. It is merely a smokescreen for promoting their own agendas, spreading their authoritarian and exclusivist beliefs, recklessly eliminating other cultures and religions along the way.
Years before there were serial church bombings in South India.
It proved that the charges made by Christian leaders against Hindu organizations for the bombings were unfounded, if not malicious. However instead of admitting their mistake Christian leaders and organizations started a propaganda campaign, again blaming the Hindu organizations for 'creating an atmosphere' that led to these crimes!
- The arrests in this regard, in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, had shown that Deendal Anjuman, a Muslim organization led by a Pakistani National was behind most of the bomb blasts and attacks on Christian groups in South India. The Christian response has been to ignore or deny the report, though it is quite well documented. For further details, I suggest you to, read 'Church Blasts: Truth and Propaganda' by S Y Seshagiri Rao.
Christians in India, who exaggerate such minor incidents into a National or International anti-Hindu propaganda, somehow never speak of the fact that
' Several dozen black American churches were burnt to the ground. Christian priests and ministers are also robbed, assaulted and sometimes killed in all Western countries.- We should note that many more priests in America have been arrested for sexual molestation of children than have priests been assaulted in India. Should we use that to make conclusions about the nature of Christianity?
Did you know the fact that Christians killed many more pagans, and thousands of pagan temples were destroyed throughout Europe? The great Greek (Neo Platonic) Academy in Alexandria was destroyed and its scholars like Hypatia killed by Cyril – 'Saint Cyril'. The number of Native Americans killed or forcibly converted by Catholics was also in the many millions, and yet the Catholics emphasize a few priests martyred by Native Americans as being the real victims. Such and more are stories of 'Christian Oppression'.
Hinduism is a religion of openness. We appreciate all gods and deities. We have never said that we are the 'only way' like many of the Semitic faiths.- But Christian missionaries have, instead, used it as a pretext to promote Christian superiority, not to reciprocate with honoring Hinduism and its sages and yogis.
- They say Christ must be great because Hindus honor him. They don't honor Hindu teachers in return. The hypocrisy of the whole thing is easy to see. It shows the condescending attitude towards Hindus, thinking that they can bully them or appeal to their tolerance by a feigned persecution. It wholly proves that Christians Missionaries are still promoting a medieval religion that will not honor other religions and is still seeking world domination by any means fair or foul. If we count the victims of Christian aggression on one side and the Christian themselves who have been victimized we will find that the victims of Christianity are overwhelming in the majority.
- While some Christians have apologized to African and Native American groups for such missionary misdeeds, the Hindus have so far not received any such apology, though they have suffered from the same methods. The reason is that the missionaries have not yet triumphed in India. The apology, like crocodile tears, comes only after the victim is dead.
I would trust those missionaries only if they say that Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and other Indian religions are as good as Christianity. Let Christians say clearly that members of other religions will not go to hell but will gain immortality in the presence of God by following what is good in their own teachings.
Writes David Frawley 'As a former Catholic I know in what little esteem the Church holds Hinduism and Buddhism with all their great sages and yogis. Christianity, like Islam, sees tolerance not as a virtue to be emulated but as a weakness to be exploited. Were Christians really to honor Hinduism as a valid religion all Hindu-Christian hostility could easily come to an end. As long as Christians hold that their alone is the True Faith and are working to convert the members of other religion in one way or another, they should not be surprised if members of other religions do not welcome their presence.' In his book 'The Missionary Ploy.'
It is only a matter of time before Missionary Christianity is seen for what is imperialism in the name of God and Christ, the proverbial wolf in the sheep's clothing. It is a political, worldly movement with little spirituality in it. Unfortunately such Christians confuse the real Divine work, which is improving us through introspection, with the institutional work of imposing a single belief upon all humanity. This political view of religion has no place in global age of consciousness that is dawning in enlightened minds all over the world today. The quicker it comes to an end, the better it will be for all of humanity. http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-blog-column65.htm
PERSECUTION INDUSTRY @ http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=128
INVADING THE SACRED @ http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/invading-the-sacred/
Strong nexus between missionaries and Naxals@ http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/08vhp.htm
Modi sets an example how to rule
A victory for Indian democracy
Written by
N. Murugan IAS (Rtd)
Everyone has agreed on one basic fact, regarding the Gujarat election results, that they are truly a personal triumph of Mr Narendra Modi. Many had predicted it even before the announcement of the poll process.
The outcome surely wouldn't have surprised those who have been closely observing the politics in that state.This electoral success has also lead to many healthy signs.
It has proved that
[a] personal integrity of a leader can attract the unanimous endorsement of the masses even in these times,
[b] anti-incumbency factor needn't work to eliminate a ruling party on all occasions,
[c] internal bickering in a political party need not affect the election results
[d] minority support alone is not enough to win an election and [d] any amount of attractive promises like free television sets or food grains will not fool the masses.
Further, it has also been proved that an electoral victory is possible without conducting political processions, seven miles long, without cut-outs and massive serial lightings.
This is a welcome development, because it throws some hope for the future success of honesty and integrity in public life in our democratic setup.
In the background of all these stand the sky high qualities of a single man, Narendra Modi.
What are those characteristics in him that made this possible?
They are:The bachelor Chief minister, Modi lives in his house with three person; a cook and two peons.
His habit is to take his simple food all alone in his house.
If his cook is on leave one of the two peons cooks his simple food.
In his office he has two personal assistants – these are not IAS officers – who discharge the chief minister Modi.
They attend to his phone calls, particularly, to note who called and connecting them to the Chief Minister, if necessary, or noting down messages from them.
They also fix up his tour programs and personal appointments and attend to other routing items of work.
They do not have access to the residence of the Chief Minister.
Gujarat is the first amongst the most industrialised States in India.
Its speedy progress has been achieved during the tenure of Mr Modi. Under his rule, local and foreign investments have seen geometric progression in this state.
In spite of this, none of those who opposed him in the recent polls could make a single accusation of graft – because there was none.
Companies seeking to start an industry in Gujarat would be granted appointments with Mr Modi after relevant applications have been processed through the concerned departments.
Subsequent to a meeting with the CM in the presence of his bureaucrats, fast-track clearances are accorded in a routine manner.
Before the elections, a journalist posed a question to Mr. Modi: “What are the achievements of your government?” To this Mr. Modi answers, “Instead of asking this question to me, wouldn't it be better if you asked the same thing to the common public, experts in political, economic and industrial fields?".
The correspondent queried professors in economics. Their replies brought forth three points enumerated below:* Out of the 97 Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) signed between the government and industrial houses, 89 have already borne fruit.* The remaining eight are in various stages of completion.*
Water and electricity are available in the rural areas without impediments.Mr Modi never seeks personal praise.
