Nathuram Godse, just killed a man. Then who killed the idea? Not a tough guess … It was the collective leadership of our country, which continued to woo Indian voters on the name of Gandhi, but at the same time, adopted domestic and foreign policies, which were totally averse to Gandhism….
(1) Gandhi and Non-Violence:

. What does Gandhi mean to you?
> “Non-Violence”!
. “Non-Violence as an end”?
> Silence

“Non-Violence as an end” is the greatest myth about Gandhi. Gandhi followed, preached and advocated non-violence. But he preached of “non-violence as a means”, and “not as an end”. What was the End he preached about? We have comfortably forgotten.

Bullet bang on target !!!

(2) Gandhi and Self-Reliance:
Gandhi was about “self-reliance”. Self reliance in every walk of life. Economical & Poliitical self reliance as a nation. Social, Religious and Moral self reliance, as an individual. “Sarvodaya” was his dream for the post-independence India. A dream which never realized. Worst, we have become a nation which is neither economically self-reliant, nor politically.

These wounds will be fatal.

(3) Gandhi and Social Development:
The transformation which Gandhi brought to the Indian society was unprecedented. His initiatives and methods to root out “untouchability” from Indian society, and the amazing success which he received in his efforts, can not be termed less than a magic. He also worked for the social & economic development of “unprivileged classes”. He called for a “greater role of women” in the Indian Society.

(4) Gandhi and Independence:

If it was not Gandhi, India would have got Independence much before 1947. The first world war was the best time to revolt against the British rule, as the Britishers were preoccupied with battle on so many fronts.

“The Delayed Independence” is the second greatest myth about Gandhi.
Independence can mean different thing to different people. To some one it could be the freedom to work on the things which one loves. To some one it could be the freedom of not working at all. To some one else it could mean the freedom to force others to work on the things which they do not like.

Gandhi understood the motives behind British Presence in India. He knew that the Imperialist powers were exploiting the masses in India and elsewhere, for the economic motives. They were not here to prove to us their right to rule, but they were here to gain profits.
Britishers never ruled India as isolated foreigners. They ruled India in collaboration with Indian Kings, and privileged Indian Classes - all shared the exploit.

The division between exploiter and the exploited was never that of “Indian” and “Foreigner”. The division was that of “Sickly Rich” and the “Abjectly Poor”. Sadly, the “abjectly poor” constituted almost the entire nation.

Would it make any difference to the lives of “exploited”, if “exploiter” was an Indian rather than a “British-Indian combine”?

Independence to Gandhi meant the “freedom” of Indian masses from the “social and economic” exploitation by the “Privileged Classes”. The nationality of the “Privileged class” was rarely important. Gandhi fought for what he saw as independence, and he fought for it successfully. He transformed the entire nation in to a self-aware and self-reliant society, and it was only because of him that the Britishers found the economic motives for their presence fading out from the India.
…

Sadly, Gandhi departed before the Sarvodaya could take shape. The Ideas which he sow, pumped life in to the veins of our nation for more than half a century. But the economic self-reliance is again disappearing. The division between “exploiter” and “exploited” is once more becoming apparent. Gandhi is dead.

Though the law will take its own course in bringing justice to the victims of Mangalore attack, a debate has started about the legality of “moral policing” by non-governmental organizations. A section of society feels that this kind of moral policing is totally illegal, whereas another section of society feels that such organizations have rights to fight against the cultural attacks on our society.

I have noticed that people debating on this issue fail to address certain critical issues. I would like to raise these issues here and would request every one to consider these points while forming any opinion (either for or against) on this issue.

(1) About the Right of Moral Policing: Is it totally wrong? What if the State police fails (for whatever reasons) to enforce the state approved (constitutional) moral conduct on its citizens? Every Friday night in Bangalore is a scene to watch. Bangalore Traffic police carries out its campaign against “Drunken Driving”, at certain key spots in the city. Though the drunken drivers manage to get out easy by bribing the police men, innocent people are harassed. Some times I myself have been made to pay up bribe, despite having all the papers right. I fail to understand the intention of Bangalore Traffic Police behind such operations. If they are against the drunken driving, why not have their inspection teams outside the major pubs and bars in Bangalore? More than 90% of the people who come out of the pubs and drive would be offenders. Then why to conduct inspections on those key spots, where more than 90% people are not offenders? I would not explicitly state the unholy nexus between Police and Pub Administration, readers can assume it themselves.
BTW, This is just an example which I have quoted from my day to day life. I can see the state approved bastards, harassing my country-men, while I (and all others) can do nothing more than feeling helpless. In such an atmosphere, moral policing should not be totally condemned.

