Quantcast
Channel: Bharatkalyan97
Viewing all 11039 articles
Browse latest View live

Witzel’s Harappan hoax: the myth of expertise on literacy

$
0
0
Witzel’s Harappan hoax: the myth of expertise on literacy  

Massimo Vidale provided an effective rebuttal of the claim made by Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat & Michael Witzel that Harappan civilization was illiterate. (Massimo Vidale, 2007, 'The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel', 
East and West, vol. 57, no. 1-4, pp. 333 to 366).  


Excerpts: “My purpose is to reply to ‘The collapse of the Indus script thesis: the myth of a literate Harappan civilization’, by Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat & Michael Witzel, in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS), 11, 2, 2004, pp. 19-57. I actually think that the Indus script was probably a protohistoric script, somehow conveying the sounds and words of one or more still unidentified languages. Although proofs are obviously lacking (the only demonstration would be a successful translation), this is the most reasonable assumption: and I must confess that I have lived so far rather content with such uncertainty…In order to decipher a lost writing system, you have to guess the language, guess the content, and you need relevant contexts on which independently and reasonably test your ideas…Farmer, Sproat & Witzel loudly stated that they have solved the mystery, that the Indus script is not writing, and that they can read or interpret part of the signs, I disagree with their arguments and, perhaps more, with the tone and language adopted by the authors…The authors would like to throw the ball to their opponents, asking them to refute their views by providing a sound decipherment in linguistic terms. But they have raised the problem, proposing a different interpretation and the first readings, and they have to provide a demonstration of their thesis by interpreting and explaining to us the symbolic sequences following the equivalent of their condition 4 (as stated at p. 48)…(but for the moment even Farmer & others will admit that their deities on vessels and seals and the solar cult advertised at Dholavira did not cost them such an impressive outburst of imagination).”

See also Witzel’s proclamation listed at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm

I suggest that the claim led by Prof. Witzel et al is a Harappan hoax. People who claim expertise in exposing hoaxes have themselves succumbed to hoax-making.

I would like to add to Massimo Vidale’s riveting arguments.

The symbols used on Indus writing are comparable to the hieroglyphs deployed on Warka vase, Sit Shamshi bronze or Tukulti-Ninurta I altar and on hundreds of cylinder seals of Sumer, Elam, Persian Gulf (Magan, Dilmun), Mesopotamia despite the demonstrated competence of bronze-age artisans for syllabic writing on cuneiform texts. Was it an indication of illiteracy that hieroglyphs were deployed though cuneiform could have been used to convey text messages?

Some examples of the hieroglyphs may be cited.

Provenience: Khafaje Kh. VII 256 Jemdet Nasr (ca. 3000 - 2800 BCE) Frankfort, Henri: Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. Oriental Institute Publications 72. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, no. 34. Mythological scene: tailless lion or bear standing erect behind tree; two goats feeding at other side of tree; another tree, with bird in branches, behind monster; three-lowered buildings with door at left side; watercourse along bottom of scene. Gray limestone. 4.1x3.5cm.[i]

  
Model of a temple, called the Sit-shamshi, made for the ceremony of the rising sun. 12th century BCE Tell of the Acropolis, Susa Bronze  J. de Morgan excavations, 1904-05 Sb 2743
  
Hieroglyphs on Warka vase, Uruk: 3000 BCE, Uruk in Southern Iraq. (Height, aprox.1,20 mts)[ii]


Altar, Tukulti-Ninurta I, 1243-1208 BCE, in prayer before two deities carrying wooden standards, Assyria, Bronze. Note the spoked-wheel hieroglyph comparable to the glyph on Dholavira sign-board.

I challenge Prof. Witzel et al to prove that the artisans who deployed these hieroglyphs were illiterate. No prize money will be offered by Sarasvati Research Center.

Kalyanaraman
December 5, 2013 



[ii] cf. Photo on pg. 61 of M. Roaf's Cultural Atlans of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East).

Sham secularism, feudal democracy -- Lt. Gen. (Retd) S.K. Sinha. It's chamchagiri, General.

$
0
0

Sham secularism, feudal democracy


Rahul Gandhi barges into a press conference being held by his party spokesman justifying the infamous ordinance. In a rage, he calls it nonsense and wants to tear it. The entire sycophant brigade changes colour like a chameleon in a fraction of a second.
Secularism is a European concept. It stands for separation of the church from the state. It flowered among people who believed in the same religion, albeit from different sects. Our founding fathers adopted secularism as an article of faith for our multi-religious nation. It was embedded in our Constitution though the word secularism initially found no mention. Indira Gandhi got it incorporated through an amendment.
Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of secularism was based on pluralism, implying equality of all religions. This was in keeping with the genius of our nation. Nehru’s secularism was that of an agnostic based on the European concept. Nehru reached out to Muslims to ensure that they did not suffer from any complex in the wake of Partition and felt they were equal citizens of India without any feeling of insecurity.
No communal riot took place in his regime. Haj subsidy, not available in any Muslim country, was introduced in India to boost their morale and not for gathering votes. He and his party could easily win elections with or without their support.
The Muslims realised that they had got carried away by the Two Nation Theory wave which split the country. Muslim film stars Mehrunissa and Yusuf Khan adopted Hindu names, Meena Kumari and Dilip Kumar respectively for greater acceptability. We have come a long way since.
Our Muslim citizens or film stars no longer harbour any complex. Today, they have no hesitation in asserting their identity, much more than they did before Partition. It is pertinent that no one raised any objection to India adopting a national emblem, national anthem or national song more associated with the culture and history of the majority community. If these were to be chosen today, there would be strong opposition from so-called secularists and some religious fundamentalists.
Unlike her father, Indira Gandhi was not an agnostic and observed religious rituals. Her secularism was for building the votebank. Nehru never held iftaar parties at government expense but that is now done with a vengeance. No state functions are held for other religious communities.
National security and national interests are being compromised by sham secularists. Illegal migration from Bangladesh in Assam is encouraged for the vote bank. Similarly, a soft policy is followed in Kashmir and against jihadi terrorism. The plight of Kashmiri Pandits is ignored. The fact that about a hundred temples were vandalised in the Valley earlier is kept under wraps, while the reprehensible demolition of the Babri Masjid is kept alive even after 20 years.
The BJP with several prominent Muslim leaders is considered a communal party and is treated as untouchable. Exclusively Muslim parties with a communal agenda, like Muslim League, Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and All India United Democratic Front, are honoured coalition partners of the Congress Party. The Prime Minister violates the provisions of the Constitution when he declares that Muslims are his first priority for the development bonanza. He seems to be not bothered about non-Muslims, no matter how disadvantaged.
Haj House was built by the government at Dwarka in Delhi in 2008 at a cost of `22 crore, while in the same year 100 acres of barren forest land leased to the Amarnath Shrine Board, with the latter paying `2.2 crore, was rescinded to appease fanatics. They came out with a yarn about the uninhabitable and snow-covered land for eight months in the year being used to change the demography of the Valley, like Israel did in Palestine.
Our two well-known top senior journalists spin similar yarns. One reported that the shrine board will build five- star hotels at Baltal. The other called the board a villain of peace. There are several examples of such antics of our sham secularists. Genuine secularism is justice for all and appeasement of none.
Another grave malady our country faces is dynastic rule. This destroys the root of democracy and injects feudalism into polity. Liberty, equality and fraternity are dumped to ensure the unquestioned supremacy of the ruling family. The nation has to suffer the rule of the family, by the family and for the family. The dynastic disease has spread like cancer to other political parties, too.
This is bad enough. But what is worse is that this promotes a feudal culture not only among rulers but all their underlings, including the bureaucracy. The latter stands now more enslaved than it was under colonial rule. The common man suffers more arrogance of power than he did under the British era.
Dynastic rule encourages sycophancy and courtier culture. The ruler can do no wrong. The rulers drunk on power are emboldened to adopt an “off with his head” policy. Durga Shakti Nagpal became a victim but could survive due to national outrage. The principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet or individual responsibility of the minister does not apply in a feudal democracy. A minister may approve a proposal, accord written sanction but if it is found wrong, the bureaucrat is hauled up, not the minister. There was once a Lal Bahadur Shastri in this country, who was so different.
Rahul Gandhi barges into a press conference being held by his party spokesman justifying the infamous ordinance. In a rage, he calls it nonsense and wants to tear it to shreds. The entire sycophant brigade changes colour like a chameleon in a fraction of a second. The loud chorus of praise for the young genius reaches a crescendo. No one bothers about why this was done, the manner in which it was done or the timing. The ordinance had been approved by the core group of the party, by the Cabinet and was being strongly defended by all courtiers. He was in the know of all this and his silence over it was indicative of his concurrence.
Perhaps the reasons for his delayed wisdom was the reservation shown by the President, the Opposition appealing to the President not to sign the ordinance and the mounting disgust among people on the eve of elections. Such pedestrian thoughts lie buried deep.
Mahatma Gandhi rid the nation of what he called slave mentality and raised us out of dust to dignity and Independence. One does not know what the outcome of the 2014 elections will be. Let us hope that irrespective of who comes to power, he liberates the nation from the evils of sham secularism and feudal democracy.
The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as Governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir

Comments


Secularism in the present

Secularism in the present political scenario is demonstrative of opportunism for parties who don't count much individually at the national level,but crave for the pie at the top, bunching together like a pack of wolves.The national causes like terrorism, integration,economy and serious problems on the northern and western and southern borders are left behind for
petty state interests.Secularism means justice and equal opportunities for all irrespective of caste and religion.The armed forces are true image of secularism but unfortunately the congress rulers have denigrated their role and importance through successive downgradation in protocol etc.The country will pay for this pseudo secularism dearly, resulting in poor quality of foreign policy and weak leadership.

The article is a true

The article is a true reflection of the mood of the nation.Appeasement of the minority community and denying similar benefits to the large majority is causing anguish and divisive attitude amongst the Indian citizens.Why have a minority affairs ministry to look after muslims only? Hindus are a minority in Kashmir and neglected.Pandits have been forced out of Kashmir and no one cares for them.Mandal commission was a curse for the nation and the vote bank politics has further worsened the feeling of unity and being Indian first
amongst the people.Now everyone talks in terms of caste and subcaste sc/st status to gain
Govt benefits rightly or wrongly..Great, the General has spoken up after long years in the
Govt service.Hope he can continue doing so ...

Genuine secularism is justice

Genuine secularism is justice for all and appeasement of none. - NaMo the answer.

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/sham-secularism-feudal-democracy-874

Congress Vinash Bill -- the final threat. SoniaG and chamchas, in the name of Bharatam, go.

$
0
0

Thursday, December 5, 2013

CVB - The Final Threat

http://www.mediacrooks.com/2013/12/cvb-final-threat.html#.Up_ukyemY03

The exit polls after the recent round of elections in 5 states aren’t showing great results for the Congress. While only final results on December 8 will confirm if these predictions are accurate there is every reason to believe that the Congress internally knows the outcomes may not be very encouraging for them. Here’s a summary of what the exit polls have generally indicated (this may change a bit here and there for Delhi):

Democracy is considered a better form of government and life because it promises equality of all citizens and justice for all. In India, though, this is far from reality and neither are citizens equal nor is there justice for all. Since the British were fond of divide and rule we have inherited the same principle in almost every party whose mother has been the Congress. While calling others “divisive and polarising” it is actually Sonia Gandhi (earlier IndiraG and RajivG) who has been the most divisive politician. It’s a guiding principle for the Congress party and executed by SoniaG and her foot-soldiers. Correspondingly, this same party has no respect for law and corrupt operators flourish under its rule. The laws and policies the party makes are basically “survival” measures to retain power. Most of these laws and policies have nothing to do with real progress, development, growth or justice.

There is a concept in accounting called “materiality concept” which any book-keeper or Accountant will tell you about. While this mostly refers to what is reflected in a financial statement we can also apply it to simple purchases and how we treat them. For instance, a normal office stapler costs between Rs.80 and Rs.500. Though the stapler is physically an asset it is treated as an “expense” because of the materiality concept and not as an asset that gets depreciated every year. Someone owing you Rs.1000 but has assets worth Rs.1 crore is not going to bother you much but the reverse would definitely bother you. I read a DNA report about a Postman who lost his job in 1984 accused of embezzlement. He was finally acquitted in 2013, after 29 years. During this period he lost 3 children, another one has a heart ailment and survived doing odd jobs with the tag of “thief”. The amount he was accused of embezzling? All of Rs.57.60! From the same period no big criminal was punished for the slaughter of Sikhs. No major criminal was punished for the loot of 64 Crores in the Bofors scam.

In most of the campaign or speeches of Congress leaders there isn’t really any materiality involved. Lame nonsense like “roads and airports cannot feed you” byRahul Gandhi is the kind of statement people are not buying anymore. So when bragging “we brought RTI for you” is Congress claiming people can “eat the RTI” and fill their stomachs? Does any law fill anyone’s stomach? Saying “we gave you FSB” in places where the PDS system and food systems are better is equally immaterial. In parts of Chattisgarh people refer to CM Raman Singh as “Chawal wale Baba” (Rice-provider) indicating he has done much better than Congress in managing food distribution. Raman Singh doesn’t brag about some FSB or PDS innovation, people believe he “delivers”. Another myth that is being repeatedly busted is the fake claims of Congress on secularism. If airports and roads don’t feed the poor, as RG stupidly claims, secularism doesn’t feed anyone or deliver water to anyone. The baking of Muslim and minority votes also seems to be under threat. Muslims are also wiser having been fooled by Congress and other “sickular” parties all these years.