When he was to be sworn-in in 2002, Modi's mother attended the function, but the CM simply ignored her. She watched the ceremony like the rest of the members of the common public, seated on a chair provided by someone who recognised her and placed in a corner. This incident is particularly relevant to be noted by those in a State [readTamilNadu] wherein the CM's near and dear occupies a special dais to "inspect" processions of the party-faithfuls.Such things lead to the virtual absence of anti-incumbency factor.Significantly, even in states like Tamil Nadu, it is true that anti-incumbency acts and those in power have been defeated, but it is because all those in power just indulge in corruption and irregularities.
Developmental plans' proper fructification and absence of freebies during electioneering are two other aspects of Modi's triumph.
That the Congress lost despite promising free colour television sets during the run-up to the elections is worth remembering here.
Politicians in Tamil Nadu are of the firm belief that attempting to pander to the wishes of the highest denomination of the masses by announcing subsidies and indefinite procrastination in matters concerning unpopular decisions are a sure path to victory.
On the contrary, despite bringing farmers who defaulted in electricity payments to book, Mr Modi won in Gujarat.In several States, many in power believe that issuing election tickets to those who are corrupt because they represent a 'powerful' caste or two and thus ensuring victory.
This has been proved ingenuine.Upon Modi's personal intervention, 47 ruling party legislators were denied tickets for bad performance and complaints. These tickets were in turn distributed amongst more deserving candidates by the BJP. Of those 33 emerged triumphant.In a word, antagonising seniors who were either corrupt or dullards and ignoring caste-based votes were welcome highlights of Modi's return to power – which may sound the death-knell to such practices.And this was not all.Newspapers, television channels, central ministers and self-side goals by a few bigwigs within his own party assailed Mr Modi simultaneously.
One can only hold Mr Modi who overcame all these impediments with aplomb in awe.A few in the know aver that the real reasons for all this are that Mr Modi understood the ground reality and comprehended the mindset of his people.Another important fact of these election results is that the people have understood the real import of terms like secularism and phrases like mollycoddling of minorities in the name of their security.
When asked during the elections as to what were his plans for the development of the minorities in Gujarat, Mr Modi replied, "My plans are for the development of the entire State in which minority and majority sections are included anyway."Everyone concerned knows that the minorities are being looked after properly in all states by India.Political observers have found that in the name of getting the endorsement of the minorities, when politicians pander to their whims and fancies, the majority would take a firm stand.On that note alone, Mr Narendra Modi's victory is a victory for Indian democracy.
Written by
N. Murugan IAS (Rtd)
Everyone has agreed on one basic fact, regarding the Gujarat election results, that they are truly a personal triumph of Mr Narendra Modi. Many had predicted it even before the announcement of the poll process.
The outcome surely wouldn't have surprised those who have been closely observing the politics in that state.This electoral success has also lead to many healthy signs.
It has proved that
[a] personal integrity of a leader can attract the unanimous endorsement of the masses even in these times,
[b] anti-incumbency factor needn't work to eliminate a ruling party on all occasions,
[c] internal bickering in a political party need not affect the election results
[d] minority support alone is not enough to win an election and [d] any amount of attractive promises like free television sets or food grains will not fool the masses.
Further, it has also been proved that an electoral victory is possible without conducting political processions, seven miles long, without cut-outs and massive serial lightings.
This is a welcome development, because it throws some hope for the future success of honesty and integrity in public life in our democratic setup.
In the background of all these stand the sky high qualities of a single man, Narendra Modi.
What are those characteristics in him that made this possible?
They are:The bachelor Chief minister, Modi lives in his house with three person; a cook and two peons.
His habit is to take his simple food all alone in his house.
If his cook is on leave one of the two peons cooks his simple food.
In his office he has two personal assistants – these are not IAS officers – who discharge the chief minister Modi.
They attend to his phone calls, particularly, to note who called and connecting them to the Chief Minister, if necessary, or noting down messages from them.
They also fix up his tour programs and personal appointments and attend to other routing items of work.
They do not have access to the residence of the Chief Minister.
Gujarat is the first amongst the most industrialised States in India.
Its speedy progress has been achieved during the tenure of Mr Modi. Under his rule, local and foreign investments have seen geometric progression in this state.
In spite of this, none of those who opposed him in the recent polls could make a single accusation of graft – because there was none.
Companies seeking to start an industry in Gujarat would be granted appointments with Mr Modi after relevant applications have been processed through the concerned departments.
Subsequent to a meeting with the CM in the presence of his bureaucrats, fast-track clearances are accorded in a routine manner.
Before the elections, a journalist posed a question to Mr. Modi: “What are the achievements of your government?” To this Mr. Modi answers, “Instead of asking this question to me, wouldn't it be better if you asked the same thing to the common public, experts in political, economic and industrial fields?".
The correspondent queried professors in economics. Their replies brought forth three points enumerated below:* Out of the 97 Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) signed between the government and industrial houses, 89 have already borne fruit.* The remaining eight are in various stages of completion.*
Water and electricity are available in the rural areas without impediments.Mr Modi never seeks personal praise.
When he was to be sworn-in in 2002, Modi's mother attended the function, but the CM simply ignored her. She watched the ceremony like the rest of the members of the common public, seated on a chair provided by someone who recognised her and placed in a corner. This incident is particularly relevant to be noted by those in a State [readTamilNadu] wherein the CM's near and dear occupies a special dais to "inspect" processions of the party-faithfuls.Such things lead to the virtual absence of anti-incumbency factor.Significantly, even in states like Tamil Nadu, it is true that anti-incumbency acts and those in power have been defeated, but it is because all those in power just indulge in corruption and irregularities.
Developmental plans' proper fructification and absence of freebies during electioneering are two other aspects of Modi's triumph.
That the Congress lost despite promising free colour television sets during the run-up to the elections is worth remembering here.
Politicians in Tamil Nadu are of the firm belief that attempting to pander to the wishes of the highest denomination of the masses by announcing subsidies and indefinite procrastination in matters concerning unpopular decisions are a sure path to victory.
On the contrary, despite bringing farmers who defaulted in electricity payments to book, Mr Modi won in Gujarat.In several States, many in power believe that issuing election tickets to those who are corrupt because they represent a 'powerful' caste or two and thus ensuring victory.
This has been proved ingenuine.Upon Modi's personal intervention, 47 ruling party legislators were denied tickets for bad performance and complaints. These tickets were in turn distributed amongst more deserving candidates by the BJP. Of those 33 emerged triumphant.In a word, antagonising seniors who were either corrupt or dullards and ignoring caste-based votes were welcome highlights of Modi's return to power – which may sound the death-knell to such practices.And this was not all.Newspapers, television channels, central ministers and self-side goals by a few bigwigs within his own party assailed Mr Modi simultaneously.
One can only hold Mr Modi who overcame all these impediments with aplomb in awe.A few in the know aver that the real reasons for all this are that Mr Modi understood the ground reality and comprehended the mindset of his people.Another important fact of these election results is that the people have understood the real import of terms like secularism and phrases like mollycoddling of minorities in the name of their security.