(2) About the Freedom of adopting a new Culture: Every one of us is a free citizen and as per the Indian Constitution, we have freedom to adopt the cultures and values which we like.

I very much doubt that the “pub hopping crowd” really does it (whatever they do), out of their “fondness for it” and out of the “understanding of their freedom”. Most of the times, the young crowd hopping at the pubs, is doing it either “to figure out what it is” or “out of the peer pressure”. The freedom which we (or the people condemning the moral policing) are talking about does not exist in 99% of the Indian Families. No matter, how urban, how educated, or how modern an Indian Family is, they would not approve of their daughters “drinking, dancing and rubbing their hips with strangers” at the Pubs. I would not say that such families do not exist. But I can say with certainty that more than 90% of the “pub hopping girls” do it by hiding it away from their own families. Those who are condemning the “Mangalore Attack” should also condemn the conduct of that “pub hopping crowds” which is doing it as an act of “Stealing and Lies” rather than as an act of Freedom.

(3) About the Mangalore Pub Attack: Before the Managalore attack is condemned, we need to look in to the kind of activities which happen in the Pubs. The organization which carried out the Mangalore Attack, has been alleging that “Obscene Activities” were being carried out in the Pub Premises. The organization had warned the Pub Administration to put an end to such activities. I would not blindly accept this allegation, but I can see some extent of truth in it. A couple of years back I visited a pub in Bangalore (@GarudaMall to be more precise). There was a college crowd partying at this pub. After about an hour, the girls got heavily drunk and they turned themselves in to a wild uncivilized crowd. Very soon, smooching, and indecent dancing [which would qualify as foreplay even in the Western World] started. The most memorable incident of that day is the sight of a girl who force-ably smooched a bar-boy (not sure if she thought him to be his boy friend or just did it for fun). These kind of activities are punishable under IPC. When the pub (or hotel or bar) administration and the local authorities fail to stop such activities, why does no one complain?

This week Sarah Palin’s (The Replublican VP nominee for the 2008 USA Election) teenage daughter gave birth to a baby boy. The new born has bought cheers to the family, and to the Republicans.

Teenage pregnancy is harmful for the health of mother and to the health of to-be-born baby (I assume that I need not specify figures & facts in support of this claim as this is an undisputed issue, if any reader disputes it, I can provide figure and facts). We have seen campaigns by “social activists” & “human rights organizations” to root out such evils from our world. But irony is that, though such evils are getting condemned in underdeveloped world (thanks to the effort of social reformers), such evils are getting celebrated in developed world.

The conservative groups in the USA have praised Palin’s daughter for upholding traditional values by deciding to have the baby instead of having an abortion. The Republican leadership, who faced a crashing defeat in 2008 Presidential elections, is also happier as it hopes to strengthen its base amongst the conservatives. The USA government has continued to distance itself from controversial topic, as always.

I am just wondering, if the western world would have reacted in the same way, if this event would have happened in some other part of the world. What if this “teenage pregnancy” would have been witnessed by the daughter of an Asian, African or Middle-Eastern national leader? What if the celebrated teenage mother was either Hindu or Muslim instead of being a Christian. Would the reaction of western society have been the same? I think that this same section which has termed the incidence as “act of upholding the traditional values” would have pounced upon “with allegations of violating the basic human rights and not protecting the women health”.

If there was an American economic interest in that region, the USA government would have even contemplated a strong military action to protect the human rights freedom in that country.

I hope that Indians have not forgotten the “social reforms” which were implemented in India during the “British Rule”. The “child marriage” was declared illegal. This was a great leap forward for the social progress of our country. But one should really suspect the motives of “British Rule”. Why were the “social reforms” forced upon to the Indian Society in form of “Legal Bindings” rather than “social awareness campaigns”. Was it just to humiliate the feeling of Hindu Masses? If not, why the Western world has not implemented any controversial “social reforms” (those reforms which contradict with their religious beliefs) in their own society?