It is evident that Narendra Modi is setting the agenda and the Congis are all at sea on how to combat him. Modi’s appeal is not restricted to urban classes but also extends to rural folks. In the recent elections the middle class in Delhi too turned up in large numbers. Of course, according to wiseguy Wagle, the middle class who vote for BJP are idiots without IQ. This is the language in the media that the Congress also uses. Sheer arrogance and contempt for people! Their top 2 leaders, the Gandhis, simply do not possess the grip on various issues to combat Modi. This just leaves the foot-soldiers to indulge in name-calling. Someone described the reason for the massive turnouts at Modi rallies. He speaks a language that ordinary people understand and connect with. He rakes up issues without fear and he makes a mockery of this fake secularism. Media cronies of Congress like Kumar Ketkar and Vinod Mehta like to believe there is no Modi-wave but it’s the “non-performance” of Congress that is working against them. That is a worse indictment which doesn’t dawn upon these guys. Fighting Modi might still be possible but fighting a perception among people of “non-performance” is tougher. The media is blind to the danger of their own lies.

Lately Modi even brought up the Article 370 which seems to have upset a whole lot of people. The BJP is right in claiming that A370 needs a relook and debate. Arun Jaitley writes “Article 370 has nothing to do with Secularism. Its an instrument of oppression against citizens of India”. Here are some excerpts:

The Nehruvian vision of a separate status has given rise to aspirations for the pre-1953 status, self-rule and even Azadi. The desire of proponents of these three ideas has weakened the constitutional and political relationship between Jammu & Kashmir and the rest of the country. The journey of separate status has been towards separatism and not towards integration. It would be incorrect for anyone to interpret BJP's challenge for a debate on this issue as a softening of stand on Article 370… The State laws in Jammu & Kashmir were consistently interpreted for over five decades to mean that a daughter in Jammu & Kashmir would lose her status as a permanent resident of the State as also special rights and privileges available to her if she married outside the State. This was based on an erroneous belief that a wife followed the domicile of the husband. A large number of women in Jammu & Kashmir questioned the constitutional validity of this provision. A Full Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by a judgement dated 7th October, 2002 re-interpreted the law and by a majority judgement held that a daughter marrying outside the State would not lose her status as a permanent resident”.

So a majority of citizens of this country are being misled. The truth is that A370 was created at a certain time and a certain situation. That situation has dramatically altered now. The “rulers and maharajas” of J&K whether the Abdullahs or Muftis have been constantly playing a “Kabhi haan, Kabhi naa” game on where they stand on issues of terrorism and separatists. A separatist like Geelani openly calls for violence to separate Kashmir from India. Therefore, A370 too needs a relook. All political parties were shying away from it so far and there is no escape anymore. Other princely states that joined India were allowed privy purses which were to be reduced progressively. But in a sudden move Indira Gandhi abolished the privy purses. So there is no logic behind keeping A370 permanently burning. This appeals to most Indians and Congress has no answer.

With a dying party, with a history of dictatorial tendencies, in danger of losing power in many states and the Centre, the only option is to create more fear, more divisions in society, make draconian laws to ensure “survival”. This is the only political tactic that Congress has always known: “survival”. So they bring up the Communal Violence Billagain which they propose to table in parliament and pass it this Winter session. There’s an old rule in India: If a cycle crashes with a two-wheeler, it’s the two-wheeler’s fault. If the two-wheeler crashes with a car it’s the fault of the car. If the car crashes with a truck, it’s the truck’s fault. If a truck crash with a train…. That in short describes the CVB. All communal riots or violence are faults of the “majority” group. In other words: Hindus. In many states the Congress has been wiped out for decades. TN, Bengal, UP, Bihar, Gujarat are all important contributors to the national kitty of LS seats. The CVB empowers the Centre to act and intervene with forces in case of a communal riot in some state. Any law that is likely to be misused WILL be misused66A anyone?

In a debate on TimesNow on December 3 the Congress spokie, Sanjay Jha, made a dramatically foolish claim that went unchallenged. He cited the plight of Kashmiri Pandits (KPs) who were driven out of Kashmir around 1989-90 by local and imported terrorists and claimed the CVB would also protect the KPs. That is like saying the Sikhs who were slaughtered in Delhi and across India by the Congis would be protected by the CVB. Such is the silly argument presented by the Congi. First, the KPs have been driven out in lakhs with hardly any hope of returning home. They have settled across India and also abroad and the current situation in Kashmir is hardly encouraging. Most importantly, how the hell does Jha claim CVB will help them in the context of A370? It is common knowledge that legislations by our parliament do not automatically extend to J&K because of A370. So there is absolutely no sense in claiming CVB will protect anyone in J&K. This is the kind of spurious logic the Congis use. And given that Muslims are in majority in J&K there is hardly any chance that the Abdullahs will approve the CVB for the state. Therefore, for all practical purposes the Hindus are the villains.

Thus, the CVB is another law that the Congress hopes will drive Muslims rushing to vote for it in the next elections. This is an act of a loser. It’s a desperate measure by a dying party that refuses to see the writing on the wall. In a scathing article, former vice-chief of army and former governor of J&K, slams the entire miserable rule of the Congress: “Sham secularism, feudal democracy”. What are they going to do? Is Rahul Gandhi going to next say “we brought CVB” and that will feed the stomachs of poor minorities? Instead of removing lines of division and fostering more harmony the Congress is hell bent on further dividing people and generating hostilities. The most stinging and honest description of SoniaG being the most divisive politician comes from TheJaggi inFirstPost:

Today, she realises that the same divisiveness her origins generated earlier may stick to her ineffectual son too, and in order to neutralise this the Congress strategy is to build up the bogey of Narendra Modi‘s divisiveness so that the Dynasty’s own inherent divisiveness is glossed over. This project would have died an unsung death if Vajpayee had won in 2004 and LK Advani in 2009, but fate decreed otherwise, and it is in Sonia’s interest now to foster further divisiveness by demonising Modi…  Thanks to 2002, it is not difficult to paint Modi as a “divisive” figure. Let’s assume for a moment that that is true, but the real question is: divisive for whom? If you line up all the critics of Modi and his alleged “divisiveness” you will find that it is the Congress-Left-Secular Delhi “liberal” elite that finds him “divisive”. If some of the regional parties are today parroting this same story of Modi’s divisiveness, it is because it suits their short-term electoral purposes”.


The truth about the recent elections is that people aren’t just rejecting the Congress, they are rejecting the “Gandhis”. The Congress must at least acknowledge that Rahul Gandhi is a total flop and does not inspire people. He might inspire the Barkhas and Rajdeeps but not the voters. They also need to understand SoniaG needs to shed her arrogance and her dialogue needs to be one of humility. There is only so much that people are willing to forgive. If this CVB is the last straw or the final threat the Congress is hanging on to, it will fail miserably.

6 comments:

  1. The CVB is desperate measure by a dying party!Truly said.
    Reply
  2. The wiseguy Nikhil Wagale, yesterday, was discussing post poll survey done by them and was discussing that in between the November and December survey BJP has lost the ground and Congress has put up fight. The proof? His own surveys that he can manipulate the way he wants. In his surveys he projected in November, BJP will get say 140/145 seats in Rajasthan and now in poll survey done in December BJP is getting 130 to 135 seats. Does Nikhil Wagale considers us viewers fools? Or is he living in fools paradise? Both the surveys are surveys after all and it can have a variation of those many seats. But he used it to show that BJP is loosing the ground and Congress is putting up fight. This was a crook ploy to demoralize BJP cadre. For this pathological hatred against BJP, we have to understand that Wagle is a socialist who are jealous of BJP which has gained strength years after years, where as all socialists are breaking in to independent amoebas over last 65 years. Therefore all these Congress-Left-Socialist Secular intellectuals prefer to back dynasty. NaMo do not just dream Congress free India let us all dream Socialists free India, because they provide intellectual backup to Congress in the name of CVB or FSB.
    Reply
  3. Brilliant stuff Ravi... Me too want to write these kinda of stuffs... but don't have such a vast variety of knowledge in all domains. . :(
    Reply
  4. For CON party CVB means Congress Victory Bill.
    Reply
    Replies
    1. Actually it is going to be Congress Vinaash Bill
  5. The instrument of its perceived salvation will result in the eternal damnation for the congress.. Cvb will the final straw!
    Reply

Will The Power Of Thorium Make It A Fuel Of The Future? SoniaG UPA, protect India's thorium reserves.

$
0
0

Will The Power Of Thorium Make It A Fuel Of The Future?

November 27, 2013
While the ongoing debate over the future of fossil fuels and renewables is unlikely to diminish any time soon, engineering research into an energy source named after a Norse God may soon provide a much-needed alternative. And although it may have been discovered nearly 200 years ago, there are a growing band of scientists, engineers and government officials who believe that the time has come to for Thorium to take its place in the discussion.
According to the BBC, the radioactive element is already being seen as a safer alternative to the existing use of uranium in nuclear reactors, with a number of engineering research and development projects across the world already engaged in assessing its energy potential. Thorium was originally found in Norway in 1828, and was named after the legendary god of thunder by the Swedish chemist who first identified its properties, although its use up until now has been sporadic.
Increasing energy options
However, recent comments made by Hans Blix, the former United Nations weapons inspector, have indicated that there are a number of parties interested in developing thorium as a future replacement for uranium, with a series of tests in Norway currently underway. According to the news source, Blix has publicly offered his support for the potential fuel source, with the former Swedish foreign minister confident that it could play a major role in increasing the options available to operators of nuclear generating facilities.
"I'm a lawyer not a scientist but in my opinion we should be trying our best to develop the use of thorium," said Blix. "I realize there are many obstacles to be overcome but the benefits would be great. I am told that thorium will be safer in reactors - and it is almost impossible to make a bomb out of thorium. These are very major factors as the world looks for future energy supplies."
While Blix's enthusiasm has been welcomed by scientists already involved in thorium testing, the element itself may not be familiar to the general public. Over the years, it has been used mainly as a component in engineering tools such as aircraft engines and rockets, and while it has been proven to be an effective radiation shield, it has often been passed over in favor of lead. However, its commercial applications have also been overlooked, despite the fact that it is three times more abundant than tin and is believed to be as common as lead.
At the same time, the actual distribution of thorium is relatively unknown, with recent research by the OECD identifying Australia and India as countries that have large amounts of the dense material, with studies showing that the latter sits on top of the world's biggest reserves. The British government, for example, is keen to explore the opportunities for alternative nuclear fuels, and scientists from the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory have recently been involved in engineering research relating to the development of a thorium-based reactor in India and, somewhat ironically, Norway.
"There is lots of thorium in the world, very well distributed all over the globe." said Oystein Asphjell, chief executive of Thor Energy, which is carrying out tests on the chemical element. "In operations, in a reactor, it has some chemical and physical properties that make it really superior to uranium as well. On the waste side, we don't generate long lived waste."
Power of the gods
If that is the case, then the benefits of using thorium could be enormous. Scientists in China are already using it as the basis for a next-generation reactor, while there have been some advances made by researchers in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the United States in using it as a substitute fuel in water-cooled reactors. According to Smart Planet, Carlo Rubbia, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1984, has described thorium as having "absolute pre-eminence over all other fuels," with the former director of CERN stating that it could reverse an image of nuclear energy that has been affected by recent events in Japan.
The problem is that there have been billions of dollars invested in uranium-based engineering research, and if the fossil fuel industry is known to be backed by people with long arms and deep pockets, then it is probably reasonable to assume that the uranium can count on similar support.
Bearing that in mind, engineers have also shown interest in developing thorium as an alternative power source in motor vehicles. According to Mashable, a U.S. company called Laser Power Systems have been working on a proof-of-conceptfor a car engine that could be powered by the chemical, with sources at the firm noting that the engineering resources required to build a thorium-powered machine could be available to the automobile industry in the near future. However, the fact that the element is radioactive has, to date, overshadowed the fact that it packs a serious punch in terms of energy generation.
"We're building this to power the rest of the world," said doctor Charles Stevens, the CEO of the company, in an interview with the news source. "Cars are not our primary interest. The radiation that we develop off of one of these things can be shielded by a single sheet off of aluminum foil. You will get more radiation from one of those dental X-rays than this."
Theoretical versus practical
Despite this, there are those that believe that investing engineering resources into thorium is not a cost-effective solution. According to Dr. Nils Bohmer, a nuclear physicist employed by an environmental NGO in Norway, diverting attention to an unproven energy source is nothing more than a distraction to alleviate concerns over climate change and potential fossil fuel divestment.
"The advantages of thorium are purely theoretical," he told BBC News. "The technology development is decades in the future. Instead I think we should focus on developing renewable technology - for example offshore wind technology - which I think has a huge potential to develop."
With that in mind, only time will tell which energy source eventually claims the title of fuel-of-the-future, but if thorium is proved to be as powerful as the god it was named after, then it may be just what the world is looking for.



Inscription reveals 7th century river-link.. SoniaG UPA, create a National Water Grid. Implement SC directive.