When asked during the elections as to what were his plans for the development of the minorities in Gujarat, Mr Modi replied, "My plans are for the development of the entire State in which minority and majority sections are included anyway."Everyone concerned knows that the minorities are being looked after properly in all states by India.Political observers have found that in the name of getting the endorsement of the minorities, when politicians pander to their whims and fancies, the majority would take a firm stand.On that note alone, Mr Narendra Modi's victory is a victory for Indian democracy.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Who is helping Jihadis
How US helps fund jihad
Kanchan GuptaThe PioneerJanuary 17, 2007
American Government and military officials have told The New York Times that much of the aid provided by the Bush Administration to Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban has been diverted for Islamabad's jihad against New Delhi.
According to The New York Times report, funds have been "diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India" and pay "tens of millions of dollars in inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs". An European diplomat, aware of this diversion, has told the newspaper, "I wonder if the Americans have been taken for a ride."
The revelation has been greeted with sullen silence by the Bush Administration, which continues to invest faith in Gen Pervez Musharraf and still treats him as a "staunch ally" in the war on terror even as Pakistan falls, bit by bit, to the advancing hordes of barbarians who think nothing of slaughtering both believers and non-believers to further the cause of fanatical Islam. Pakistani officials, however, are "incensed at what they see as
American ingratitude for Pakistani counter-terrorism" efforts.
In India, there is a sense of outrage and those who are not particularly fond of America (all of them aren't card-carrying Communists) have bitterly pointed out how the US will never learn from its past mistakes.
They have a point. Gen Zia-ul Haq, and later 'elected' Governments and the ISI, used military hardware and funds supplied by the US during the Washington-sanctioned Afghan jihad against Soviet troops to wage a covert war against the Indian state and extract a terrible toll of innocent lives.
Just as that diversion was no secret for American officials, this diversion, too, is known to them. If despite such knowledge they have chosen to keep quiet and ply Gen Musharraf with more funds -- the Bush Administration has sought a billion dollars in non-food aid to Pakistan during fiscal 2008 -- the Americans have only themselves to blame for floundering so miserably in the war on terror.
Worse, thanks to America's stupendous folly, the lives of millions of people in the region have been imperilled as never before. The fidayeen attack on Kabul's Serena Hotel is the harbinger of further dreadful news, as is the suicide bombing in Lahore.
This is not to suggest that all Americans are equally blind to the Bush Administration's shocking inability to see through Pakistan's charade. Voices are being increasingly heard on Capitol Hill, demanding that the Pakistani establishment be held accountable for its failure to deliver on promises.
There are also demands that further American aid to Pakistan should be linked to actual performance on the ground in the war on terror. But every time this is mentioned, officials in Islamabad slyly let it be known that "any attempt to link American aid to certain conditions could impede Pakistan's role in the war on terror and hurt bilateral ties". And a hush descends on Washington, DC.
The stakes for Pakistan are obviously very high, given the quantum of American non-humanitarian aid it has been receiving since 9/11. A recent report on 'Direct Overt US Assistance and Military Reimbursements to Pakistan, FY 2001-FY 2008', prepared by the Congressional Research Service, provides interesting details of American funds that have reached Islamabad and a clue to how much has been diverted to acquire weapons targeted at India and to pay inflated, bogus bills. For instance, between fiscal 2002 and 2007, the US has given Pakistan $1.3 billion towards foreign military financing and an additional $418 million towards 'other security related aid'. The US has provided a whopping $5.7 billion to Pakistan during this period as 'Coalition Support Funds', which is "Pentagon funding to reimburse Pakistan for its support of US military operations". The total 'Non-food Aid Plus Coalition Support Funds' that were transferred from American to Pakistani accounts added up to $9.8 billion.
In sharp contrast, American food aid was a piffling $177 million. It would appear that the Bush Administration believes all Pakistanis shop at Harrod's. Ironically, a poll conducted by International Republican Institute, founded by the Congress and run by prominent Republicans, to gauge the issues that are likely to dominate the general election scheduled for February 18, shows 53 per cent Pakistanis view inflation as the biggest issue, followed by unemployment (15 per cent), poverty (nine per cent) and terrorism (six per cent).
Acquisition of military hardware targeted at India and accumulation of riches in numbered Swiss bank accounts, facilitated by unrestricted flow of dollars from the US, may thrill Pakistanis in khaki, but the people of that benighted country are not impressed, least of all by the war on terror which has resulted in greater collateral damage than tangible, verifiable results simply because the Americans are happy to trust -- some would say stupidly so -- a wily General.
Astonishingly, in spite of the huge body of evidence that amply demonstrates America's post-9/11 policy on Pakistan has been an unmitigated disaster, opinion-makers who influence those who write out cheques in Washington, DC -- their influence would considerably increase if the Democrats were to capture the White House later this year -- continue to peddle the old line, counselling engagement with those very elements who are singularly to blame for the mess that prevails in Pakistan today.
In a policy brief, 'Pakistan -- Conflicted Ally in the War on Terror', Ashley J Tellis, senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues, "Although Pakistani counter-terrorism effectiveness has fallen short of what Americans expect, Islamabad's failures in this regard are not simply due to a lack of motivation. Instead, the convulsive political deterioration in the North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, Islamabad's military ineptitude in counter-terrorism operations, and the political failures of the Karzai Government in Afghanistan have exacerbated the problem."
If being accorded the status of 'staunch ally' in the war on terror (notwithstanding the fact that Gen Musharraf has done nothing to put down even those whom he could, for example, Jaish-e-Mohammed's chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba's leading jihadi Hafeez Saeed) and being provided with billions of dollars are not motivation enough, then we need to redefine this word. Mr Tellis also conveniently ignores the fact that the situation in the North-West Frontier Province and in Afghanistan is entirely the creation of Pakistan -- no doubt helped in great measure by American aid.
Kanchan GuptaThe PioneerJanuary 17, 2007
American Government and military officials have told The New York Times that much of the aid provided by the Bush Administration to Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban has been diverted for Islamabad's jihad against New Delhi.
According to The New York Times report, funds have been "diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India" and pay "tens of millions of dollars in inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs". An European diplomat, aware of this diversion, has told the newspaper, "I wonder if the Americans have been taken for a ride."
The revelation has been greeted with sullen silence by the Bush Administration, which continues to invest faith in Gen Pervez Musharraf and still treats him as a "staunch ally" in the war on terror even as Pakistan falls, bit by bit, to the advancing hordes of barbarians who think nothing of slaughtering both believers and non-believers to further the cause of fanatical Islam. Pakistani officials, however, are "incensed at what they see as
American ingratitude for Pakistani counter-terrorism" efforts.
