Saturday, June 25, 2016

In the Light of Brexit, It is Important for France to Consider the Exit Too

Brexit and the Status of French 

For the immediate present Brexit might seem like a hasty misstep on the part of Britain, but it would do well in the long run with over 7% of growth rate when compared with 1% growth rate in Eurozone. This is even more apparent with an impending recession looming over the Eurozone in the next decade. Therefore, for now Britain has done well for itself rescuing itself from being dragged down by the rest of the Euro zone. 

European Union (EU) is an illustrative case for how fragile a geo-economic union could be without political union. The EU is wrought with problem right from its inception. The mainstream media is treating it as a major calamity and a political fall out for the Eurozone and the rest of the world. In reality it is neither. The EU is neither a political entity nor a geographical entity. The EU is only an imaginary entity with basic economic union, bound by rules of economic cooperation. The EU is too expensive to run and its design runs the risk of not yielding satisfactory results for any individual country. The whole might look well, but each of its parts are dragging themselves. 

As Britain leaves EU it is going to be more expensive for other members to stay in the union, especially for large countries on the continent such as France. As Eurozone is only growing at 1% annual growth rate, it is going to be more a baggage for economies of countries such as French than an advantage. 

The EU is great for smaller and ailing economies like Greece, but expensive and unwieldy for healthy economies like France. Therefore it is time for each of the Euro countries to take a longer look at the union and take a decision on their staying or leaving the union.

Friday, May 13, 2016

India is the Grandmother Country of North America, while Britain is the Mother Country of America!

    The British landed in North America in the sixteenth century, while Indians landed there sixteen thousand years ago. Sure, it was a mistaken identity that Columbus imposed, on the first Americans he met, as Indians, but it was recently established through genetic research that the native Americans were in fact genetically connected to Indians.

     The male genetic lineage derived from haplotype R1 is commonly found in South Asia (absent in East Asia), but widely found in Europe also. The most ancient lineage of R1 haplotype are found in the eastern coastal states of India, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and the eastern Islands of India, the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The most recent genetic lineages of R1 haplotype are commonly found among the North American native groups including, Ojibwe, Seminole, Cherokee, and Dogrib etc.

     The female genetic heritage of North American natives is derived from M and N lines. The most ancient M, and N lines were found in India. The North American genetic heritage places them about 24, 000 years ago. It an be said that similar lineages between India and the American continent makes the migration of Indian migration thousands of years ago.

     It is difficult to imagine the trip across from India over Tibet, and Mongolia, and then on through Russia to Beringia to North America. It must have been excruciatingly hard and difficult, but shows the strength of human spirit to make it across harsh geography and climate.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Gandhi is not the Private Property of Congress or Nehru family

Rahul, Don't claim Gandhi, He is not yours, He is ours!

Gandhi belongs to everyone who follows his ideals. Gandhi does not belong to a family or a party, he belongs to humanity. He is the the inner conscious of humanity. Don't claim him for your political goals. Stop politicizing Gandhi and banking on his name!

When India attained its independence Gandhi suggested that the Congress of pre-independet India be disbanded, and a new political party should be created. But Nehru did not heed the advise, and continued to bank of the achievements of Gandhi and his sacrifices. It is time the Congress stop using Gandhi's name for their own marketing strategy at least after sixty-seven years.  

One sentence that Rajiv Gandhi said in his speech sticks with me. He said, "Gandhi is ours...," implicating ruling party. But what he is forgetting that Gandhi is not his monopoly. Nehru family succeeded in making Gandhi a brand and  used it successfully marketing themselves under that name. But Gandhi walked with congress in pre-independent India. Gandhi separated himself from politics after independence. Post independent India runs on the name of Gandhi, but not on his ideology and the Congress party has no right to claim Gandhi legacy. They have not stood by his values. 

Please stop using Gandhi's name. Gandhi dissociated himself from Congress when India achieved independence. Gandhi doesn't belong to Congress, he said so himself. Gandhi does not belong to Congress or your family- which changed its last name from Ghandi to Gandhi to trick people of India into believing that you belong to Gandhi. 

Monday, February 22, 2016

Colonial Legacy Part 1

What the Colonial Regime Denied India!

The British, under their colonial regime, had perpetrated several things in India. The first thing they did was deprive India of its identity, bestowed on its people, by the fact of its geography and religion. Names associated with India such as its religion,  Hinduism or the identity of its citizens as Indians was not appealing to this colonial regime. Anything that provides India cultural identity and connection to its heritage is either squandered off or disputed. Imperialist government under the British worked hard to convince Indians that Hinduism is not religion, and that the people of India were not the only Indians, but that there were many other Indians across the world, because  of the colonial objective that disenfranchised from its identity and heritage, India will forever become bonded to Britain, and its people will be enslaved and forever remain loyal to Britain. 