$
0
0
Gangaikondacholapuram. S'iva crowns the king Karikala Chola கரிகால சோழன் with his neck-snake. The king celebrates calling the Pushkarini of the temple Chola ganga filled with waters brought from Ganga. The Kallanai :கல்லணை or Grand Anicut was a remarkable feat of river-linking adding 5 lakh acres of additional wet land by creating kollidam or Coleroon river. The anicut has stood for nearly 1000 years and became the model irrigation system in many parts of Africa. The best tribute we can pay to this feat by our ancestors is to create a National Water Grid NOW. Kalyanaraman

Published: December 2, 2013 12:31 IST | Updated: December 2, 2013 12:31 IST

Inscription reveals riverlink, irrigation system

Staff Reporter

It was in existence during the reign of Pandya King Arikesari

Inscription on a stone removed from the Vaigai river bund has revealed the existence of an ancient irrigation network and river link in Madurai and adjoining areas.
The stone, which is kept in the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple museum, was deciphered by historians S.M. Ratnavel and C. Santhalingam , members of the Pandia Nadu Centre for Historical Research here.
“The inscription which dates back to 690 AD suggests that an irrigation project was in existence during the reign of Pandya King Arikesari. This is probably the first instance of evidence detailing existence of irrigation projects in ancient Tamil Nadu,” Mr. Santhalingam says.
“The inscription details a project where water from a channel dug from the Vaigai joins a jungle stream (Kiruthumal river), and is stored in a reservoir. The inscription specifically mentions the irrigation tanks located in the erstwhile Sanadu and Parithikudinadu villages which received water from the reservoir,” explains engineer S.M. Ratnavel.
“It is interesting to note that the water from the presently dry Vaigai river was enjoyed by villages as far as Kallumadai, Veeracholan and Paruthiyur, which are located in the erstwhile Sanadu and Parithikudinadu villages,” he says.
While a lot is being discussed about the present day link-canals between rivers, this inscription confirms that river linking existed long ago, the historians said.
“The inscription has provided valuable evidence which throws light on the fact that the Vaigai river and the Kiruthumal river were linked in the seventh century for an effective irrigation network,” says Mr. Santhalingam.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/inscription-reveals-riverlink-irrigation-system/article5413608.ece


Lessons from the Grand Anaicut of Tamil Nadu

One rainy evening almost 2000 years back, a dark, well built man with a distinctly thick beard walked up to the banks of the River Cauvery near modern day Tiruchirapalli, deep inside the then Tamil country. He looked across the vast river anxiously. Rough white water raged through with such fury that it threatened to breach the mud banks as it did every year, flooding numerous villages and fertile farmlands.
It was time to make a decision ‘I have to do this for the future of this land and its people’ he told himself as he picked up a small stone and hurled it into the water. That man was none other than Karikala Cholan, the mighty emperor of the Chola Dynasty who built The Grand Anaicut or Kallanai (Stone Dam) which is arguably the world’s oldest man made Water diversionary and water Regulating structure which is still in use.
The Cauvery River, as seen in the image above is split into two channels by the island of Srirangam. While the southern channel retains the name Cauvery, the northern channel is called as Kollidam or Coleroon River. These two channels come close again downstream and it is at this strategic meeting point that Karikala Cholan decided to build the Kallanai. Karikalan built the Kallanai for mainly two reasons: Flood control and Irrigation. Having witnessed the river causing great floods during the rainy season and also forcing droughts during the dry months, he and his advisors devised this grand project to maintain a steady flow of water throughout the year. The dam was constructed from unhewn stone and is 329 m (1,079 ft) long, 20 m (66 ft) wide and 5.4 m (18 ft) high. The dam has since been developed by the British who laid the grid separators and a bridge on top of the old dam.
The story of the Kallanai imparts some very important lessons for the Design world. Foremost is the amazing vision that Karikalan possessed. When he decided to build a dam across the Cauvery River he could have easily just thought of something a little less grand and achievable based on the technical and monetary reservations of his time but Karikalan did not just think of the near future. When he stood on the mud banks and pictured his dam, he imagined it to stand for a very long time to come. And it is his extraordinary long term planning and foresight that is reflected in the fact that the Kallanai is still in excellent condition even after almost 2000 years.
Next is the fact that Karikalan saw opportunity in the face of Disaster. I wouldn’t be exaggerating if I call Karikala Cholan the single most important reason why Tanjore is today called the rice bowl of South India. That’s because the Kallanai helps irrigate more than 1 million acres of fertile farmland even today! Karikalan did not just want to build a structure to divert excess flood water but he also realized the tremendous opportunity to utilize that water for irrigation purposes across the fertile delta of Tanjore. A series of well planned and distributed canals as seen in the image above were created throughout the delta ensuring maximum benefits.
Karikalan’s story of an extraordinary long term vision, meticulous planning and astounding execution of an engineering marvel makes sense even today. A culture of long term thinking with the ability to look at the long term benefits becomes more vital in a world today that seems content with temporary solutions. The design field particularly can learn a lot from examples such as the Kallanai about the importance of vision in Design.
  • How relevant are the long term benefits of any product or service?
  • What solutions can a Design provide and how permanent is it?
  • Can our service or solution add more value than what is expected?
  • How much more effort do we need to put in to turn an ordinary solution into a more robust, long term and innovative one?
  • Is it all worth it?
These are some of the questions that every Designer should ask themselves at work and in their life in general. At the end of the day it all comes down to how many lives you touch by your deeds and actions.
Afterthought:
The Cholas were great disciples of the arts and crafts despite being fierce warriors and conquerors. Literature and the arts flourished under their patronage and have given Tamil culture many gifts over the ages. The enormous temples built by some of the even more popular Chola kings like Raja Raja Cholan and his son Rajendra Cholan stands testimony to their engineering, artistic and architectural brilliance. But many today feel that a King such as Karikalan who built something that virtually feeds an entire state deserves much more credit and appreciation than he has sadly obtained. That also highlights the fact that Karikalan did not seek a place in history through grand, crowd pulling monuments. Karikalan’s place in history has been cemented by the endless stream of the Cauvery that shall continue to flow through his Dam enriching the delta that he carved.

Narendra Modi's arrival on national scene welcomed by a Japanese paper and Nomura

$
0
0
Prospects of Narendra Modi as PM

http://DeshGujarat.Com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nikkei.jpg

Unprecedentedly there is a large coverage in 1264 worded article
on Narendra Modi in Nikkei a Japanese paper on 12th November 2013..
It announced red-carpet welcome for Modi in Japan.
He has envisioned special role for Japan. “I foresee a pivotal role for Japan in helping
improve India’s Core manufacturing sector competency and competitiveness.
If the regime change takes place, he shared his willingness to work closely.
Already Japan is building industrial and integrated township in Gujarat,
he looks forward to more public private investment from Japan in industrial
and infrastructure projects across India.
Article further notes his humble beginning and early life struggle.
Journey of a Hard working Tea-Boy who became Astute CM. 
The article emphasises his hard-working nature as a tea-vendor
who transformed his earthquake stricken state to one of India’s leading state.
Nikkei lauds him as Astute CM with great administration skills as Chief minister.
Interestingly the article chooses Narendra Modi v/s Rahul Gandhi as
KURONIN v/s ONSOUSHI metaphor.
They are Japanese words. KURONIN literally means “a man who understand
other’s problem (because he had a hardtime himself).
ONSOUSHI on other hand means Scion or heir inheriting throne.
While how will muslim vote for Modi is mentioned, article feels this election
is all about reviving Indian economy.
Narendra Modi comes with stellar performance at his home state.
Rahul Gandhi on the other hand leans on his family legacy,
which does not give solution to people’s problems.
Problem for Congress is they have no one but Rahul Gandhi to lean
on as either way this is the last term for current PM Manmohan Singh.
—End–
 
 
The timing of this unprecedented big coverage to NaMo is quite significant.
Shinzo Abe (PM of Japan) with whom Modi shares very cordial relationship is
in the midst of reviving Japanese economy is a big fan of India.
It was during his earlier stint as PM that DMIC was conceived.
There was a period where Abe went incognito from political space for health reason.
It was the same period where India was suffering from policy paralysis and things on
this project hardly moved (from Japanese standard).
Advent of Modi gives them a big hope on how to engage effectively.
Both NAMO and ABE share a cordial relationship.
Both of them were locked in their respective election last year.
Interestingly media was hostile to both in spite of definite wave in their favour.
ABE after resounding victory has not wasted any time and has been trying to
figure out how to work even more closely with India.
AS Abe sits down for cabinet review on India strategy, advent of Modi will
be very much on his mind.
FDI and Global Relationship
Even though Modi has said this many times,
Nikkei still tries to extract reformist side especially on global relations.
It was very interesting to learn what he had to say on China and Pakistan.
The last is very important because of the perceived Muslim factor.
Interestingly Nikkei also gets into his thoughts on FDI and Retail.
Modi’s reply could also be music to people on the other side of the pacific.
For English press globally whenever BJP is mentioned,
the word hardliner Hindutva party is attached by default.
For people not familiar with Japan, another iconic figure that will
perfectly fit the bill for KURONIN could be Abraham Lincoln.
Who rose against all odds.
For once poor and aspiring voters of India and global stakeholders
sees their hope converge in one man. Narendra Modi.
See:
http://deshgujarat.com/2013/11/23/world-is-whooping-it-up-at-narendra-modi-as-pm-prospect-part-1/

Foreign brokerages say 'buy' Narendra Modi

Friday, Nov 29, 2013, 6:36 IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Pic for representational purpose.
Pic for representational purpose.
While Indian voters may still be undecided about who to support in the 2014 general election, foreign investors expect a regime change in India.
More and more foreign brokerages are advising clients Narendra Modi will likely lead the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form a coalition government in 2014.
Typically, clienteles of brokerages are cash-flush foreign institutional investors that own around 45% of the entire floating stocks in the Indian equity markets.
Brokerages have indicated to their clients that Modi’s rise could well be positive for both the investor community and the re-emergence of the India growth story.
Japanese brokerage Nomura is the latest to echo Modi–the next PM view, along with prominent peers like CLSA, UBS, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and HSBC.
Nomura’s political analyst, Alastair Newton, has already gone on record that corporates and markets expect a BJP-led coalition in New Delhi.
On Monday, the brokerage stated in its advisory that a “BJP-led coalition is likely to win power, which may be positive for the economy in the medium-term.”
Foreign brokerages are convinced that Modi’s business-friendly approach and strong corporate governance as Gujarat’s chief minister will hold him in good stead when the role gets elevated to that of the country’s PM.
In his weekly newsletter ‘Greed & Fear’, Christopher Wood, strategist at CLSA Asia Pacific Markets, wrote last week: “India’s electorate is pining for a change and, in particular, the return of a government focused on a growth mandate rather than a mandate based on the promise of more handouts on the ‘alleviation of poverty’ theme...”
In its 2014 outlook for Indian equities, HSBC Capital Markets, too, talked about opinion polls predicting a BJP win.
“Currently, mostly all opinion polls... point to the BJP emerging as the largest party. In our view, if the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) comes to power, it would be positive for the infrastructure-led sectors,” wrote Jitendra Sriram, equity strategist and head of research-India, at HSBC Securities and Capital Markets.
The general perception among the electorate, foreign brokerages are telling their clients, is that the Congress has become a freebie-doling party, given to populist measures like the food security bill and policies aimed at boosting consumption.
Gautam Chhaochharia and Sanjena Dadawala, analysts at UBS Securities, noted that based on discussions with investors, the markets appear to be inclined more towards a Modi-led BJP than Gandhi-led Congress.
Modi–the next PM discourse started in May 2012 when CLSA first published a report to that effect.
Last week, CLSA reinforced that view by saying that Modi’s popularity is reflected in the vast turnouts at political rallies, a contrast to Rahul Gandhi’s.
Although most brokerages prefer the BJP, they, nevertheless, feel that markets and the economy would like to see a strong and stable government at the Centre — be it the Congress or the BJP.
“We believe India’s political climate in mid-2014 can make or break the longer term economic outlook,” said Sonal Varma, economist at Nomura. Although most brokerages prefer the BJP, they, nevertheless, feel that markets and the economy would like to see a strong and stable government at the Centre — be it the Congress or the BJP.
“We believe India’s political climate in mid-2014 can make or break the longer term economic outlook,” said Sonal Varma, economist at Nomura.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-foreign-brokerages-say-buy-narendra-modi-1926473 

Communal Violence Bill 'a recipe for disaster' -- NaMo's letter to PM

$
0
0

Modi writes to PM, calls Communal Violence Bill 'a recipe for disaster'

  | New Delhi, December 5, 2013 | 10:09
Coming out strongly against the Communal Violence Bill, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi  has termed it as ill-conceived, poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster. Modi has also written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to register his opposition to the bill. 
He described the bill as an attempt to encroach upon the authorities of the state governments and sought wider consultation among the various stakeholders such as the state governments, political parties, police and security agencies . before any further movement on the issue.
Modi  further said that as a Chief Minister of a state, he agrees that there is a need to be vigilant on communal violence but the contents and timing of the bill are suspicious. He questioned the hurry of the Centre to introduce the bill in the Parliament, saying that such an attempt before the Lok Sabha elections is suspicious and is driven by votebank politics rather than genuine concern for preventing communal violence.
 Read Full Text
 In his letter to the Prime Minister, the Gujarat Chief Minister brought out the various operational issues in the proposed Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013. He shared various shortcomings in the individual sections of the proposed Bill.
For example, the Section 3(f) that defines "hostile environment" is wide ranging, vague and open to misuse. Likewise, the definition of communal violence under Section 3 (d) read with Section 4 would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of "thought crime" in the context of the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Shri Modi added in his letter that these provisions have also not been examined from the view of the Evidence Act.
Strongly opposing the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable, Shri Modi has warned that such a move can adversely impact the morale of our law and order enforcement agencies. It may also make them vulnerable to political victimization.
On Section 10B (breach of command responsibility) that penalizes a public servant for the failure of his subordinates, Shri Modi wrote that this provision is absurd as it tries to deal with incompetence by trying to criminalize it. Saying that such issues need structural responses he criticized the tendency to find legislative solutions to all problems
.He also criticized the proviso to Section 10B and warned that it would imply that senior officials would shy away from intervening due to the fear of criminal liability and leave the junior officials to fend for themselves on the field.
He expressed his strong concern that the proposed legislation would further divide Indian society on religious and linguistic lines, saying that religious and linguistic identities would become more reinforced and even ordinary incidents of violence would be given a communal colour thus giving the opposite result of what the Bill intends to achieve.
Shri Modi has been extremely critical of the manner in which the Centre in bringing the communal violence bill has showed no consideration for the nation's federal structure. He wrote that the Centre's attempt to legislate on issues of "law and order" and "public order" that are a part of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule show the Centre's contempt for the federal structure of the nation and the principle of separation of powers. He wanted to know why is the Centre slow on legislating on issues that are part of the Union List (List 1) that has 97 entries but instead has been keen to encroach upon issues in the state list.
Shri Modi asked if this is an attempt by the Centre to blame the state governments for "improper implementation" after saddling them with poorly drafted and ill-conceived legislations that do not give the desired results and ends up worsening the problem.
The Gujarat Chief Minister categorically maintained that this is an issue under the State List and that if it is something that would have to be implemented by the State Government then it should be legislated by the State Government. He added that if there is something the Centre wishes to share it is free to prepare a "Model Bill" and circulate it among the various State Governments for their consideration.
Shri Modi recalled the Chief Ministers' Conference on Internal Security where he had raised, among other things how certain individuals having links with anti-national elements have penetrated into bodies such as the Planning Commission, National Advisory Council etc. and that these are the same individuals who may have drafted this new bill on Communal Violence. He also expressed his concern that the law making powers of an elected government may have been usurped by extra-constitutional authorities like the NAC.
On the proposal to bring the NHRC and the SHRC into the process of exercising powers that are vested in the executive wing of an elected government, Shri Modi felt that these bodies are already empowered under the existing statute to deal with serious human rights violations during incidents of communal violence.
He went on to state that burdening these bodies with redressal of all issues, handling of appeals and monitoring individual incidents is neither practical nor desirable. Shri Modi penned down his firm belief that in a democracy it is the elected government that must be the focal point of all responsibility and accountability and that to shake this basic structure would be ill-advised. Thus, the role of the NHRC and the SHRC should pertain to their present roles under the existing laws, Shri Modi wrote to the Prime Minister.
While welcoming the establishment of a Communal Violence Reparation Fund, Shri Modi termed the use of the word compensation as arguable, saying that government should leave the issues of compensation to the competent courts and should instead provide ex-gratia relief/assistance to provide immediate relief and succor to the victims. He opined the introduction of compensation for "moral injury" under the Bill as strange and one that does not take into account implementability.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-bjp-prime-minister-communal-violence-bill-recipe-of-disaster/1/327899.html