In India, there is a sense of outrage and those who are not particularly fond of America (all of them aren't card-carrying Communists) have bitterly pointed out how the US will never learn from its past mistakes.
They have a point. Gen Zia-ul Haq, and later 'elected' Governments and the ISI, used military hardware and funds supplied by the US during the Washington-sanctioned Afghan jihad against Soviet troops to wage a covert war against the Indian state and extract a terrible toll of innocent lives.
Just as that diversion was no secret for American officials, this diversion, too, is known to them. If despite such knowledge they have chosen to keep quiet and ply Gen Musharraf with more funds -- the Bush Administration has sought a billion dollars in non-food aid to Pakistan during fiscal 2008 -- the Americans have only themselves to blame for floundering so miserably in the war on terror.
Worse, thanks to America's stupendous folly, the lives of millions of people in the region have been imperilled as never before. The fidayeen attack on Kabul's Serena Hotel is the harbinger of further dreadful news, as is the suicide bombing in Lahore.
This is not to suggest that all Americans are equally blind to the Bush Administration's shocking inability to see through Pakistan's charade. Voices are being increasingly heard on Capitol Hill, demanding that the Pakistani establishment be held accountable for its failure to deliver on promises.
There are also demands that further American aid to Pakistan should be linked to actual performance on the ground in the war on terror. But every time this is mentioned, officials in Islamabad slyly let it be known that "any attempt to link American aid to certain conditions could impede Pakistan's role in the war on terror and hurt bilateral ties". And a hush descends on Washington, DC.
The stakes for Pakistan are obviously very high, given the quantum of American non-humanitarian aid it has been receiving since 9/11. A recent report on 'Direct Overt US Assistance and Military Reimbursements to Pakistan, FY 2001-FY 2008', prepared by the Congressional Research Service, provides interesting details of American funds that have reached Islamabad and a clue to how much has been diverted to acquire weapons targeted at India and to pay inflated, bogus bills. For instance, between fiscal 2002 and 2007, the US has given Pakistan $1.3 billion towards foreign military financing and an additional $418 million towards 'other security related aid'. The US has provided a whopping $5.7 billion to Pakistan during this period as 'Coalition Support Funds', which is "Pentagon funding to reimburse Pakistan for its support of US military operations". The total 'Non-food Aid Plus Coalition Support Funds' that were transferred from American to Pakistani accounts added up to $9.8 billion.
In sharp contrast, American food aid was a piffling $177 million. It would appear that the Bush Administration believes all Pakistanis shop at Harrod's. Ironically, a poll conducted by International Republican Institute, founded by the Congress and run by prominent Republicans, to gauge the issues that are likely to dominate the general election scheduled for February 18, shows 53 per cent Pakistanis view inflation as the biggest issue, followed by unemployment (15 per cent), poverty (nine per cent) and terrorism (six per cent).
Acquisition of military hardware targeted at India and accumulation of riches in numbered Swiss bank accounts, facilitated by unrestricted flow of dollars from the US, may thrill Pakistanis in khaki, but the people of that benighted country are not impressed, least of all by the war on terror which has resulted in greater collateral damage than tangible, verifiable results simply because the Americans are happy to trust -- some would say stupidly so -- a wily General.
Astonishingly, in spite of the huge body of evidence that amply demonstrates America's post-9/11 policy on Pakistan has been an unmitigated disaster, opinion-makers who influence those who write out cheques in Washington, DC -- their influence would considerably increase if the Democrats were to capture the White House later this year -- continue to peddle the old line, counselling engagement with those very elements who are singularly to blame for the mess that prevails in Pakistan today.
In a policy brief, 'Pakistan -- Conflicted Ally in the War on Terror', Ashley J Tellis, senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues, "Although Pakistani counter-terrorism effectiveness has fallen short of what Americans expect, Islamabad's failures in this regard are not simply due to a lack of motivation. Instead, the convulsive political deterioration in the North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, Islamabad's military ineptitude in counter-terrorism operations, and the political failures of the Karzai Government in Afghanistan have exacerbated the problem."
If being accorded the status of 'staunch ally' in the war on terror (notwithstanding the fact that Gen Musharraf has done nothing to put down even those whom he could, for example, Jaish-e-Mohammed's chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba's leading jihadi Hafeez Saeed) and being provided with billions of dollars are not motivation enough, then we need to redefine this word. Mr Tellis also conveniently ignores the fact that the situation in the North-West Frontier Province and in Afghanistan is entirely the creation of Pakistan -- no doubt helped in great measure by American aid.
But who is to tell the Americans that they are utterly, horribly wrong? Most of us would rather tell the naked king that he's wearing a splendid robe in the hope he will be pleased and throw some crumbs our way, too.
Libya: Deports Illigals ,Why not India
January 17, 2008
World Briefing Africa
Libya: Migrants Deported
By REUTERS
The government said it had started deporting illegal immigrants. Officials estimate that there are two million illegal immigrants, most from poor African states who were trying to reach Europe. The government said the authorities were instructed to destroy makeshift homes where most illegal immigrants live on the outskirts of Tripoli and other coastal cities.
World Briefing Africa
Libya: Migrants Deported
By REUTERS
The government said it had started deporting illegal immigrants. Officials estimate that there are two million illegal immigrants, most from poor African states who were trying to reach Europe. The government said the authorities were instructed to destroy makeshift homes where most illegal immigrants live on the outskirts of Tripoli and other coastal cities.
Democracy and Conflicts In ASIA
'Democracy and Conflict Resolution in Asia'
Dainik Jagran Summit New Delhi – January 16, 2008
Speech by Shri L.K. Advani Leader of the Opposition (Lok Sabha)
Distinguished participants in this conclave, ladies and gentlemen,
I am delighted to be with you this morning. At the outset, I wish to congratulate Dainik Jagran, a leading Hindi language newspaper in our country, for organizing this summit. Conferences of this kind have been held on an annual basis by some well-known English publications, and I have participated in them too. However, it gives me special satisfaction to be participating in a conclave organised by a publication in Hindi, our national language, of which I am immensely proud. At the same time, I am dismayed by the fact that Hindi has not yet received the kind of recognition, both within India and internationally, that it so richly deserves.
There is an urgent need to encourage, enrich and honour Hindi and other native Indian languages. I am saying this in a special context. The United Nations has recently proclaimed 2008 the International Year of Languages, recognizing that genuine multilingualism promotes unity in diversity and international understanding. It also emphasized the paramount importance of the equality of the Organization's six official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish). There is not a single Indian-origin language among these, although the number of Hindi-speaking people exceeds those that speak Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish.
A reason for insufficient international recognition for Hindi may be the fact that it is not spoken outside India. But what is disappointing is that, within India, we place English on a higher pedestal than Hindi and other Indian-origin languages. The effect of the British strategy of making Indians feel inferior about their language and culture has curiously survived even after independence. Those who speak only Hindi or other Indian languages, and are not very conversant in English, are generally looked down upon. Let me recount a personal experience.