Granted that Columbus made a mistake of calling the first people he met off the coast of America Indians, still I do not see any reason why Britain and other colonial regimes continued to refer to them as Indians, even after the mistake was clear right from the beginning itself. So now there are Indians (Canada refers to them as First Nations, but rest of North and South America still refer to the natives as Indians) in the United States. Hence there are several people in the world under the name Indian tribes across North and South America. These native tribes of North and South America have nothing to do with India, but still continue to be called Indians. With one stroke of genius the colonial regimes  (the British in particular) disenfranchised the Native Tribes of America from their identity and cultural heritage, while at the same time denied the Indians of India their own identity as they were forced to share their name with numerous tribes thousands of miles away from them.  Through the process of misnaming the native tribes of North and South America, the colonial regime had rendered them to be nameless, cultureless masses to be colonized. They tried a similar tactic in India with their efforts to deny Indians the name Indian as well as the name of their religion Hinduism.

In the case of India, the colonialist administrative technique is two pronged: On the one hand Indians are told that the names India and Hinduism are not their names and on the other hand they are told that their religion and culture are backward and stagnant. Both contradictory and confusing to Indians and still continues to cause problems to India. 

The first issue the name India (Hindustan in Hindi) as not being the original name of India did not have much currency as it is still referred to as India and as Hindustan in common usage, although the constitution names it as Bharath also. However the issue of the name of its religion, Hinduism attracted official attention, sponsorships, while it still continues to attract some attention from one section of scholars in the Western academia. Two issues should be addressed before we address the question of Hinduism in India. The first one is that ancient religions were not referred to as 'ism,' but as 'the path,' or 'the way'. Second issue is that the absence of the term Hinduism, does not mean the absence of a unified religious practice, but only that it was called by a different name. The Vedas, the path of the Vedas is followed as a religion since at least 2000 B.C.E. in India, and was known by the name of Hinduism since 300 B.C.E. The Greeks should be credited with calling indians Hindus and their religion Hinduism. Megasthenes's book the Indica provides early evidence of Hindu life in India. This was followed by Chinese pilgrims between 3-7 centuries C.E. Even if one does not want to trust the Vedas or the early classical sources of India, they must at least heed the advise of ancient Greeks and Chinese with regards to the religion of India.

 Religion of India is referred to as the way, in Sanskrit: the Dharma. It is called as the 'eternal path,' or 'ancient way,' under the Sanskrit term, Sanatana  Dharma. However, one encounters the name Hindu from the fifth century onwards. Rashtrakuta inscriptions followed by Chalukya inscriptions of Western India provide early records to the term between 534-1200 C.E. From 1200 C.E. onwards the term Hindu and Hinduism replaces the use of Sanatana Dharma. It is found used in the documents of Delhi Sutlanate as well as the Vijayanagara empire. The notion held by one section of colonial historians that Hinduism as a name of the religion was only coined and used by British administration is not true, but an invention intended to serve the interests of the colonial administration. 

Monday, February 15, 2016

Romila Thapar and the Politicization of Indian History

If there is anyone to be blamed for politicization and misuse of Indian history, it squarely rests with Romila Thapar. She is the last vestige of the colonial machine of history making disinheriting India from its own history. India is projected as something backward and caste dominated society, and Aryan-Dravidian divide is promoted through history texts. One would only need to look at other colonial regimes such as Rwanda where such racial divide is promoted through colonial history writing, not unlike the history of India. 

Today she comes out to accept that she is a Marxist and that her history is a result of it. All that the Marxists have ever done in the name of history was to mislead the people about their own history. They still support Aryan invasion theory and do everything to shut down the arguments from the other side through ad hominem attacks rather than offering any legitimate arguments. 

This is the last ditch effort by Marxist historians to reclaim their grip on Indian history, lest they may loose their grip on history making, which might eventually lead to their demise. Marxists never had popular support, never won popular elections to lead the government (except for outliers like Bengal and Kerala), all that they do is blame legitimately elected governments for doing their job. They do not just stop with maligning the government, their other full time job is to work as the bulwark of colonial regimes by continuing their legacy.