Communal Violence Bill is ill conceived and poorly drafted: Narendra Modi  2 Comments  
Share on stumbleupon
Share on reddit
Author: admin December 5, 2013 #Communal Violence Bill#Federal Structure#LetterToPM
Narendra Modi writes letter to the Prime Minister, strongly opposes Communal Violence Bill

Communal Violence Bill is ill conceived and poorly drafted: Narendra Modi

Communal Violence Bill an attempt to encroach on the authority of the state governments: Narendra Modi

Need wider consultation among various stakeholders: Narendra Modi in letter to the PM

Narendra Modi questions timing in bringing the Communal Violence Bill

The Chief Minister of Gujarat Shri Narendra Modi has expressed his strong opposition to the proposed Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013. In a letter to the Honourable Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, Shri Modi described the bill as being ill-conceived and poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster. He described the bill as an attempt to encroach upon the authorities of the state governments and sought wider consultation among the various stakeholders such as the state governments, political parties, police and security agencies etc. before any further movement on the issue.
Shri Narendra Modi said that as a Chief Minister of a Government that is sensitive to the issue of communal violence and a state that has been riot free for over a decade now, he agrees that there is a need to be vigilant on communal violence but the contents and timing of the bill are suspicious. He questioned the hurry of the Centre to introduce the bill in the Parliament, saying that such an attempt before the Lok Sabha elections is suspicious and is driven by votebank politics rather than genuine concern for preventing communal violence.
In his letter to the Prime Minister, the Gujarat Chief Minister brought out the various operational issues in the proposed Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013. He shared various shortcomings in the individual sections of the proposed Bill.
For example, the Section 3(f) that defines “hostile environment” is wide ranging, vague and open to misuse. Likewise, the definition of communal violence under Section 3 (d) read with Section 4 would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of “thought crime” in the context of the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Shri Modi added in his letter that these provisions have also not been examined from the view of the Evidence Act.
Strongly opposing the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable, Shri Modi has warned that such a move can adversely impact the morale of our law and order enforcement agencies. It may also make them vulnerable to political victimization.
On Section 10B (breach of command responsibility) that penalizes a public servant for the failure of his subordinates, Shri Modi wrote that this provision is absurd as it tries to deal with incompetence by trying to criminalize it. Saying that such issues need structural responses he criticized the tendency to find legislative solutions to all problems.
He also criticized the proviso to Section 10B and warned that it would imply that senior officials would shy away from intervening due to the fear of criminal liability and leave the junior officials to fend for themselves on the field.
He expressed his strong concern that the proposed legislation would further divide Indian society on religious and linguistic lines, saying that religious and linguistic identities would become more reinforced and even ordinary incidents of violence would be given a communal colour thus giving the opposite result of what the Bill intends to achieve.
Shri Modi has been extremely critical of the manner in which the Centre in bringing the communal violence bill has showed no consideration for the nation’s federal structure. He wrote that the Centre’s attempt to legislate on issues of “law and order” and “public order” that are a part of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule show the Centre’s contempt for the federal structure of the nation and the principle of separation of powers. He wanted to know why is the Centre slow on legislating on issues that are part of the Union List (List 1) that has 97 entries but instead has been keen to encroach upon issues in the state list. Shri Modi asked if this is an attempt by the Centre to blame the state governments for “improper implementation” after saddling them with poorly drafted and ill-conceived legislations that do not give the desired results and ends up worsening the problem.
The Gujarat Chief Minister categorically maintained that this is an issue under the State List and that if it is something that would have to be implemented by the State Government then it should be legislated by the State Government. He added that if there is something the Centre wishes to share it is free to prepare a “Model Bill” and circulate it among the various State Governments for their consideration.
Shri Modi recalled the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Internal Security where he had raised, among other things how certain individuals having links with anti-national elements have penetrated into bodies such as the Planning Commission, National Advisory Council etc. and that these are the same individuals who may have drafted this new bill on Communal Violence. He also expressed his concern that the law making powers of an elected government may have been usurped by extra-constitutional authorities like the NAC.
On the proposal to bring the NHRC and the SHRC into the process of exercising powers that are vested in the executive wing of an elected government, Shri Modi felt that these bodies are already empowered under the existing statute to deal with serious human rights violations during incidents of communal violence. He went on to state that burdening these bodies with redressal of all issues, handling of appeals and monitoring individual incidents is neither practical nor desirable. Shri Modi penned down his firm belief that in a democracy it is the elected government that must be the focal point of all responsibility and accountability and that to shake this basic structure would be ill-advised. Thus, the role of the NHRC and the SHRC should pertain to their present roles under the existing laws, Shri Modi wrote to the Prime Minister.
While welcoming the establishment of a Communal Violence Reparation Fund, Shri Modi termed the use of the word compensation as arguable, saying that government should leave the issues of compensation to the competent courts and should instead provide ex-gratia relief/assistance to provide immediate relief and succor to the victims. He opined the introduction of compensation for “moral injury” under the Bill as strange and one that does not take into account implementability. nm4.in/19ifamd

http://www.narendramodi.in/communal-violence-bill-is-ill-conceived-and-poorly-drafted-narendra-modi/

Amazon Floats the Notion of Delivery Drones -- David Streitfeld

$
0
0
http://nyti.ms/18hZy1Z

Amazon Floats the Notion of Delivery Drones

Jeff Bezos, as always, is thinking outside the box — way, way outside.
Sunday night on “60 Minutes,” Mr. Bezos, the Amazon founder, floated the notion of using drones to deliver packages. He showed Charlie Rose a video of a tiny helicopter seizing a package from a warehouse and airlifting it to a house. The drone then took off again.
Amazon has already named its future delivery system Prime Air. “I know this looks like science fiction,” Mr. Bezos said. “It’s not.”
Still, even the hyper-optimistic Mr. Bezos cautioned that there were “years of additional work from this point.” He told the show the hardest challenge would be convincing the Federal Aviation Administration that this is a good idea.
Well, the F.A.A. and everyone else. The commercial use of drones was legalized early in 2012, but there has been a good deal of outcry about drones possibly being used for surveillance. Some communities are banning local police from using drones. How receptive they would be to e-commerce applications is unclear.
An Amazon promotional page for Prime Air, however, said the delivery system was practically a done deal.
“From a technology point of view, we’ll be ready to enter commercial operations as soon as the necessary regulations are in place,” the company said. It said that could be two years away.
No mention was made of what would happen if you live in an apartment. Or whether you would get your money back if your neighbor shot down your delivery.
Or, as Mr. Bezos said: “The hard part here is putting in all the redundancy, all the reliability, all the systems you need to say, ‘Look, this thing can’t land on somebody’s head while they’re walking around their neighborhood.’” He later added, “That’s not good.”
If Amazon could do it, so presumably could Walmart and the many other retailers trying to do same-day delivery. It might bring a whole new meaning to the phrase “e-commerce wars.”
The general reaction among Amazon-watchers, however, was that Amazon had scored a significant P.R. coup. “60 Minutes” had teased the revelation over the weekend, setting Twitter afire.
“Does @Amazon sell pets? I would savor the irony of ordering a bird that is delivered via flying robot,” wrote @scottEweinberg.
“Next, Amazon fulfillment centers in your basement,” speculated @delrey.
That did seem about the only innovation left.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/amazon-floats-the-notion-of-delivery-drones/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

In for a penny, in for a pounding - P. Sainath. SoniaG's politicking is a total denial of democracy

$
0
0

In for a penny, in for a pounding

P. Sainath, 5 Dec. 2013

The ‘Rayala-Telangana’ idea seeks to exploit a regional divide within a regional divide. It could backfire with serious consequences.

The UPA government’s notion of a ‘Rayala-Telangana’ state could fail before it gets off the ground. The Telangana Rashtra Samiti has called for a bandh to protest the idea. It is a rare case of a newly emerging state saying it does not want additional territory. And of course those for a united Andhra oppose the idea anyway. Although the TRS is the flag-bearer of the Telangana statehood cause — and the major Congress ally in the region — its anger should not come as a surprise. Not to those who read the Congress’s strategy on the issue. The Bharatiya Janata Party too is on the offensive. Those for Telangana will also bitterly resent the ‘joint capital’ status for Hyderabad. But what is really rattling everyone is the plan to include Kurnool and Anantapur districts in the new state, which would then be called Rayala-Telangana.
Political calculations
Three political calculations underpin the Centre’s, or rather the Congress’s, strategy on ‘Rayala-Telangana.’ The first of these: it could effectively divide the anti-bifurcation movement. The people of Rayalaseema were against the division of Andhra Pradesh, and Kurnool and Anantapur districts were home to some of the biggest protests. Yet, this is where the Congress leadership believes the wedge must be driven. What if people in these districts could be convinced that their first preference — United Andhra — is out? Might they then turn their attention to seeking a better deal within the new state? For instance, on water-sharing? They argue that even if people in the region were anti-bifurcation, they were never enamoured of their brethren in coastal Andhra. This exploits a regional divide within a regional divide.
Second: some in the Congress believe this could transform any voting in the Assembly. As of today, 160 MLAs are from Seemandhra regions, and 119 are from Telangana. (Another 15 of the first group stand disqualified). The nays have it. But take away the 28 MLAs of Kurnool and Anantapur from the 160 and pencil them into the Telangana column and the scoreline reads 147-132 for the new state. This of course involves very dicey assumptions. But the Congress believes the MLAs and MPs and, importantly, lower-level leaders from here, will go along. And many indeed might. This could also leave the masses, still opposed to the move, leaderless, and perhaps keep them off the streets.
Third: from the Congress point of view, the carving out of Rayala-Telangana would bring the party two further benefits. It would truncate the base of its major rival and dilute that of its main ally. Rayalaseema is the stronghold of Jagan Reddy’s YSR Congress party. Take away two of its four districts and the Congress believes it has him corralled. Kurnool and Anantapur account for 28 Assembly and four Lok Sabha seats. Their joining the new state would also dilute the strength of the TRS, which has no presence in any of those seats. Perhaps this might further pressure the TRS to merge with the Congress. It would also leave the new state and what remains of Andhra with exactly 21 seats each in the Lok Sabha.
Cynical course
All three calculations beg for trouble. The TRS is coming on to the streets with its opposition to the ‘Rayala’ element. The BJP could do the same. And whether you are a supporter of Telangana or a United Andhra, the chances of things going wrong with this cynical course are worrying. The race is on to get the division through before the Model Code of Conduct for next year’s general elections comes into force — which it could by February. This further highlights the Congress’s move as having less to do with genuine statehood aspirations than with poll engineering. So at the same time as it tries to win the game in the Assembly, the party makes it clear that it does not matter if it loses there.
Simply put, the Congress is saying that (if it loses out on a vote), the opinion of a democratically elected State legislature counts for nothing. This could launch an awful trend. Sure, the assent of the State Assembly is not mandatory in a legal-constitutional sense. It has not been the practice, though, in any of the last several State divisions. Whether in the case of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand or Jharkhand, the opinion of the Assemblies of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar was given importance. Each had six to eight weeks of discussions. In the case of the U.P. Assembly, 10 weeks. Their suggestions were taken on board.
In Andhra Pradesh, the Congress intends to ram it through, the defiance of its own Chief Minister notwithstanding. The State Assembly won’t get anything like the time-frame the others did. About the only safe prediction of what will happen as the Assembly convenes is chaos. Anger and passion will rule. But perhaps that is the idea: that the Centre could disregard the Assembly’s views, indeed its very role in the process. In terms of future fallout, this is scary. Do this once, and it’s hard to say where it will stop.
Yet, even the short-term calculations might explode. In the 21 Lok Sabha seats the truncated A.P. would have, a wipe-out of the Congress seems likely. The last round of by-elections signalled that sharply. What could it pick up in the new state? Bringing Kurnool and Anantapur into it also means making Jagan Reddy’s YSR Congress a force in Rayala-Telangana. It already has a base in districts like Khammam which have a huge “settler” population from Coastal A.P.
The fight in the four Lok Sabha seats in the two ‘new’ districts might well be between the YSRC and the Telugu Desam Party. (The last by-election to the State Assembly held in Anantapur saw the Congress finish third). One Lok Sabha seat in the new State would go to the MIM. A TDP-BJP alliance — now on the cards — could also pick up a few seats. That would leave the Congress sharing 10-12 seats with an increasingly unhappy ally, the TRS. So the whole exercise could give the party half-a-dozen seats there and vanavas in A.P. for the foreseeable future. And how long will the ties with the TRS hold? They have frayed quickly in the past. The willingness to chance all this argues both electoral cynicism and desperation. Remember the Congress won 33 Lok Sabha seats from Andhra Pradesh in 2009 — more than any party did from a single State anywhere in the country. It could lose most of those in 2014. And at the end of it, have resolved none of the major issues driving statehood demands: water-sharing, Hyderabad, and more.
Polarising impact
There is also the polarising impact on the Telugu vote in other States in 2014. There are major Telugu communities in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Odisha, for instance. In Maharashtra, those communities could favour Telangana and vote the Congress. In Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Odisha, the impact on the much larger numbers there, could be the opposite. But never mind the polls, the most risky and dangerous part is here and now, in the process itself. Some leaders of the government have declared they will get the Bill on Telangana through Parliament in this winter session. That starts on Thursday and ends within three weeks.
What should normally be the process? The Group of Ministers (GoM) presents its report to the Union Cabinet. The Cabinet studies it and sends it on to the Union Law Ministry which will draft a bill on statehood. The Cabinet finalises the bill and sends it on to the President of India. The President after studying it, refers it to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly for its views. The Assembly debates the bill and returns it with its views to the President. Who then recommends the bill to Parliament. Only then does the latter discuss and vote on the bill.
Normally, each stage of this process would require a minimum of one or two weeks. The stage at the Assembly, as the process in earlier cases shows, needs 6-8 weeks. How will all of that happen by December 20? Key actors, including the President, the Assembly and Parliament will be denied the time to study or debate the bill. None of them will take kindly to that. There has also been talk of extending the session or holding a special one for this bill. All to beat the Model Code of Conduct deadline.
Whether you are for or against the bill, this amputation of the democratic process sets dangerous precedents. Maybe, as the cliché goes, ‘wisdom will prevail’ and the bill won’t be pushed through in the winter session. A couple of Congress leaders have begun to waffle on the matter. If it still does happen, it will be driven by the need to get it done before the Model Code of Conduct comes into force. And for a possible half-a-dozen seats in the next Lok Sabha for the Congress. There is no other explanation for short-circuiting the process to wind it up before February. That too for polls where, compared to 33 seats the last time, the Congress is in for a penny, in for a pounding.
sainath.p@thehindu.co.in