I knew very little Hindi during the first twenty years of my life I spent in Sindh. But I studied it diligently after I came to this part of India after Partition. I came from Rajasthan to Delhi in 1957 to assist the parliamentary wing of my party. Whenever the telephone rang and I happened to pick it up, my first expression was (it still is), "Haan ji." To which, many times, the response from the other side used to be: "Sahab ghar mein hain?" (Is sahib at home?). And I would tell them, "Aap ko Advani se baat karani hai, to main bol raha hoon." (If you wish to speak to Advani, you are talking to the right person.)
In the context of the language debate in India, I have always maintained that our opposition is not to Angrezi per se, but to Angreziyat, which makes people harbour a sense of inferiority complex because they are unable to converse in English. The Chinese or Russians or Japanese have never suffered from this complex.
* * *
Let's recognize the Genius of Asia
With these prefatory remarks, let me come to the topic of this conclave. A discussion on 'Democracy and Conflict Resolution in Asia' must first of all recognize two factors about Asia ― its rich historical experience and its proud diversity, which should disabuse us of the notion that we have nothing to learn from our own tradition of democracy and conflict-resolution and have to only learn from others. Asia is the world's largest, most populous and most diverse continent. It is also where all the world's major faiths were born. It is the cradle of a majority of the world's great and living civilizations. Neither of the two devastating World Wars of the last century was caused by Asia, although Asian countries were affected by their fire. Similarly, Asia has been a victim of colonialism and not a cause of it.
All this speaks of what is often termed as the 'Genius of Asia'. By any reckoning, it provides a valuable spiritual, cultural and intellectual resource to promote democracy and peaceful conflict-resolution. There is another important point to be noted here. After remaining a victim of history for several centuries, Asia is now becoming, once again, a prime shaper of its own destiny. Let me put this point in perspective.
Last week, I came across three volumes of a new and ambitious encyclopedia on the history of Indian Science and Technology, a project promoted by Shri Rajiv Malhotra of the Infinity Foundation, USA. It quotes Samuel Huntington writing the following in his much-discussed book 'Clash of Civilisations'.
"In 1750, China accounted for almost one-third, India for almost one-quarter and the West for a less than a fifth of the world's manufacturing output…In the following decades, the industrialization of the West led to the de-industrialisation of the world."
In contrast to this, the late 20th century witnessed an Asian economic renaissance. As far as economic growth is concerned, the centre of gravity has already shifted to Asia, with India and China emerging as the two main engines of the growth of the global economy. According to noted economic historian Angus Maddison, if India and China can sustain their current rates of growth, they will regain their historic place in the next few decades.
The above trend has profound implications for democracy, conflict-resolution and management of global affairs in general. The western monopoly over global economic processes, one that has lasted for over two centuries and which gave the West a dominant position in military matters and global diplomacy, has been unequivocally broken. Asia's material rejuvenation buttressed by the flow of financial resources and dissemination of information/knowledge flows, itself enabled by the IT and communication revolution of the 1990s, has begun to strengthen the voice of nation states in Asia .
Therefore, if Asia's newly gained economic strength and rapidly growing political clout can be combined with the essential 'Genius of Asia' ― its priceless civilisational, cultural and spiritual resource, rooted in the values of peace, harmony, justice, respect for pluralism, co-existence and dialogue ― I am optimistic that Asia will be able to rewrite not only its own history but also contribute greatly to building a better future for the world as a whole. And with Asia rapidly reclaiming its historic position in the global community, I feel confident that Europe's past will not be Asia's future; rather, the best of Asia's past will mould humanity's future.
India and China should fully normalize good-neighbourly ties
In fact, one notices an interesting trend in Asian diplomacy whereby outstanding conflicts are casting a diminishing shadow on the improvement of relations in other spheres, particularly economic. It could also be argued that the existence of outstanding disputes is persuading states to seek rapprochement and construct new bilateral and multilateral mechanisms/institutions. Economic interdependence in Asia is gradually compelling states to pursue non-confrontational means of tackling old disputes. It may suffice to say that inter-state stability can only emerge from a mutual accommodation of each other's core security interests. And this in turn will require responsible statesmen who can equilibrate security strategies based on "self-help" with those based on cooperative norms.
A good example of this is the evolution of India-China relations in recent years, and the constructive approach that both countries have adopted to resolve the border dispute. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's just-concluded visit to China has hopefully taken this effort forward. Fully normalized good-neighbourly and cooperative relations between the two great nations of Asia can become a reliable factor of peace, stability and progress both in the region and globally.
Indeed, the effort to bring about a rapprochement in India-China relations was started when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the foreign minister in Morarji Desai's government. His historic meeting with Deng Xiaoping in 1979 broke the ice and resumed top-level dialogue that had been frozen after 1962. Shri Vajpayee also gave a big boost to this effort when he became the Prime Minister. An institutionalized framework for dialogue on resolution of the border dispute was begun during his regime. In between, Rajiv Gandhi and P.V. Narasimha Rao also made valuable contribution to the normalization of ties between our two countries. Here we see an example of the development of a highly useful national consensus in foreign policy.
It has been my view that Pakistan should recognize the usefulness of the framework adopted by India and China for normalizing and strengthening our bilateral ties, without holding them hostage to the resolution of the border dispute. Similarly, Indo-Pak relations can be normalized without holding them hostage to the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
Two long-festering conflicts in Asia
Unfortunately, several long-festering conflicts in Asia have been sustained, and have eluded a satisfactory solution, because of the interplay between western strategies of global domination in conflict-zones, where the conflicts are in turn exacerbated by certain intolerant, violent, hegemonistic ideologies that have originated in Asia itself.
Two prime examples of this are the conflicts in West Asia and South Asia . Palestine must get independent statehood and, at the same time, Israel's right to exist must be unequivocally recognized by all its neighbours. Those who say that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world are a threat to regional and world peace, even though their voice emanates from within Asia itself.
Similarly, closer home, we have witnessed the tragedy of Afghanistan , where the forces stoking the fires of religious extremism and global domination have harmed India, too. The trouble began in 1979 with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, which the then government of India should have condemned strongly and categorically. Afghanistan then became a victim of the Cold War rivalry between the then two superpowers, with Pakistan trying to take advantage of the conflict for its own narrow geo-political ambitions. Since then, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union itself disintegrated. But Afghanistan continues to be a zone of war, because it was converted into a sanctuary of jehadi terrorism, with disastrous consequences for all those who gave birth to this Bhasmasur.
The latest victim of this Bhasmasur was Ms. Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. We must remember that her assassination in a terrorist attack took place in the context of the Pakistani people's aspiration for the establishment of an effective and stable democratic system. I had commented then, and also on the earlier occasion when she escaped an assassination bid on the day she returned from her exile (when 125 persons were killed in a terrorist attack on her convoy), that, in Pakistan, the struggle for democracy and the struggle against terrorism inspired by religious extremism cannot be separated.