If Hindus, or Muslims (or any other religion, tribe of sect) do something unscientific (some thing which can be disputed by science - in this case medical science), the western world takes upon them the responsibility of educating the “Backward Regions of the World”. But when Christians (which is the major religion in West) do some thing unscientific (like promoting & celebrating the ideas of teenage pregnancy), it is celebrated by the same western world as “an act of upholding the traditional values”. This is the irony of human kind, we always follow double standards - one set for our own culture, religion & country, another set for all others.

Will we ever witness a free world? A world which is not biased by the ideas of “race”, “religions” & “colors”?

—-
Disclaimer: I am expecting that some readers are going to post comments like, “We can only awake the backward regions & provide them health services. If you want to keep following the orthodox traditions, deny the Western aid to your countries, when it arrives next time”. I want to clarify to such readers that I am not fighting in favor or social evils (as is prevalent in every religion, country & society). I am just fighting against the biased opinion of a section of western world when it comes to the “controversial social issues”. I also hope that the section of western world, who is biased, forms a small percentage of over all western world (as I do not have any figures on this).

I recently came across this official website of Noam Chomsky. The website contains rich information on the international politics of today’s world. The articles contain more facts than opinions, something which is rare to find. The articles reveal the USA’s Imperialist policies and systematic exploitation of third world countries by the USA corporations.

USA has been invading sovereign third world nations for its own economic interests for last six decades. During the cold war days this was being done on pretext of fighting communist menace. Today it is being done on pretext of “Offering Freedom” or “Fighting Terror”.

The articles also disclose how the USA government has been using the state machinery to carry on false propaganda about “Threats to the USA Freedom” by foreign powers. To persuade its citizens in to fear, so that questions are not asked about the validity of unlawful invasions and wars by the USA.
——
www.singhkunal.com

“Terrorism” has become one of the most celebrated news items these days. Newspapers, Magazines, Weblogs, Evey where there is a spur of terrorism related articles. Though a lot is being written & discussed about this topic, I feel that most discussions lack truth & clarity. The big media houses continue to carry out government propaganda, whereas most discussion on other small forums are driven by opinions rather than facts. Arguments are made based on emotions & affiliations, rather than based on rationality.

(1) What is Terrorism?

The human society has been constantly evolving. We have come a long way from the stone age [when man was a predator] to the diplomatic world of today [where violence is a crime]. Human beings have assumed different roles through these different ages; predators, agrarians, barbarians … In today’s society use of any kind of violence against fellow human beings [very few people have same compassion for the non-human lives] is socially & politically unacceptable. Despite a strong social dis-approval, violence & wars still occur in different part of the world, for different motives. It is important to understand how these kind of violence and wars are different from terrorism.

(2) Terrorism Vs Violence

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

(3) What Constitutes Terrorism?

(a) Violence – “the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence”. However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.

(b) Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

(c) Perpetrated for a political goal – Something many terrorist attacks have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.

(d) Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm’s way.

(e) Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among such non-combatants, fight from vantage points in the midst of non-combatants, and (when they can), strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking other people, so that the government will be blamed. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word “terrorism” is rarely used.[citation needed]

(f) Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus “lawful”) and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.

For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a “legitimate” government; “legitimacy” and “lawfulness” are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.
[From Wikipedia]

(4) Exercise

In wake of the above definitions, we are now well equipped to understand what kind of activities classify as terrorism. Let us try a set of exercise.

(a) Question: A political party organizes a protest against ruling government’s economic policies. The protest turns violent & leads to arson. Is it terrorism?

Answer: As a singled out event this can not be termed as terrorism. However, if there is a repeated incidence of violence during the protests, it is definitely terrorism. Repeated violence implies that it is not by chance, but it is by design. Arson implies violence against non-combatants. The ideological motive of political party here is to coerce government to its [lawful or unlawful] demands .

(b) Question: A political party has announced a peaceful public protest against the government’s policies. Government warns the political party not to arrange any such protests. The political party defies the government warnings and organizes a public gathering. The government uses armed police force against the peaceful protesters. Hundreds of people die in police firing - is it terrorism?