Communal Violence Bill is communal -- Kartikeya Tanna

$
0
0

Communal Violence Bill is communal

By Kartikeya Tanna on5 Dec 2013

UPA's Communal Violence Bill is communal
Although debates on the Communal Violence Bill were going on since National Advisory Council’s (NAC) 2011 draft got circulated in the public domain, the past few hours have witnessed an exponential increase in the discussions. And, not without reason.
BJP’s PM candidate Narendra Modi expressed his objections to the CVB in no uncertain terms. So, has the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley in a detailed legal critique. I recommend that readers go through these two very reasoned critiques of the CVB. The legislative history behind this latest draft is very interesting. In 2005, the draft was titled ‘The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill’. Its purpose was:
To empower the State Governments and the Central Government to take measures to provide for the prevention and control of communal violence which threatens the secular fabric, unity, integrity and internal security of the Nation and rehabilitation of victims of such violence and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
This was a noble objective and communal violence was defined in an egalitarian manner. The victim could be anyone; the perpetrator could be anyone; and those deserving of rehabilitation could be from any community or section. In 2011, however, the National Advisory Council, came up with a draft titled ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill’ which is now sought to be introduced in Parliament. Its purpose is:
To respect, protect and fulfill the right to equality before law and equal protection of law by imposing duties on the Central Government and the State Governments, to exercise their powers in an impartial and non-discriminatory manner to prevent and control targeted violence, including mass violence, against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and religious minorities in any State in the Union of India, and linguistic minorities in any State in the Union of India; to thereby uphold secular democracy; to help secure fair and equal access to justice and protection to these vulnerable groups through effective provisions for investigation, prosecution and trial of offences under the Act; to provide for restorative relief and reparation, including rehabilitation and compensation to all persons affected by communal and targeted violence; and for matters connected herewith and incidental thereto.
How the need to control communal violence affecting any community or section converted into the need to protect only minorities, religious and linguistic, and SCs and STs is perplexing. Strangely, the ‘social entrepreneurs’ in the NAC, as Arun Jaitley calls them, are selling the view that the need for defining a larger class of offences and to put in place higher evidentiary burdens in a situation of communal violence must only be in cases where the victim is from the minority.
This is not a Bill which seeks to distribute sops and schemes to sections which have remained backward for historical, social and other reasons (although, as I have argued earlier, that too is unfair). This Bill attempts to ‘invent’ an inequality of sorts between the majorities and minorities on grounds of their hands, bodies and access to weapons and arms for perpetrating violence. There is absolutely no regard to umpteen illustrations in India’s longstanding communal violence history where the initiators of communal violence have been members of the minorities. This law is poorly conceptualised and, perhaps, deliberately so.
So far the question of whether this Bill, if enacted, will stand the test of judicial scrutiny, there are primarily two grounds under which it can be challenged. The argument that it discriminates on the basis of religion can be easily defeated on two counts: firstly, the draft cleverly includes linguistic minorities, SCs and STs in the ‘group’ which deserves protection under this Bill. This group is sufficiently wide so as to defeat the objection that it discriminates on any one ground.
Secondly, the judiciary, of late, has expanded the possibilities of having laws and schemes which benefit targetted sections despite those non-targeted sections being similarly situated. I have pointed that out in aprevious column vis-à-vis minority scholarship scheme. The argument that this Bill violates the federal structure has merits although it is unfortunate that a huge amount of energy and resources shall be spent on invalidating a law which reeks of danger and will inevitably cause more hatred and disharmony.
There cannot be a law more communal than this Communal Violence Bill.

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/12/05/upas-communal-violence-bill-is-communal-165141.html

Huge protest against communal violence bill in Mangalore

$
0
0

Huge protest against communal violence bill in Mangalore

Published: Monday, Nov 28,2011, 21:17 IST
Source
Mangalore today witnessed a huge protest against proposed bill Communal and Targeted violence prevention act 2011. A number of Hindu organizations, under the banner of the Hindu Hitarakshana Vedike protested on Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. at Kendra  Maidan. A huge procession was organized from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Circle to the protest venue before the protest.

Addressing the gathering numbered in around 50 thousand, Vibhag Sampark Pramukh of RSS Dr Kalladka Prabhakara Bhat told that peace cannot be achieved by targeting Hindus.

“The National Advisory Council is trying to bring a law which not even the worst dictators in the history of the world could come up with. The law is completely “uncivilized”,  Dr Bhat said.  He described the bill as an assault to the peace-loving Hindu society of our nation. He added that Sonia Gandhi cannot to fool the nation, like she had lured Rajiv Gandhi in the past.

P Vaamana Shenoy, Vibhaga Sangha Chalak of RSS, Harish Achar, General Secretary of Hindu Hitharakshana Vedike, Ramesh S, President of HHV and other Sangh Parivar leaders and Swamyjis were present.

(Photo: Manju Neereshwallya . Source : Vishwa Samavad Kendra)

http://www.ibtl.in/news/states/1594/huge-protest-against-communal-violence-bill-in-mangalore


We Oppose Communal Violence Bill because it discriminates against Hindus
VHP to Launch Nation-wide Democratic Peaceful Agitation against the Bill

New Delhi, December 5, 2013

As the announcement by the Union Govt bringing the Communal Violence bill is made public, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has formally opposed the bill & any move to bring the bill. Opposing the bill VHP International Working President Dr Pravin Togadia said,

“The so called Communal Violence bill by whichever name it is introduced will be opposed democratically. The bill in the garb of protecting Muslims, actually targets Hindus. We urge the Union Govt not to bring such an unconstitutional bill to persecute Hindus. How the Bill targets Hindus:

1.      The bill has in its premise that all Hindus are criminals & all Muslims are innocent victims. This is a complete mockery of the natural justice & therefore the bill is completely anti-Hindu & discriminates against Hindus. Favouring Muslims & targeting Hindus is utterly unacceptable & totally unconstitutional.

2.      The international & basic principle of the law is that it should be equally applicable to all. But the Communal Violence bill targets Hindus whereas does not address violence by Muslims against Hindus & other communities.

3.      Another fundamental of justice is that until proven guilty by the highest Court, the accused is not a convict or guilty. Meaning, until then the accused is innocent, But in this bill the premise is that Hindus are guilty & only because a Muslim tells the police anything, Hindu will be arrested non-bailable treating Hindu guilty without trial.

4.      The responsibility of proving the crime is on the complainant. But in this bill, the arrested Hindu has to alone prove that she / he is innocent while without verifying the truth, the witnesses or words by the Muslim will be taken as the final word. This is a complete mockery of justice & religious discrimination against Hindus.

5.      By this bill, the Union Govt is giving all Police in Bharat in the hands of Muslims. The SP level officer of the police has to report to the Muslim complainant every week at the complainant’s home about the progress of the investigations! This way even the Jihadists will be able to get away with the severest of attacks on the nation whereas the Hindus will rot in the jails. Giving all controls of the police & judiciary in the hands of Muslims through this bill puts Bharat as a nation in permanent danger making every other community unsafe.

6.      Hindus are not allowed to utter the word ‘Muslim’ or if the Muslim businessman complains that his business is not doing well because of the Hindu businessman, then the Hindu businessman will be arrested & tried under this Communal violence bill.

         Dr Togadia urged all Hindus in Bharat to write letters in civilized & parliamentary language to the Hon. President of Bharat, to the Prime Minister of Bharat & to the Hon. Chief Justice of Bharat opposing the said bill. He also appealed all political parties to oppose the bill not only because it may affect the state powers but more importantly it gives full control of the police & judiciary & thereby of the nation to Muslims making Bharat most unsafe for all others. If the Govt yet brings in the Communal Bill targeting Hindus then VHP will do nation-wide democratic agitations.   
______________

Modi challenges politics of religious identity -- Sandhya Jain

$
0
0

Modi challenges politics of religious identity


Sandhya Jain5 Dec 2013


Modi challenges politics of religious identity
In possibly his first letter to the Prime Minister after his controversial request not to gift Sir Creek to Pakistan on the eve of the Gujarat Assembly election in December 2012, Narendra Modi has urged Dr Manmohan Singh to drop the contentious Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013, a brainchild of Sonia Gandhi’s extra-constitutional National Advisory Council (NAC). This unexpected move by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Prime Ministerial candidate has set the dovecotes aflutter and is probably the most cogent challenge to the ‘communalism’ paradigm set by the Congress in the post-independence period.
Timed with Parliament’s winter session where Congress is determined to pass the Bill, the epistle opposes the legislation on grounds that it deals with matters on the State List and violates the federal structure of the Constitution. More pertinently, it seems to be guided by political considerations and vote-bank politics. It is also badly drafted. The Gujarat Chief Minister suggests that a law that is to be implemented by a State Government should be legislated by the State Government, and the Centre could share a ‘Model Bill’ with the States.
Narendra Modi apprehends that the proposed legislation may divide society by sharpening religious and linguistic lines, giving even ordinary incidents of violence a communal colour. There is some merit in this contention. Even three months after the Muzaffarnagar riots broke out on August 27 (over an eve-teasing episode), the pro-minority Samajwadi Party regime has not been able to restore amity and confidence among the communities, and families in camps are afraid to return to their villages. The onset of winter has made the camps unlivable, but neither the State Government nor the Centre has been able to send the uprooted families back to the old homesteads.
In September, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi aggravated communal suspicions by visiting only Muslim victims of the riots in Muzaffarnagar. The Amethi MP, who is reportedly keen to revive the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, has made no move to return and work things out in cooperation with Akhilesh Yadav, though the SP is supporting the UPA at the Centre.
Indeed, the combined failure of the UP-UPA regimes to restore normalcy in Muzaffarnagar should be the yardstick to measure their political will in dissipating communal tensions. For the Muslims, the primary vote-bank of non-BJP parties, this would be a good time to introspect if the politics of religious identity has not trapped it in sterile co-dependency. This may also be an opportune moment to ponder the persistent failure to do justice to the victims of the 1984 pogrom in Delhi, under the watch of the ruling Congress and alleged participation of its cadre and leaders, some of whom joined the Cabinet of Rajiv Gandhi. Given the precedent set in the post-Godhra riots of 2002 and the escalating sense of injustice tormenting the survivors, there seems a strong case to take the anti-Sikh pogrom cases outside the Capital.
And whereas nobody has held the then novice Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi as personally responsible for the targetted violence against Sikhs in Delhi and other cities in northern India, we may honestly ask if it is fair to blame the then rookie Chief Minister who was sent as a stop gap arrangement following the resignation of Keshubhai Patel, for what happened after two bogies of the Sabarmati Express were burnt in February 2002. Narendra Modi pointedly claims he presides over a Government that is sensitive to communal violence and that Gujarat has been riot-free for over a decade. This sharply contrasts with the record in Uttar Pradesh, where there have been over 100 riots in the brief tenure of Akhilesh Yadav. Though Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi are MPs from Uttar Pradesh, neither has ever taken up the issue of persisting communal violence with the State Government, or suggested measures to overcome the sense of alienation between the communities. What kind of vigilance is this?
The Gujarat Chief Minister’s contention that the contents and timing of the Bill are suspicious and appear to be motivated by vote-bank politics on the eve of the Lok Sabha election is not without basis. Moreover, the Bill attempts to encroach upon the powers of State Governments; is poorly drafted; and merits far wider consultations among the State Governments, political parties, police and security agencies. On no account should it be rammed through Parliament. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has assured, “It will be our effort to evolve broad-based consensus on all matters of great legislative importance”. But the fact remains that the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and her unelected NAC are behind the legislation. The Gujarat strongman had previously objected to individuals having links with anti-national elements (read Maoists) entering organisations like the Planning Commission and NAC.
Highlighting specific shortcomings in the Bill, Narendra Modi points out that Section 3(f) that defines “hostile environment” is wide ranging, vague and open to misuse, while the definition of communal violence under Section 3(d) read with Section 4 raises questions whether the Centre is introducing the concept of “thought crime” into Indian criminal jurisprudence. These provisions need to be examined from the perspective of the Evidence Act – a polite way of saying that they cannot be proved in law! Many analysts have denounced the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable as this could adversely impact the morale of the law and order enforcement agencies and expose them to political victimisation. Thus, Section 10B (breach of command responsibility) that penalises a public servant for the failure of his subordinates, is absurd deals with incompetence by criminalising it. Such issues, the Gujarat Chief Minister argues, “need structural responses” rather than legislative solutions. This provision would make senior officers shirk responsibility for fear of inviting criminal liability and leave junior officials to fend for themselves in the field.
Regarding the proposal to bring the National Human Rights Commission and State Commissions into the process of exercising powers vested in the executive wing of an elected Government, Narendra Modi points out that these bodies are already empowered under the existing statute to deal with serious human rights violations during incidents of communal violence. Burdening them redressal of all issues, handling of appeals and monitoring individual incidents is neither practical nor desirable. In a democracy, the elected Government must be the focal point of all responsibility and accountability.
The Gujarat Chief Minister appreciated the establishment of a Communal Violence Reparation Fund, but felt issues of compensation should be left to the competent courts and that the Centre should only provide ex-gratia relief/assistance for immediate relief and succor to victims. He felt the introduction of compensation for ‘moral injury’ was strange and likely to be difficult to implement. Other leaders opposed to the Bill on similar grounds include Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa; Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati; and D Raja of the Communist Party of India.