The developments in Pakistan should prompt us to recognize a disturbing trend: The term 'democracy' is being manipulated in international relations discourse to suit the self-serving purpose of preserving one's global domination and preserving one's "spheres of influence". All of us know that intolerant and extremist religious ideologies are being exported out of certain countries in Asia which are far from being democratic. Nevertheless, they are tolerated by those proclaiming to be defenders of freedom and democracy worldwide. This self-deception will prove costly to its practitioners and to the world at large.
Worrisome developments in Nepal
Friends, I would like to make a brief comment on the happenings in Nepal. My party and I stood firmly by the side of the people of Nepal in their desire for effective and fully empowered democracy. But we also backed their other aspiration, which was suppressed by the rise of Maoist forces in the politics of Nepal : namely, preservation of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom with constitutional monarchy. Maoism and democracy are a contradiction in terms. The two cannot go together. It is unfortunate that they have gained ascendancy in the polity of Nepal.
This has grave implications not only for Nepal but also for India, given the close nexus between Maoists on both sides of the border. The Prime Minister is right in characterizing Communist extremism or Naxalism as the biggest threat to India's internal security. It is also a threat to our democracy. Why then has the UPA government remained a silent onlooker, with communists in India playing the role of a colluder, when constitutional monarchy was disbanded recently under the pressure of Maoists? The monarchy in Nepal was a symbol of its unique national identity and a source of its stability.
Also, why did the Indian communists applaud when the identity of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom was erased even before the Constituent Assembly had discussed it? Would they demand that Pakistan or Bangladesh cease to be Islamic Republics?
The examples of Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan and Nepal raise two important questions: Should India and other countries in Asia get entrapped in the Western-sponsored normative discourse on Asia's political evolution, or should we imbibe from our traditional values and norms? The former path is likely to ensure that we become the plaything of external powers seeking to shoot guns off our shoulders.
The second question is: Can Asia, or for that matter, the rest of the world, rest in peace if ideologies of religious extremism, exclusivism and global domination ― and these ideologies neither respect democracy nor tolerate secularism and plurality ― are allowed to grow in our midst?
India 's proud record in defending democracy
It is against this background that I wish to present a few salient aspects of India's democratic tradition and our approach to conflict-resolution. This tradition and approach have been fundamentally influenced by Hindu philosophy and cultural ethos. Hindu philosophy since the dawn of our civilization has been pluralistic in its outlook and teachings. As a result, India is inherently a rare state in the international system, insofar as it is unwilling to impose a set of ideals and principles on other equally proud nations. Which is why, throughout her millennial history, India never sent out her armies to conquer other lands and exterminate or coerce the native populations or cultures.
It is because of this faith in pluralism and respect for the other's viewpoint that India, after independence, naturally accepted democracy and secularism. We did not import these from the West. Ask yourselves a simple question: Why is it that there has never been a military coup in a vast and diverse country like India, where a large section of the population is poor and less-literate? Never a violent change of power? How did India succeed in having regular elections, which are free and fair, and whose outcome has always been accepted by all political parties?
Yes, there was a brief eclipse of democracy during the Emergency. But the people voted against the Emergency regime so angrily, that even a leader as tall as Indira Gandhi was defeated.
Five tasks for strengthening India's role in the world
Friends, the challenge before us in India is: How do we strengthen the voice and role of India in the affairs of Asia and the world? Let me identify five tasks:
The first task is to ensure the success of India's own socio-political-economic story, which would in turn serve as a model for others to emulate.
Without comprehensive national success ― material, political, technological, and social progress, combined with military might to defend ourselves against any external threat ― the credibility/attraction of India's soft power (that is, the repertoire of ancient Indic knowledge, spiritual traditions, cultural heritage etc.) will remain perfunctory. In fact, derogatory western commentary toward India and Hindus ― i.e. "Hindu rate of growth", which, shockingly, some Indian intellectuals also use ― stemmed from our poor performance on the economic front, the inaction that stifled the strengthening of our polity, and the inefficient execution of our developmental objectives.
The second task is to regain and rebuild pride in our own national heritage ― spiritual, cultural, intellectual, scientific, technological and military.
Sadly, in the name of a distorted and perverted understanding of secularism, a section of our political and intellectual elite is busy belittling, denying and denigrating all that is Hindu. A nation that is not proud of its own past can never attain greatness, nor can it command respect in the eyes of the world.
Thirdly, India should further strengthen an omnidirectional foreign policy seeks to engage with all the major centres of power.
The end of the Cold War brought with it the gradual dilution of a bloc-based system. The evolution of Indian diplomacy since the 1990s has been a structural response to such a world. The proliferation of our numerous "strategic partnerships" that India has entered into in the past 15 years attests to the geopolitical diversity around us.
Fourthly, we have to vastly expand the size and strength of our foreign service personnel; business platforms; media organizations and think tanks with global reach; personalities associated with cinema, arts, music and literature; academics; NGOs; and cultural and spiritual ambassadors. We should also leverage the valuable resources of the approximately 20-million Indian Diaspora worldwide.
India 's current diplomatic infrastructure and resources ― in the political, economic, cultural and academic-intellectual fields ― are far too inadequate for us to play an effective role either in Asia or around the world.
Lastly, India must intensify its efforts aimed at reform and restructuring of multilateral organizations at the Asian and global levels, beginning with the United Nations.
India 's current role in these organizations is far from being commensurate with our present strength and future potential. If India is seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, it is not because of some prestige value. Rather, it is out of our conviction that any global system that does not fully recognize the role of an ancient and newly resurgent nation, one which is the world's largest democracy and accounts for one-fifth of humanity, is inherently flawed.
I believe that systematic, unsentimental pursuit of all the above-mentioned five tasks will enable India to play a benign/constructive role in promotion of democracy and conflict-resolution in our own immediate neighbourhood, in wider Asia, and in the world at large. This is what we mean by our goal of working towards India reclaiming her rightful place in the comity of nations.
Thank you.
Dainik Jagran Summit New Delhi – January 16, 2008
Speech by Shri L.K. Advani Leader of the Opposition (Lok Sabha)
Distinguished participants in this conclave, ladies and gentlemen,
I am delighted to be with you this morning. At the outset, I wish to congratulate Dainik Jagran, a leading Hindi language newspaper in our country, for organizing this summit. Conferences of this kind have been held on an annual basis by some well-known English publications, and I have participated in them too. However, it gives me special satisfaction to be participating in a conclave organised by a publication in Hindi, our national language, of which I am immensely proud. At the same time, I am dismayed by the fact that Hindi has not yet received the kind of recognition, both within India and internationally, that it so richly deserves.