Answer: It qualifies as state sponsored terrorism [as had happened in Sangrur this year].

(c) Question: There have been various incidents of campus-shootings at various Schools in the USA. Do these events classify as terrorism?

Answer: No. Here a ideological motive is clearly missing. The shootings are being carried out by people because of mental imbalance & they are not out their to prove any political or social point.

(d) Question: A certain secret organization keeps carrying out bomb blasts in busy city areas of a certain nation. Hundreds of lives are lost each time. The organization does not have any declared agenda, it is committing the crimes for unknown reasons. Does it qualify as terrorism?

Answer: This is a tricky situation. As there is a lack of ideological motive [as in case-c] it should not qualify as terrorism. But such kind of organized activities are rarely possible without any political motive. The lack of political motive here could only be a propaganda rather than a fact.

(e) Question: A certain sovereign nation (call it nation-A) calls another sovereign nation (call it nation-B) to change its foreign policies so as to suit the economical and political interests of nation-A. Nation-B finds the requested policies against the interest of its own people and refuses to adopt it. Nation-A invades the nation-B, destroys the civil life and properties, and sets up a dummy government in nation-B. It sends a message to the entrie world stating that nation-A will adopt similar strategy against any other non-coperating nation. Is it terrorism?

Answer: Yes, it is terrorism. We have been witnessing this kind of terrorism for last few decades.

(5) In Indian Context

The violent protests conducted by MNS activitists in Maharashtra qualify as terrorist activities [both by national & international definition of terrorism]. MNS chief Raj Thackrey can be charged for terrorist activities, if the ruling government in Maharashtra has any political will to punish the criminals & terrorists.

This article is first part in a three-part series. The second part of this will highlight major terrorist problems which exist across different parts of the world. For more you can read it here.

After claiming a definite Pakistani Hand in Mumbai Terror attacks & informing Pakistani government about Kasab’s [the lone captured terrorist during Mumbai Terrorist attack] Pakistani Origin [though the Pakistani Government never accepted it], the ball is back in to India’s court. Pakistani Police has on Wednesday night arrested an Indian Spy from Lahore.

As per a news report in “Dawn” [leading Pakistani English news paper], the suspect, identified as Satish Anand Shukla, is believed to have been involved in bomb blast in the Bahawalpur House [in Lahore] earlier in the day. Police has recovered fake identity cards and other material from his possession. Shukla is claimed to have served in the Indian High Commission in the UK for three years.

It will be really interesting to watch how Indian Government reacts to these claims. Will they also express ignorance [as Pakistan has done regarding Kasab] or will they try to investigate any truth behind Pakistani Claims.

USA’s so called “War on Terror” has resulted in the dramatic rise of Islamic Terrorism in last one decade. The world under threat of “Evil Forces” is probably the best environment which Imperial forces within USA (which implies the few rich and wealthy rulers of the country, not the ordinary USA citizen) would always want to exist.
…..
The USA is a powerful country and the recognition of any power relies on the co-existence of a strong (but slightly weaker) enemy. An enemy who can be branded as the “Evil Force” to arouse the fear in human soul. For it is the fear which drives human beings to act in most unnatural ways. It is the fear which kills the rational ideas in men and makes them blind to the atrocities being inflicted on them by their protectors & saviors. During the cold-war era, “Russian Imperialism” was the “Evil Force”, that threatened the existence of entire human race. After the collapse of Soviet-Russia, there had been a void of such an “Evil Force” and recognition of “American Power” had suffered.

…..

China was a force strong enough to fill up the void created after collapse of “Soviet Russia”, but the political interests of Chinese government were very different from that of Western Powers. China’s national policies were not being formed by Imperial Forces, but by the force committed to betterment of ordinary people. For years the USA (and other Western Allies) have tried to implicate China (claims of human-right violations, and complaints about lack of freedom to the Chinese people) in to a war-zone, but China always responded in a diplomatically accurate way, It pressed pressed its will & commitment to the sovereignty and at the same time showed a resolve of not interfering in other countries’ personal affairs. As a consequence, the western propaganda about “Chinese Evil” has subdued during last one decade, and it has been replaced by “Fight on Islamic Terror”.