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/12/05/modi-challenges-politics-of-religious-identity-165186.html

Idol stolen from Tamil Nadu surfaces in Singapore -- A. Srivathsan

$
0
0
Published: December 5, 2013 23:10 IST | Updated: December 6, 2013 01:06 IST

Idol stolen from Tamil Nadu surfaces in Singapore

A. Srivathsan
A photo of the 1,000-year-old bronze sculpture of Uma Parmeshvari stolen from a temple in Tamil Nadu and sold to the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, as posted on chasingaphrodite.com. Photo: hasingaphrodite.com.
A photo of the 1,000-year-old bronze sculpture of Uma Parmeshvari stolen from a temple in Tamil Nadu and sold to the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, as posted on chasingaphrodite.com. Photo: hasingaphrodite.com.

Antiquities dealer Kapoor sold it to museum for $650,000

A criminal complaint filed by the Manhattan District Attorney in the Supreme Court of New York has put to rest doubts, if any, about the illicit trade of antiquities stolen from Tamil Nadu.
It confirms the hitherto reported cases and brings to light a new one.
The document filed in the court said Subhash Chandra Kapoor, U.S.-based antiquities dealer extradited to India and now lodged in a Chennai prison, sold stolen bronze sculptures not only to a museum in Australia but also in Singapore.
The complaint says Kapoor and Aaron Freedman, long-time manager of Kapoor’s gallery, have dealt in stolen antiquities for more than 15 years. It specifically accuses Freedman of arranging to ship stolen antiquities, including two idols of Nataraja and three idols of goddess Uma to and out of the U.S. Freedman also arranged for false provenance certificates for illicit property, contacted prospective buyers and laundered stolen antiquities.
Citing a spokesperson of the District Attorney’s office, Chasing Aphrodite, the blog site that tracks looted antiquities, has reported that Freedman has pleaded guilty to all criminal counts brought against him.
The Hindu had reported that Kapoor sold the 11th century bronze Nataraja idol, stolen from the Sripuranthan temple in Tamil Nadu, to the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. The criminal complaint filed in New York, made available to The Hindu by Jason Felch of The Los Angeles Times, with whom this correspondent has been collaborating on the case, has confirmed this.
The document states that sometime between November 2006 and January 2007, the Nataraja idol stolen from Tamil Nadu was shipped to the U.S. Later in October 2007, Freedman and his co-conspirators “arranged for sale and transport” of the sculpture to the National Galley of Australia, pricing it at US $5 million.
The new fact to emerge is that Kapoor and Freedman were also involved in the sale of another stolen idol to the Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM) in Singapore. According to the complaint, a 1,000-year bronze idol of Uma Parmeshvari was stolen from a temple in Ariyalur district of Tamil Nadu and was illicitly transported to the U.S. In February 2007, Kapoor sold the sculpture to the ACM for US $650,000 and shipped it to Singapore.
No reply from museum
The Hindu, which has been following this case, wrote to the museum authorities in Singapore in July, enquiring about the provenance of the Uma Parameshvari sculpture. However, they did not reply. The Hindu contacted the museum again to get its response to the recent developments. Until this story went to print, the museum did not reply to the email that followed a telephone conversation.
In addition to these sculptures, the complaint said, Freedman was also involved in laundering another Nataraja idol and two more goddess idols that were together priced at $9.5 million. He was also in possession of a stolen Yakshi sculpture priced at $15 million.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/idol-stolen-from-tamil-nadu-surfaces-in-singapore/article5426511.ece?homepage=true

1984 Sikh genocide. SoniaG 'mother of perpetrators' case in US Court

$
0
0

1984 victims, Sikh rights body file complaint against Sonia Gandhi in US




http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1984-victims-Sikh-rights-body-file-complaint-against-Sonia-Gandhi-in-US/articleshow/26926453.cms

Unwelcome behavior of Justice Ganguly, operative portion revealed by SC

$
0
0
Friday , December 6 , 2013 

Court steers clear of follow-up

- Intern’s disclosure on ‘unwelcome behaviour’ by Ganguly made public, focus on cops
New Delhi, Dec. 5: Some are describing it as “operation successful but patient is dead” but others cautioned that the minutiae of law must not be overlooked.
The Supreme Court today declared that a panel has said the statement of a law intern “prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour” of sexual nature by former judge Asok Kumar Ganguly.
“No further follow-up action is required by this court” as the judge had already demitted office and the intern was not on the rolls of the apex court, a statement by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam said.
The decision was taken today after “the Full Court” (all the 30 sitting judges) met.
The court has made public only what it described as the “operative portion” of the report of a three-judge panel that scrutinised the statements of the intern and the affidavits of three witnesses.
The “operative portion” says that the statement of the intern “prima facie discloses the unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature)”. Although it was initially assumed that the panel had held Ganguly “prima facie” guilty, the specific sentence has confined itself to stating what the intern had “disclosed”.
PTI quoted senior advocate Harish Salve as saying: “The committee has very carefully not used language in which tomorrow somebody could say that ‘the three-judge committee of Supreme Court has found him guilty, so convict him’. The law may take its course.”
If the Supreme Court sticks to its decision not to “follow up”, the ball will be in police’s court. An officer said tonight Delhi police would start a case on their own because the Supreme Court statement mentioned an allegation against the former judge but the progress would depend on cooperation from the intern. Last Friday, the court had confined itself to saying that the statement of Ganguly was recorded.
The police are expected to approach the intern, who was said to be not keen on a parallel probe earlier, and try to persuade her to press charges now that the panel has finished its work.
Ganguly, now the West Bengal Human Rights Commission chairman, declined comment. Chief minister Mamata Banerjee disclosed tonight that she had written to the President seeking strong action for the “grave misconduct”, virtually setting the ball rolling for Ganguly’s removal from the rights body if he does not step down on his own.
Going strictly by the law, the court cannot act against retired judges. But Article 142 bestows on the Supreme Court powers for “doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”.
The court could have on its own forwarded to the police the depositions of the intern before the panel.
Yesterday, Delhi police had contacted the registrar of the Supreme Court. “We asked him what steps we should take. He said he would let us know…” a police officer said. “We cannot register an FIR without a copy of the intern’s statement, which is with the court. We do not know what specific offence can be made out.”
The Supreme Court said copies of the panel’s report would be supplied to Ganguly and the intern.
The “operative portion” of the panel report said: “We have carefully scrutinized the statement (written as well as oral) of (the intern)… the affidavits of her three witnesses and the statement of Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly. It appears to the Committee that in the evening on 24.12.2012, (the intern) had visited hotel Le Meridien where Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly was staying to assist him in his work. This fact is not denied by Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly in his statement.
“Further the Committee is of the considered view that the statement of (the intern), both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature) by Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly with her in the room in hotel Le Meridien on 24.12.2012... between 8.00 P.M. and 10.30 P.M.”
The Supreme Court statement added: “Considering the fact that the said intern was not an intern on the roll of the Supreme Court and that the Judge had already demitted office on account of superannuation on the date of the incident, no further follow-up action is required by this Court.
“On account of the fact that report in the Media appeared that it was ‘Supreme Court Judge’, the Committee was constituted.... As decided by the Full Court in its Meeting dated 5th December, 2013, it is made clear that the representations made against former Judges of this Court are not entertainable by the administration of the Supreme Court.”
Additional-solicitor general Indira Jaising said the police “can act by lodging an FIR immediately on its own”.
But senior advocate K.T.S. Tulsi said: “We don’t know the full report. The girl is not under disability and if she does not support the prosecution, the police will look foolish.”
Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal added: “There has to be a complaint from the complainant. The police cannot register a case suo motu. The judge in question is also denying the allegations. The Supreme Court has rightly said that it has no jurisdiction over the matter.”
HANDS OFF
The Supreme Court said on Thursday that “representations made against former judges of this court are not entertainable by the administration” of the court. The statement, though correct by the letter of the law, raised several eyebrows, probably because of expectations heightened by what has come to be described as “judicial activism”. The following are some instances:
• Cancellation of telecom licences in 2G case and laying auction-based criteria, a case that was, incidentally, presided over by Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
• Observations on providing free rice and wheat to the poor lMonitoring iron-ore mining in some states
• Observations on relief for Uttarakhand flood victims

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131206/jsp/frontpage/story_17650010.jsp#.UqEaWtIW02c

Suppressio veri suggestio falsi -- Ayodhya as Ramajanmabhoomi

$
0
0
Model of a temple planned at Ayodhya in memory of Sri Rama.
http://www.indiafacts.co.in/the-ayodhya-movement-a-trip-down-memory-lane/


The Ayodhya movement: a trip down memory lane

Koenraad Elst  

December 06, 2013 


Romila Thapar, most eminent among India’s 'eminent historians' , protested against the Court verdict acknowledging the historical evidence that the Babar mosque in Ayodhya had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple. After two decades of living on top of the 
world, the eminent historians are brought down to earth.

In 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared to young Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. Before long, Lourdes became the most important pilgrimage site for Roman Catholics and other Mary worshippers. France prided itself on being a secular state, in some phases (especially 1905-40) even aggressively secular, yet it acknowledged and protected Lourdes 
as a place of pilgrimage. Not many French officials actually believe in the apparition, 
but that is not the point. The believers are human beings, fellow citizens, and out of 
respect for them does the state respect and protect their pilgrimage centre.

For essentially the same reason, the mere fact that the Rama Janmabhumi 
(Rama’s birthplace) site in Ayodhya is well-established as a sacred site for Hindu 
pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture.

Ayodhya doesn’t have this status in any other religion, though ancient Buddhism accepted Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha. The site most certainly doesn’t have such a status in Islam, which imposed a mosque on it, the Babri Masjid (ostensibly built in 1528, closed by court order after riots in 1935, surreptitiously turned into a Hindu temple accessible only to a priest in 1949, opened for unrestricted Hindu use in 1986, and demolished by Kar Sevaks in 1992). So, the sensible and secular thing to do, even for those sceptical of every religious belief involved, is to leave the site to the Hindus. 

The well-attested fact that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque was standing, even under Muslim rule, is helpful to know in order to gauge its religious importance; but is not strictly of any importance in the present. For respecting its Hindu character, it is 
sufficient that the site has this sacred status today.

Secular Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had understood this, and from the court-ordered opening of the locks on the mosque-used-as-temple in 1986, he was manoeuvring towards an arrangement leaving the contentious site to the Hindus in exchange for some other goodies (starting with the Shah Bano amendment and the Satanic Verses ban) for the Muslim 
leadership. Call it Congress culture or horse-trading, but it would have been practical and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

That is when a group of “eminent historians” started raising the stakes and turning this local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, namely, secularism. 

Secure in (or drunk with) their hegemonic position, they didn’t limit themselves to denying to the Hindus the right of rebuilding their demolished temple, say: “A medieval demolition doesn’t justify a counter-demolition today.” Instead, they went so far as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple.

Note, incidentally, that the temple demolition, a very ordinary event in Islamic history, was not even the worst of it: as a stab to the heart of Hindu sensibilities, the Babri mosque stood imposed on a particularly sacred site. Just as for Hindus, the site itself was far more important than the building on it, for Islamic iconoclasts the imposition of 
a mosque on such an exceptional site was a greater victory over infidelism than yet 
another forcible replacement of a heathen temple with a mosque. 

Though the historians’ and archaeologists’ ensuing research into the Ayodhya temple demolition has been most interesting, it was strictly speaking superfluous, for the sacred status venerated by most Hindus and purposely violated by some Muslims accrues to the site itself rather than 
to the architecture on it. The implication for the present situation is that even if 
Muslims refuse to believe that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a 
temple, they nonetheless know of the site’s unique status for Hindus even without a 
temple. So, they should be able to understand that any Muslim claim to the site, even by non-violent means such as litigation, amounts to an act of anti-Hindu aggression. Muslims often complain of being stereotyped as fanatical and aggressive, but here they have an excellent opportunity to earn everyone’s goodwill by abandoning their inappropriate claim to a site that is sacred to others but not to themselves.