There is an urgent need to encourage, enrich and honour Hindi and other native Indian languages. I am saying this in a special context. The United Nations has recently proclaimed 2008 the International Year of Languages, recognizing that genuine multilingualism promotes unity in diversity and international understanding. It also emphasized the paramount importance of the equality of the Organization's six official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish). There is not a single Indian-origin language among these, although the number of Hindi-speaking people exceeds those that speak Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish.
A reason for insufficient international recognition for Hindi may be the fact that it is not spoken outside India. But what is disappointing is that, within India, we place English on a higher pedestal than Hindi and other Indian-origin languages. The effect of the British strategy of making Indians feel inferior about their language and culture has curiously survived even after independence. Those who speak only Hindi or other Indian languages, and are not very conversant in English, are generally looked down upon. Let me recount a personal experience.
I knew very little Hindi during the first twenty years of my life I spent in Sindh. But I studied it diligently after I came to this part of India after Partition. I came from Rajasthan to Delhi in 1957 to assist the parliamentary wing of my party. Whenever the telephone rang and I happened to pick it up, my first expression was (it still is), "Haan ji." To which, many times, the response from the other side used to be: "Sahab ghar mein hain?" (Is sahib at home?). And I would tell them, "Aap ko Advani se baat karani hai, to main bol raha hoon." (If you wish to speak to Advani, you are talking to the right person.)
In the context of the language debate in India, I have always maintained that our opposition is not to Angrezi per se, but to Angreziyat, which makes people harbour a sense of inferiority complex because they are unable to converse in English. The Chinese or Russians or Japanese have never suffered from this complex.
* * *
Let's recognize the Genius of Asia
With these prefatory remarks, let me come to the topic of this conclave. A discussion on 'Democracy and Conflict Resolution in Asia' must first of all recognize two factors about Asia ― its rich historical experience and its proud diversity, which should disabuse us of the notion that we have nothing to learn from our own tradition of democracy and conflict-resolution and have to only learn from others. Asia is the world's largest, most populous and most diverse continent. It is also where all the world's major faiths were born. It is the cradle of a majority of the world's great and living civilizations. Neither of the two devastating World Wars of the last century was caused by Asia, although Asian countries were affected by their fire. Similarly, Asia has been a victim of colonialism and not a cause of it.
All this speaks of what is often termed as the 'Genius of Asia'. By any reckoning, it provides a valuable spiritual, cultural and intellectual resource to promote democracy and peaceful conflict-resolution. There is another important point to be noted here. After remaining a victim of history for several centuries, Asia is now becoming, once again, a prime shaper of its own destiny. Let me put this point in perspective.
Last week, I came across three volumes of a new and ambitious encyclopedia on the history of Indian Science and Technology, a project promoted by Shri Rajiv Malhotra of the Infinity Foundation, USA. It quotes Samuel Huntington writing the following in his much-discussed book 'Clash of Civilisations'.
"In 1750, China accounted for almost one-third, India for almost one-quarter and the West for a less than a fifth of the world's manufacturing output…In the following decades, the industrialization of the West led to the de-industrialisation of the world."
In contrast to this, the late 20th century witnessed an Asian economic renaissance. As far as economic growth is concerned, the centre of gravity has already shifted to Asia, with India and China emerging as the two main engines of the growth of the global economy. According to noted economic historian Angus Maddison, if India and China can sustain their current rates of growth, they will regain their historic place in the next few decades.
The above trend has profound implications for democracy, conflict-resolution and management of global affairs in general. The western monopoly over global economic processes, one that has lasted for over two centuries and which gave the West a dominant position in military matters and global diplomacy, has been unequivocally broken. Asia's material rejuvenation buttressed by the flow of financial resources and dissemination of information/knowledge flows, itself enabled by the IT and communication revolution of the 1990s, has begun to strengthen the voice of nation states in Asia .
Therefore, if Asia's newly gained economic strength and rapidly growing political clout can be combined with the essential 'Genius of Asia' ― its priceless civilisational, cultural and spiritual resource, rooted in the values of peace, harmony, justice, respect for pluralism, co-existence and dialogue ― I am optimistic that Asia will be able to rewrite not only its own history but also contribute greatly to building a better future for the world as a whole. And with Asia rapidly reclaiming its historic position in the global community, I feel confident that Europe's past will not be Asia's future; rather, the best of Asia's past will mould humanity's future.
India and China should fully normalize good-neighbourly ties
In fact, one notices an interesting trend in Asian diplomacy whereby outstanding conflicts are casting a diminishing shadow on the improvement of relations in other spheres, particularly economic. It could also be argued that the existence of outstanding disputes is persuading states to seek rapprochement and construct new bilateral and multilateral mechanisms/institutions. Economic interdependence in Asia is gradually compelling states to pursue non-confrontational means of tackling old disputes. It may suffice to say that inter-state stability can only emerge from a mutual accommodation of each other's core security interests. And this in turn will require responsible statesmen who can equilibrate security strategies based on "self-help" with those based on cooperative norms.
A good example of this is the evolution of India-China relations in recent years, and the constructive approach that both countries have adopted to resolve the border dispute. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's just-concluded visit to China has hopefully taken this effort forward. Fully normalized good-neighbourly and cooperative relations between the two great nations of Asia can become a reliable factor of peace, stability and progress both in the region and globally.
Indeed, the effort to bring about a rapprochement in India-China relations was started when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the foreign minister in Morarji Desai's government. His historic meeting with Deng Xiaoping in 1979 broke the ice and resumed top-level dialogue that had been frozen after 1962. Shri Vajpayee also gave a big boost to this effort when he became the Prime Minister. An institutionalized framework for dialogue on resolution of the border dispute was begun during his regime. In between, Rajiv Gandhi and P.V. Narasimha Rao also made valuable contribution to the normalization of ties between our two countries. Here we see an example of the development of a highly useful national consensus in foreign policy.
It has been my view that Pakistan should recognize the usefulness of the framework adopted by India and China for normalizing and strengthening our bilateral ties, without holding them hostage to the resolution of the border dispute. Similarly, Indo-Pak relations can be normalized without holding them hostage to the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
Two long-festering conflicts in Asia
Unfortunately, several long-festering conflicts in Asia have been sustained, and have eluded a satisfactory solution, because of the interplay between western strategies of global domination in conflict-zones, where the conflicts are in turn exacerbated by certain intolerant, violent, hegemonistic ideologies that have originated in Asia itself.
Two prime examples of this are the conflicts in West Asia and South Asia . Palestine must get independent statehood and, at the same time, Israel's right to exist must be unequivocally recognized by all its neighbours. Those who say that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world are a threat to regional and world peace, even though their voice emanates from within Asia itself.