…..

In wake of the Western Propaganda and policies, today every Muslim carries an image of a Terrorist and every “Social or Political Islamic Organization” bears an image of that “Evil Force” which is a threat to the existence of Humanity. Naturally, the USA (and other western allies) are the “kind spirits” and the “saviors” who have pledged on themselves the role of saving the humanity. Out of this responsibility of being a protector, comes the right of defining the social, political & economic policies of every country in the world. “Economic Policies” is the keyword here, as it is vital in satiating the greed & hunger of the imperial forces which are bent upon creating a fearful world for their self-interests.
…….

When any one talks to you about “Islamic Terror”, first thing we should question ourselves is that “who invented the idea of Islamic Terrorist forces”? Was Taliban not a CIA sponsored outfit?

Second questions you should ask ourselves is “who is trying to educate us about the prominent threat poised to humanity by Islamic Terrorism”. Is it not the USA every time?

Let us stop getting divided on religious lines and unite ourselves as a human force. We must realize that “Commitment to Humanity comes before the Religious Commitment”. Let we all be committed to love & peace. Let us not get misguided by imperialist propagandas and let us not give control of our nation’s “social, political & economic policies” to the fear-mongers.

www.singhkunal.com

I read a news report in one of India’s leading national newspaper (online edition) which in no way makes a new story. Still it forms the front page headlines, just because AICC General Secretary Rahul Gandhi figures in it.

The news items states that, “AICC General Secretary Rahul Gandhi shared with people of his constituency the abject poverty of a woman named Sunita from Amethi”. The news story further mentions how much Mr Gandhi was moved by the poverty of Sunita.

The purpose of this news report is nothing more than providing media coverage to Rahul Gandhi. In a country which is grappling with so many serious problems, and has so many burning issues, I wonder why media houses waste their space on news stories with zero information and with zero social values.

Can this news paper state the exact point of making this story a front line news.

(1) Is it that the abject poverty in India is a breaking news? Definitely not. Hundreds of people commit suicide every year because of poverty and hundreds of them face the same fate involuntarily. There is hardly any effort by media houses to bring such issues to lime light and make them national issues.

(2) Is it that the news paper wanted to draw reader’s attention to the abject poverty? It did not seem so after reading the news article. The story could have covered some account of her sufferings in Sunita’s own words and would have covered some statics on people living under same conditions as Sunita. But the only point which the news story highlights is how deeply Mr Rahul Gandhi was moved by Sunita’s poverty.

The news item also carries a photo of Mr Gandhi, instead of carrying some image which might reflect the “abject poverty” which this news item talks about.

Though the story is aimed at projecting Mr Gandhi as a generous soul who has been deeply moved by some one’s poverty, to me (and to any rational reader) it only reveals how ignorant Mr Gandhi is with the roots & problems of our country.

www.singhkunal.com

Dara Shikoh was a great Scholar, he translated Upnishads (Ancient Indian Scriptures) in to Persian. He is also credited to carrying forward the spirit of “Hindu-Muslim-Unity” in sub-continent. He had also laid the foundation stone of “The Golden Temple” (most sacred religious shrine of Sikhs).

Dara Shikoh’s liberal policies were seen by Ulemas as a threat to their status & well-being. Ulemas felt that in a secular system, their social status will be undermined. Dara’s younger brother Aurangzeb, being a hardliner, enjoyed the support of Ulemas.

In 1657, Shajjahan’s illness triggered a battle for succession amongst his sons. Aurangzeb emerged victorious in this struggle. He defeated Dara in battle of Agra. Dara Shikoh kept trying to re-capture the lost power with help of ohter Idian Kings. However he was betrayed by an ally and was handed over to Aurangzeb. He was killed in 1659.

Many scholoars believe that the history of our subcontinent would have been very different, if Dara Shikoh would have defeated Aurangzeb.

Today’s soceity too is divided in to Daras and Aurangzebs. Even today, our political leaders get more attention & success when they follow the foot-steps of Aurangzeb. The future of our sub-continent will be different if we become aware of our histoy and give our political leader ship in hands of Dara Shikohs.