After the eminent historian’s media offensive against the historical evidence, the political class, though intimidated, didn’t give in altogether but subtly pursued its own idea of a reasonable solution. 

In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar’s minority government, supported and largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) to mandate some 
selected scholars for a discussion of the historical evidence. The politicians had 
clearly expected that the debate would bring out the evidence and silence the deniers for good. And that is what happened, or at least the first half. Decisive evidence was indeed 
presented, but it failed to discourage the deniers.

The VHP-employed team presented the already known documentary and archaeological evidence and dug up quite a few new documents confirming the temple demolition (including four 
that Muslim institutions had tried to conceal or tamper with). 

The BMAC-employed team quit the discussions but brought out a booklet later, trumpeted as the final deathblow of 
the temple demolition “myth”. In fact, it turned out to be limited to an attempt at 
whittling down the evidentiary impact of a selected few of the pro-temple documents and holding forth on generalities of politicized history without proving how any of that could neutralize this particular evidence. It contained not a single (even attempted) reference to a piece of actual evidence proving an alternative scenario or positively refuting the established scenario.

I have given a full account earlier in my book  ' Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple ' (2002). 

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/index.htm

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence could make the deniers mend their ways. Though defeated on contents, the “eminent historians” became only more insistent in denying the evidence. They especially excelled in blackening and slandering those few scholars who publicly stood by the evidence, not even sparing the towering archaeologist B B Lal. 

Overnight, what had been the consensus in Muslim, Hindu and European sources, was turned into a “claim” by “Hindu extremists”. 

Thus, the eminent historians managed to intimate a Dutch scholar who had earlier contributed even more elements to the already large pile of evidence for the temple demolition into backtracking. Most spectacularly, they managed to get the entire international media and the vast majority of India-related academics who 
ever voiced an opinion on the matter, into toeing their line. 

These dimly-informed India-watchers too started intoning the no-temple mantra and slandering the dissidents, to their faces or behind their backs, as “liars”, “BJP prostitutes”, and what not. 

In Western academe, dozens chose to toe this party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba in Mecca, the Mezquita in Cordoba, the Ummayad mosque in Damascus, the Aya Sophia in Istambul, the Quwwatu’l-Islam in Delhi, etc.) was one of the numerous ancient mosques built on, or with materials from, purposely desecrated or demolished non-Muslim places of worship.

Until the Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu activists on 6 December 1992, Congress PM Narasimha Rao was clearly pursuing the same plan of a bloodless handover of the site to the Hindus in exchange for some concessions to the Muslims. The Hindu activists who performed the demolition were angry with the leaders of their own Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991 elections with it, but perhaps the leaders had genuinely been clever in adjusting their Ayodhya strategy to their insiders’ perception of a deal planned by the PM. 

After the demolition, Rao milked it for its anti-BJP nuisance value and gave out some pro-mosque signals; but a closer look at his actual policies shows that he stayed on course. His Government requested the Supreme Court to offer an opinion on the historical background of the Ayodhya dispute, knowing fully well from the outcome of the scholars’ debate that an informed opinion could only favour the old consensus (now known as the “Hindu claim”). 

In normal circumstances, it is not a court’s business to pronounce on matters of history, but then whom else could you trust to give a fair opinion when the professional historians were being so brazenly partisan?

The Supreme Court sent the matter on, or back, to the Allahabad High Court, which, after sitting on the Ayodhya case since 1950, at long last got serious about finding out the true story. It ordered a ground-penetrating radar search and the most thorough excavations. 

In this effort, carried out in 2003, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) 
employed a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of acting as a Hindu nationalist front. The findings confirmed those of the excavations in the 1950s, 1970s and 1992: a very large Hindu religious building stood at the site before the Babri Masjid. 

The Allahabad High Court has now accepted these findings by India’s 
apex archaeological body. But not everyone is willing to abide by the verdict.

In particular, the eminent historians are up in arms. In a guest column in The Hindu (2 Oct. 2010: “The verdict on Ayodhya, a historian’s opinion”), Prof. Romila Thapar claims that the ASI findings had been “disputed”. Oh well, it is true that some of her school had thought up the most hilariously contrived objections, which I held against the light in my booklet ' Ayodhya, the Finale: Science vs. Secularism in the Excavations 
Debate'.  

[http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/]

Thus, it was said that the presence of pillar-bases doesn’t imply that pillars were built on it; you see, some people plant pillar bases here and there once in a while, without any ulterior motive of putting them to some good use. And it was alleged that the finding of some animal bones in one layer precludes the existence of a temple (and somehow annuls the tangible testimony of the vast foundation complex and the numerous religious artefacts); and more such harebrained reasoning. The picture emerging from all this clutching at straws was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there was no refutation of the archaeological and documentary evidence presented earlier.

Today, I feel sorry for the eminent historians. They have identified very publicly with the denial of the Ayodhya evidence. While politically expedient, and while going unchallenged in the academically most consequential forums for twenty years, that position has now been officially declared false. It suddenly dawns on them that they have tied their names to an enterprise unlikely to earn them glory in the long run. We may now 
expect frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad verdict, starting with the ongoing signature campaign against the learned Judges’ finding; and possibly it will succeed. But it is unlikely that future generations, unburdened with the presently prevailing power equation that made this history denial profitable, will play along and keep on disregarding the massive body of historical evidence.

With the Ayodhya verdict, the eminent historians are catching a glimpse of what they will look like when they stand before Allah’s throne on Judgment Day.


Dr. Koenraad Elst was born in Leuven, Belgium, on 7 August 1959, into a Flemish (i.e. Dutch-speaking Belgian) Catholic family. He graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. During a stay at the Benares Hindu University, he discovered India's communal problem and wrote his first book about the budding Ayodhya conflict. While establishing himself as a columnist for a number of Belgian and Indian papers, he frequently returned to India to study various aspects of its ethno-religio-political configuration and interview Hindu and other leaders and thinkers. His research on the ideological development of Hindu revivalism earned him his Ph.D. in Leuven in 1998. He has also published about multiculturalism, language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparative religion, and the Aryan invasion debate.
---------------------------------------------------
FROM, ARUN SHOURIE'S - 
" EMINENT HISTORIANS " :

" - - - . Not only were ' historians ' the advisers of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, its advocates in the negotiations, they simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the Babri Masjid Action Committee's case - which was the 'CASE' they themselves had prepared ! A well practiced technique, if I may say so : they are from a school in which members have made each other famous by applauding each others book and ' theses ' !

And these very ' historians ' are cited as 
' WITNESS ' in the pleadings filed by the Sunni Waqf Board in the courts considering the Ayodhya matter ! :

- Witness number 63 : R.S. Sharma
- Witness number 64 : Suraj Bhan
- Witness number 65 : D.N. Jha
- Witness number 66 : Romila Thapar
- Witness number 67 : Athar Ali ( since deceased)
- Witness number 70 : Irfan Habib
- Witness number 71 : Shireen Moosvi
- Witness number 72 : B.N. Pandey ( since deceased )
- Witness number 74 : R.L. Shukla
- Witness number 82 : Sunil Srivastava
- Witness number 95 : K.M. Shrimali
- Witness number 96 : Suveera Jayaswal
- Witness number 99 : Satish Chandra
- Witness number 101 : Sumit Sarkar
- Witness number 102 : Gyanendra Pandey
( pp: 8-9)

To qoute Shourie :

" The major crime of these ' historians ' has been this partisanship : Suppresso Veri, Suggesto Falsi "

Scholarship of Equine Posteriors: Har(vard)appa Style (November 2006) -- Narayanan Komerath

$
0
0
Scholarship of Equine Posteriors: Har(vard)appa Style (November 2006)

Narayanan Komerath
“Textbooks should instill a sense of pride in every child in his or her heritage” California State Board of Education Guidelines 
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/socialcontent.pdf 
News flash:  Indian-American parents have been working with California School authorities and textbook publishers for some years to improve what their kids are being taught about their heritage. In early November, they had just completed a set of small corrections to middle-school textbooks, when the whole process was derailed by a dung-throwing mob attack by so-called “Prominent Academics” The duly-appointed committee, guided by the “CRP” Professor- Emeritus Bajpai, were tossed out and superseded by a secretly-appointed “Super-CRP” consisting of persons of blatant bias and hatred against the community.
That textbooks should instill pride in one’s heritage, would seem to be simple, clear and obvious to anyone older than 3, outside the Ku Klux Klan or Taliban. So how did a sincere co-operative effort by community members and School Board professionals to get beyond the “Cow, Caste, Curry, Communal Riot, Taj Mahal” school texts on India, meet with such mudslinging? The following is an extract from a letter bearing a blood-red Crusader shield of Harvard university.
I write on behalf of a long list of world specialists on ancient India – reflecting mainstream academic opinion in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan – to urge you to reject the demands by nationalist Hindu  (‘Hindutva’) groups that California textbooks be altered to conform to their religious-political views… the proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature, and are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics writing abut issues far outside their areas of expertise. There are ill-concealed political agendasbehind these views that are well-known to researchers and tens of millions ofnon-Hindu Indians, who are routinely discriminated against by these groups.
In conclusion: the proposed textbook changes are unscholarly, are politically and religiously motivated, have already been rejected by India’s national educational authorities, and will lead without fail to an international scandalif they are accepted by California’s State Board of Education.”
-M. Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit, in letter on Harvard letterhead to CA Board of Education proporting to be from 47 (now 50)  “Prominent Academicians”.
Obviously, one must not allow “religiously and politically motivated groups who routinely discriminate against ”anyone, to dictate what is taught to youngsters. So why is the Witzel mob allowed in here?
Many of the alleged endorsers of the Witzel letter are members of a yahoogroup called Indo-Eurasian_Research (IER) which has stated that it is a political-group. “
- Letter from an Indian-American to the CA State Board of Education.
I checked the veracity of that. Apparently he meant YAHOO! Group, not a group of yahoos – a small distinction. He was right about their political nature.
“The orientation of Indo-Eurasian_Research is politically progressive, international, secular, and scientific. List discussions of political-religiousdevelopments are encouraged insofar as those developments affect research or issues of humanistic concern in the regions studied by core List members.”Excerpt from an overview/ mission statement of the Indo-Eurasian_Research Yahoo! group, signed by Michael Witzel, George Thompson, and Steve Farmer on April 5, 2005.
So there is substance in what the Indian-American wrote. Read on.
“We annex extracts from the Last Minute Memorandum of 8 November 2005 submitted to Members, SBE to show that the Witzel’s letter does NOT refer to any of these specific recommendations for edits /corrections and makes only a blanket accusation that these changes are unscholarly, and politically or religiously motivated : 

Rather obvious. The full letter from the Prominent Academics is linked here. The letter demonstrates zero knowledge (or care) about the precise changes suggested, nor their merits. Instead, it is full of pompous declarations of expertise, and sweeping hate attacks on the Indian-American community. This, as I discovered, is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for Witzel and his cohorts, whose own area of expertise appears to be vicious ad hominemattacks on mere mortals, particularly sneering at the Hindu Faith. An example, from Witzel and Farmer’s November 11 posting:
“Advisors of the Hindu Education Foundation include none other than theinfamous David Frawley and S. Kalyanaraman, two of the most active Hindutva supporters.” (Witzel’s arithmetic is commensurate with the rest of his Indology competence: the HEF website lists nine advisors..)
We would, also urge that policy guidelines be reviewed to provide for re-writes of sections and to incorporate key sections to explain and portray fairly and truthfully about issues such as: hindu heritage, meaning of dharma, yoga, medication, ayurveda (indigenous health systems), status of women in hindu society, the social organization based on varna and jaati and the contributions made by hindu civilization to science and technology. Such a fair and accurate representation will help instill in the children a sense of pride in the hindu heritage.”
- From one of many letters sent by Indian-Americans pleading with the California State Board of Education to observe their own rules.
How can a person of such obvious bias and immoderation as Wtizel, who makes such wild sweeping rants abusing the community, have any credibility as a fair adjudicator of the need for changes? Wonder why citizens have to remind California bureaucrats in 2005 that they need to follow their own rules? For the same reason, I guess, why schools in the USA remained segregated based on skin color as recently as the 1960s. But this is 2005, right? Is California today no better than 1960s Alabama, nor Harvard University  than Kandahar 1999?
And then there was this clincher that leaves no room for doubt that the Witzel mob are the ultimate in Scholarship on Sanskrit and ancient India:
“I know a great deal .. of literature in Indian studies ( in translation – but I have been hard at work for many months in Sanskrit”)
-        Post at the Indic Civilization Yahoo! Group on 10/29/2000 by “Steve Farmer”, proclaiming his expertise as an Indology scholar. That requires no further comment except a rolling of the eyes.
What is the current California School Textbook debate about?
Indian-American parents who grew up reading 3 languages and learning by age 5 that all religions and cultures must be respected, no ifs and buts about it, have started wondering about what their own kids learn in school. Their shock has turned into a determination to clean up the sewage that is being dumped on their kids, demeaning their heritage, condemning them to grow up feeling like second-class citizens, encouraging the bullies that are increasingly targeting hard-working, high-achieving Asian-American children with hate crimes. For example, while the Iliad and Odyssey are described as “epics”, the Ramayana and Mahabharatha are “Hindu stories”. “Hinduism taught that women were inferior to men” (discrimination against women is absent in Christian and Islamic history, not to mention the modern US of A in 2005, right?). Asoka’s “tolerance” in allowing Hindus to practice their religion was “unusual for the time”. From a 6th Grade text: “Indian society divides itself into a complex structure of social classes based particularly on jobs. This class structure is called the Caste system” (Yes, that’s in the present tense!)
Hence the move to examine and correct California textbooks. Several dedicated, knowledgeable Americans have been working for years to find and fix the abuse, the sneers, the ignorance. Realization of the importance of “getting it right” appeared to be dawning on School administrators, who worked patiently and diligently with these citizens. And that is how they developed a list of very precise, very well-considered modifications to require of textbook publishers.
The process was well on track until November 5, when an email went out purportedly from “Arun Vajpayee”, described by IER as a “brave graduate student”. It was an SOS, expressing desperation that The Enemy was close to getting several changes made in the textbooks.  Subsequent events stink of bad faith and insider sneakiness, with the “Arun” identity being a poor cover to bring in the mob. The Witzel letter, by any reading of the rules of the CA Board, should have been tossed out immediately as a rabid hate attack with no intellectual substance. It wasn’t thrown out.  Instead, Witzel and 2 assistants were appointed as a “Super” board to overrule the lawful process. I can see why Witzel refers to Pakistanis in his group – this was vintage Rawalpindi in execution.  The California Curriculum is now in the hands of the IER, and it’s MotherShip, the RISA.
Who are the RISA?
The RISA is a closed group of self-anointed “scholars” on Religions in South Asia.  A retired Indian-American corporate executive and philanthropist, known for his articulate, well-researched writings and leading campaigner for reform of India-related studies,  is not admitted to RISA – and why should he be? He’s a “non-scholar” who “writes far outside his area of expertise” in Witzel’s definition. But a yoga instructor who used to be an assistant librarian in some British village is an esteemed RISA administrator.
What is RISA’s record of respect for open intellectual debate?
The Yoga instructor explained this to me in mid-2004, about their creation called ‘OpenRISA’[1].  OpenRISA was not RISA being open. It was a special forum, the equivalent of an outhouse set up by racists who used to post “No dogs or Indians” on restaurant doors. OpenRISA, per the Yoga instructor, was a forum where “non-scholars” could post their opinions and have the benefit of discussions with RISA ‘scholars’ who might participate. A feeding trough for Untouchables. A few desis actually took up this demeaning offer, but RISA closed OpenRISA quickly when they saw the performance of their “scholars” in debate, and the laughter on the internet. In a typical example of RISA debating standards, now exemplified again by Witzel and his Mob of 50, RISA “scholar” Marty M. came on the ‘BeliefNet’ forum to defend Courtright’s porn-peddling, and, faced with precise links to facts, pouted off shortly thereafter, whining about ‘Hindu extremists’ and ‘academic freedom’. Exposed by readers in 2004, the entire RISA forum scampered underground where they belong, to protect their discussions from the eyes of  ‘non-experts’.
What is their record of accuracy and fairness in representing Hinduism and Indian culture?