The Ramayana and the Mahabharatha are vilified by these Marxists, while praising Homer. All they have done is to be subservient to colonial historical lineage and sacrifice objectivity in Indian history. They accept Mahabhatha and Ramayana when it is convenient for them. Rama is pitted against Ravan (projected as Dalit). Why is it that Dalits always choose to identify with Demons in the epics and classical texts? Thanks to the Marxist historians, they were brain washed too long to believe in the two-race theory of colonial administration continued by historians like Romila Thapar. Aryanization and Aryan invasion theory are not just theories for them, they are realistic events. 

I am surprised Romila is still showing up in the media to offer her twisted historical views. She would make better use of her time, should she were to sit at home and revise her history books in the light of new evidence, instead of going on the media (TVs mainly- she likes to be in the limelight) to talk about useless political events.

Please also see my other related post on this issue of colonization and racialization of India's past:

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Hindu Temples are not Government Property

Hinduism Would be Better off if the Government of India Left it Alone

Hindu temples in India are run by the government through its Endowment Boards. The Endowment Boards are indirectly run by the government (both state and center) by nominating Chairman and members to the Endowment Boards. The temples are run akin to businesses selling all the services in the temple. I have not seen any religious institutions in the world run in this way. Devotees pay for entering the temple complex and continue to pay for every service in the temple. The donations and daily earnings (through fees charged for temple visits and other services) are used not to develop the temple, help Hinduism or at least provide services for the devotees, but diverted by the government according to its own needs.

If the government does not divert the temple funds, the temples would be able to establish Hindu educational institutions and serve the masses. Educational awareness of Hinduism among the masses  is dismal for lack of educational and theological institutions dedicated to the study of Hinduism. 

Another recurring problem for Hinduism is unique and uncommon to any other religion in the world. Since Government is managing Hindu temples, some people are always requesting government to manage Hindu life and practice one way or another. Somebody is always going to court to force temples to give up their traditions: Rallies at Sani temple in Sani Singanapur and Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala are but only a few examples. However no such demands are made on restrictions at places of worship belonging to other religions in India or any where else in the world. Enthusiasts are also going to courts to force temples in to surrendering their ancient practices. There is also demand for canceling traditional celebrations and festivals. Bull runs and Bull fights, are great cultural celebrations in Europe, but India is asked to ban them, as it is part of festival celebrations. And all Hindu festivals and celebrations always attract negative publicity and enthusiasts take to court. Why not leave the local tradition take its own course and let it evolve itself? Why must the government interfere and ban? Wasn't the state supposed to not interfere in the religious practices of any religious community in a democracy?

Hindu temples and sacred sites are spread across the world. There are especially numerous important temples in India's neighboring countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Java, Sumatra, Malaysia and Bangladesh. It is great that India announced roadway connecting India to East Asia with roadways going through Bangladesh, Mayanmar, Cambodia, Thailand to Vietnam. The land previously referred to as Indo-China is finally joining India through road and railway connectivity.

However, it is not useful in itself useful until government withdraws all involvement with Hindu temples and their management. If the government withdraws the Hindu temples would be able to manage themselves similar to the other religions in India (Christianity, Islam and others) and organize pilgrimages to their religious complexes. Any way what does a secular democratic government doing managing Hindu temples? Is not the state and religion separate in a democracy, especially, when it touts itself as secular as in the case of Indian government. 

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Are Indian Leftists Anti-India Activists?

Leftists in India have always taken anti-India stand historically including supporting China during Indo-China war. They continue to perpetrate such anti-India activities in the guise of supporting secularism. A number of recent events indicate that the so called communists (leftists of a number of shades) of India continue these policies. Communism and left ideologies have died every where in the world, but they are still going strong in India by creating controversies based in anti-India rhetoric even in the twenty-first century. 

A recent example is from America. Left leaning intellectuals sent letter to CEOs of Silicon valley companies, who rightfully put it in their trash cans, and welcomed Prime Minister Modi with open arms. 

Another example is the award-vapasi groups, members of which returned or threatened to return awards such as those awarded by Sahitya Akademy. It dragged on for a couple of months finally a compromise was worked out as the awardees agreed to take their awards back. A double-award. May be the awardees did not deserve their awards, which they gave up very easily. 

Another favorite catch phrase these so called secularists of India regularly use is 'intolerance' in India. It looks like they don't know the meaning of the word 'intolerance'. The fact that they are saying this and happily living in India is itself evident that intolerance does not exist in India. The example of the death of a popular blogger of Bangladesh or several such examples from Pakistan help illustrate this point well. 

These leftist groups organized and staged dharnas (rallies) across India for hanging terrorists in India, such a Kasab and Memen. No other country has such anti-national activities constantly perpetrated in the guise of secularism. Secularist groups of India must wake up to the reality of twenty-first century  or move to the only communist country in the world, China.