Similarly, closer home, we have witnessed the tragedy of Afghanistan , where the forces stoking the fires of religious extremism and global domination have harmed India, too. The trouble began in 1979 with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, which the then government of India should have condemned strongly and categorically. Afghanistan then became a victim of the Cold War rivalry between the then two superpowers, with Pakistan trying to take advantage of the conflict for its own narrow geo-political ambitions. Since then, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union itself disintegrated. But Afghanistan continues to be a zone of war, because it was converted into a sanctuary of jehadi terrorism, with disastrous consequences for all those who gave birth to this Bhasmasur.
The latest victim of this Bhasmasur was Ms. Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. We must remember that her assassination in a terrorist attack took place in the context of the Pakistani people's aspiration for the establishment of an effective and stable democratic system. I had commented then, and also on the earlier occasion when she escaped an assassination bid on the day she returned from her exile (when 125 persons were killed in a terrorist attack on her convoy), that, in Pakistan, the struggle for democracy and the struggle against terrorism inspired by religious extremism cannot be separated.
The developments in Pakistan should prompt us to recognize a disturbing trend: The term 'democracy' is being manipulated in international relations discourse to suit the self-serving purpose of preserving one's global domination and preserving one's "spheres of influence". All of us know that intolerant and extremist religious ideologies are being exported out of certain countries in Asia which are far from being democratic. Nevertheless, they are tolerated by those proclaiming to be defenders of freedom and democracy worldwide. This self-deception will prove costly to its practitioners and to the world at large.
Worrisome developments in Nepal
Friends, I would like to make a brief comment on the happenings in Nepal. My party and I stood firmly by the side of the people of Nepal in their desire for effective and fully empowered democracy. But we also backed their other aspiration, which was suppressed by the rise of Maoist forces in the politics of Nepal : namely, preservation of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom with constitutional monarchy. Maoism and democracy are a contradiction in terms. The two cannot go together. It is unfortunate that they have gained ascendancy in the polity of Nepal.
This has grave implications not only for Nepal but also for India, given the close nexus between Maoists on both sides of the border. The Prime Minister is right in characterizing Communist extremism or Naxalism as the biggest threat to India's internal security. It is also a threat to our democracy. Why then has the UPA government remained a silent onlooker, with communists in India playing the role of a colluder, when constitutional monarchy was disbanded recently under the pressure of Maoists? The monarchy in Nepal was a symbol of its unique national identity and a source of its stability.
Also, why did the Indian communists applaud when the identity of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom was erased even before the Constituent Assembly had discussed it? Would they demand that Pakistan or Bangladesh cease to be Islamic Republics?
The examples of Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan and Nepal raise two important questions: Should India and other countries in Asia get entrapped in the Western-sponsored normative discourse on Asia's political evolution, or should we imbibe from our traditional values and norms? The former path is likely to ensure that we become the plaything of external powers seeking to shoot guns off our shoulders.
The second question is: Can Asia, or for that matter, the rest of the world, rest in peace if ideologies of religious extremism, exclusivism and global domination ― and these ideologies neither respect democracy nor tolerate secularism and plurality ― are allowed to grow in our midst?
India 's proud record in defending democracy
It is against this background that I wish to present a few salient aspects of India's democratic tradition and our approach to conflict-resolution. This tradition and approach have been fundamentally influenced by Hindu philosophy and cultural ethos. Hindu philosophy since the dawn of our civilization has been pluralistic in its outlook and teachings. As a result, India is inherently a rare state in the international system, insofar as it is unwilling to impose a set of ideals and principles on other equally proud nations. Which is why, throughout her millennial history, India never sent out her armies to conquer other lands and exterminate or coerce the native populations or cultures.
It is because of this faith in pluralism and respect for the other's viewpoint that India, after independence, naturally accepted democracy and secularism. We did not import these from the West. Ask yourselves a simple question: Why is it that there has never been a military coup in a vast and diverse country like India, where a large section of the population is poor and less-literate? Never a violent change of power? How did India succeed in having regular elections, which are free and fair, and whose outcome has always been accepted by all political parties?
Yes, there was a brief eclipse of democracy during the Emergency. But the people voted against the Emergency regime so angrily, that even a leader as tall as Indira Gandhi was defeated.
Five tasks for strengthening India's role in the world
Friends, the challenge before us in India is: How do we strengthen the voice and role of India in the affairs of Asia and the world? Let me identify five tasks:
The first task is to ensure the success of India's own socio-political-economic story, which would in turn serve as a model for others to emulate.
Without comprehensive national success ― material, political, technological, and social progress, combined with military might to defend ourselves against any external threat ― the credibility/attraction of India's soft power (that is, the repertoire of ancient Indic knowledge, spiritual traditions, cultural heritage etc.) will remain perfunctory. In fact, derogatory western commentary toward India and Hindus ― i.e. "Hindu rate of growth", which, shockingly, some Indian intellectuals also use ― stemmed from our poor performance on the economic front, the inaction that stifled the strengthening of our polity, and the inefficient execution of our developmental objectives.
The second task is to regain and rebuild pride in our own national heritage ― spiritual, cultural, intellectual, scientific, technological and military.
Sadly, in the name of a distorted and perverted understanding of secularism, a section of our political and intellectual elite is busy belittling, denying and denigrating all that is Hindu. A nation that is not proud of its own past can never attain greatness, nor can it command respect in the eyes of the world.
Thirdly, India should further strengthen an omnidirectional foreign policy seeks to engage with all the major centres of power.
The end of the Cold War brought with it the gradual dilution of a bloc-based system. The evolution of Indian diplomacy since the 1990s has been a structural response to such a world. The proliferation of our numerous "strategic partnerships" that India has entered into in the past 15 years attests to the geopolitical diversity around us.
Fourthly, we have to vastly expand the size and strength of our foreign service personnel; business platforms; media organizations and think tanks with global reach; personalities associated with cinema, arts, music and literature; academics; NGOs; and cultural and spiritual ambassadors. We should also leverage the valuable resources of the approximately 20-million Indian Diaspora worldwide.
India 's current diplomatic infrastructure and resources ― in the political, economic, cultural and academic-intellectual fields ― are far too inadequate for us to play an effective role either in Asia or around the world.
Lastly, India must intensify its efforts aimed at reform and restructuring of multilateral organizations at the Asian and global levels, beginning with the United Nations.
India 's current role in these organizations is far from being commensurate with our present strength and future potential. If India is seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, it is not because of some prestige value. Rather, it is out of our conviction that any global system that does not fully recognize the role of an ancient and newly resurgent nation, one which is the world's largest democracy and accounts for one-fifth of humanity, is inherently flawed.
I believe that systematic, unsentimental pursuit of all the above-mentioned five tasks will enable India to play a benign/constructive role in promotion of democracy and conflict-resolution in our own immediate neighbourhood, in wider Asia, and in the world at large. This is what we mean by our goal of working towards India reclaiming her rightful place in the comity of nations.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)