Examples of RISA Scholars are P. Courtright of Emory University, famous for peddling his “Limp Phallus” school of (child pornographic) thought, and W. Doniger of U. Chicago, famous for claiming to have been missed by audience feedback expressed as a flying egg, and for calling the Bhagawad Gita a “dishonest book”. They specialize in contortions of logic, trying to outdo each other in presenting Hindu deities and Gurus in the most obscene abuse imaginable by people with really sick minds. Rice University professor and RISA star Jeffrey Kripal is known for portraying Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa as a homosexual child-molester.
Some years ago, at least two of the signatories on Witzel’s “list of prominent academics” signed their own and their institutions’ names to another so-called “South Asia Faculty Letter”. They did so out of desperation to stop theexploding laughter and outrage against a “Comprehensive Report” generated by a gang of their Communist buddies – the Forum of Indian (or Inquilabi) Leftists. This report had attacked an Indian-American charity, making vile accusations of complicity in violence without a shred of evidence, and using blatant, ludicrous intellectual dishonesty. This provided a classic study on theirmodus operandi. When their political grandstanding positions were rendered untenable in the face of facts, logic and informed public opinion, they resorted to the cowardly “You Must Believe Us Because We Are Scholars” theme. Some of them are on record as saying that votes by the general public and especially mere Indians, are of no significance compared to votes by them – food for thought for people who teach children about the Constitution of the United States or of India.
The Report endorsed by these self-proclaimed Sanskrit Scholars, tried to con Americans by claiming that any organization with a Sanskrit / Hindi name including “Sangh” (organization) or “Parivar” (family) was a political “hate-mongering” organization. Thus they described the “Kushta Nivaran Sangh” (Leprosy Patient Relief Organization), the “Krishi Prayog Parivar” (Agricultural Practice Club – a team who passed tips on agriculture from the internet to poor farmers) and the Vatsalya (affection) Trust (a world-renowned orphanage) as Hindutva Hate-Mongering Organizations. They counted on us being ignorant and too lazy to check their ‘data’. As usually happens to con artists, they also declared the “Meeraj Medical Center” – a beneficiary of the same Charity, as a Hindu hate-mongering institution. This hospital is run by an affiliate of the Presbyterian Church of North America. The letter signed by the South Asia Faculty endorsing the report, came after we had clearly pointed to this blatant folly. As such, their endorsement was an inexcusable example of dishonesty. Witzel’s portrayal of these signatories as “world experts” under Harvard letterhead, speaks volumes on his own, and Harvard’s, ethical standards.
The RISA fought tooth and in nail when Hindus in the U.S. became aware of theappalling pornographic abuse inside a book by “Scholar” Courtright about our Deity Shri Ganesha. It is painful to me to repeat those slurs, but let me cite the gist of the decision that California parents face, with RISA/IER in charge of the curriculum.
  1. Do you want California children to be taught that if a child loves sweets, that is a clear sign that the child is asking for oral sex?  The RISA attacked those who protested that utter filth, as “academic terrorists” using precisely the sneering language that Witzel now uses. Witzel’s Harvard university teaches courses where the book that makes this claim is a cited reference.
  2. Do you want children to be taught that if a mother gives a ripe fruit to a son as a reward for a smart answer to a question that showed his deep respect for his parents, that is a “vagina symbol” indicating sexual intercourse between the mother and son? Those whom Witzel calls ‘scholars’ gave awards to the author of that – citing some tavern ‘scholar’ as the source, in a book published by Oxford University Publishers (OUP) – after peer review and praise by the same RISA mob.
  3. Do you want Hindu culture taught with Doniger’s accuracy? Doniger personally endorsed the above child-porn book, stunning us with her deep knowledge of Hindu epics, as in ‘Vyasa transcribing the Mahabharatha dictated by Ganesha’.  Her own specialty is the notion that writing books on Hinduism achieves the dual purpose of getting the smut-peddling counted as scholarly work by the University of Chicago.
  4. Do you want your children to learn Indian History, not to mention ethics from Mr. Laine, author of a book advertised on Amazon.com as “history”? Laine had to admit before a court of law that his claim of Indian hero Shivaji biological father not being his official one, was not based on any historical evidence, but was basically a lie. The RISA did nothing to investigate Laine’s standards of honesty in claiming that his book was “history”.
  5. Do you want your children to learn the “scientific basis” of archaeology from people who are illiterate in the languages of the region being excavated? Are archaeologists no better than grave-robbers?
What is the Indology debate?
Witzel, Farmer et al call themselves “Indology” experts, and confer the same honor to their 48 co-signors (Harvard might as well advertise: Want a certificate of global expertise? Just agree with Witzel.) “Indology” is billed as the study of “ancient India”. Not surprisingly for studies done by those who are illiterate in the languages and culture of the land of their attentions, their recent publications are primarily filled with personal abuse against Indian researchers who also believe in the Hindu Faith.
Which brings me to the title of this article. I tried learning about the field of infestation of the IER. The main object of debate in “Indology” appears to be a faded photo of a piece of stone that has a few  lines on it. This is called an “Indus Valley Seal” a.k.a.  “Har(vard)appan Bull”. Held vertically, these lines are used like an Ink Blot Test. Witzel and Farmer see the posterior of a bull (should one be surprised that this is the source of most of their ‘scholarly output’?) Indian writers imagine the image of a horse in the missing remainder of the stone, based on several other, clearer images showing horses (see, for example, the “clear” images at the U. North Carolina Religion School’s “Concordance Project”. So Farmer and Witzel spend pages and pages screaming abuse and charging fraud against these writers. Predictably, they found an obseqious publication venue: “Frontline” –the magazine of the Maoist publication, “the Hindu”.  This is run by people who believe, to quote my neighbor, that “Engleesh poriyum ennal yean Tamil peshanum?” and, when the Red Chinese invaded India in 1962, rushed to take Mandarin courses in 1962 to grab the good jobs in the coming People’s Paradise.
Had he bothered to do elementary review of prior work, Witzel, like Bwana Stanley finding Bwana Livingstone in the African bush, would have found the work of the famous Paul Courtright of Emory University. Per what could be called Courtright’s Theorem, any 3 vertical lines (or any lines at all!)  clearly indicate a Limp Phallus. Or a child asking for “oral sex”. Or a mother suggesting sex with her son.
Now Revealed: The Equine Posterior Explanation (EPE)
Mush_horse_ass_1966002_mural150_ap  This is a poster from the "Referendum" campaign of Pakistani "Chief Executive" aka dictator Pervez Musharraf. Such was his popularity that he won 150% of the votes cast in Gujranwala, his home constituency.
MUSH_HORSE_ASS_1966002_MURAL150_AP THIS IS A POSTER FROM THE “REFERENDUM” CAMPAIGN OF PAKISTANI “CHIEF EXECUTIVE” AKA DICTATOR PERVEZ MUSHARRAF. SUCH WAS HIS POPULARITY THAT HE WON 150% OF THE VOTES CAST IN GUJRANWALA, HIS HOME CONSTITUENCY.
Now, dear Reader, please compare the pictures in Farmer and Witzel’s masterpiece on the Harappan Bull Posterior, with this “Indus Seal”picture, found shortly before the “referendum’ where General Musharraf won over 400% of the registered votes in Gujranwala, a mere 269 km from Harappa, and close to Mohenjodaro.  I would say “Q.E.D.” to the Equine Posterior Theory (EPT). It just takes imagination, a broader cultural perspective, and some time spent actually doing research and not abusing real scholars, to be able to see these connections across apparently disjointed fields. Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? To think that these Harvard Indologists have been laying eggs on this subject for decades, looking at the wrong end of the picture!
Aryan Invasion Fallacy
The major issue bothering the EIR/RISA is the Aryan Invasion Theory, and its thorough debunking by Indian researchers. The AIT holds that civilization came to the lumpen masses of India, courtesy of the wild (Caucasian) horse-riding tribes from the Black Sea area. So all civilization followed from Europe, and the Vedas etc. obediently followed the writings of the Greeks (and of course were copied from there). Neat.
The problem with AIT has always been that we had to suspend logic. We are asked to believe that those macho horseback savages sat around composing the Vedas and the Epics during breaks from raping and mass-murdering the dwellers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. There is no evidence that their cousins from the Caucasus / Black Sea /steppes of EurAsia showed any such propensity for culture (other than looting) in any of the other lands they
The infamous Equine Posterior that sent the Indologists into a frenzy. From http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6664/twohorses.jpg, edited.
THE INFAMOUS EQUINE POSTERIOR THAT SENT THE INDOLOGISTS INTO A FRENZY. FROMHTTP://IMG203.IMAGESHACK.US/IMG203/6664/TWOHORSES.JPG, EDITED.
infested, for another fifteen hundred years. The Har(vard)appans on the other hand are supposed to have spent all their time carving stone “Seals” admiring the rear-ends of donkeys – the first Harvard East, perhaps? Accepting that these were horses’ rear-ends would hurt the AIT and IER no end. If the Vedas were accepted to be indigenous desi products, that would put Indian civilization way ahead of the claimed origins of Western civilization – a completely unacceptable notion to all the racist pecking order of western “history” texts.  Here is Western History at its best[2]“Equus originally evolved in North America by the late Pliocene epoch, about three million years ago, .. central Asian nomads in the 3d millennium B.C. … Mesopotamia and China (c.2000 B.C.), Greece (c.1700 B.C.), Egypt (c.1600 B.C.), and India (c.1500 B.C.). ..W Europe no later than 1000 B.C.”  The pecking order has to be maintained, to protect the whole edifice of Caucasian Superiority. No wonder Witzel, Farmer and the Prominent Fifty are up on their hind hooves about this!
Satellite imaging and ground investigations have validated the Saraswati River legends, and the legends of a land link between ancient India and Lanka. These add to the recent court-ordered dig by the Archaeological Survey of India that found a massive structure indicative of an ancient Hindu temple, buried beneath the (recent) ruins of the “Babri Masjid”, just as Ram devotees at Ayodhya had claimed all along.  The remains of legendary Dwaraka have been reportedly found off Gujarat – in a region where massive earthquakes such as the Bhuj quake of 2001 periodically cause large changes in topography. Thus as real science and technology advance, they are rapidly drying up the swamps of colonialist “Indology” myths.  Farmer out-Houdinis Houdini in his Frontline exposition, claiming that he (of course) accepts that the “Aryan Invasion Theory” is archaic, having been replaced by “Aryan Acculturation” – a vivid example of prejudice surviving scientific proof to perpetuate racist boo-boos. Oh, yeah, the Central Asian savages came in clutching passports with visa stamps and spent summers at Har(vard)appa?  Consider the honesty of this “acceptance” in the face of emails flying around the IER that after trashing California textbooks, their next target is the BBC, which has recently seen the light and accepted that ‘AIT’ is bogus.
Scholars or  Scientists,  Frauds or Fatwas?
Cal Tech Professor Saffman remarked in the Preface to his book on Vortices that “one cannot be a Scholar and a Researcher at the same time” – but he was thinking of people who were actually one or the other. Come to think of it, no Scholar would claim to be a Scholar when s(he) is functionally illiterate in the language of  the field of Scholarship. Let me now imagine the possibility that Witzel, Farmer and the rest of their mob are Researchers.
Scientists understand a basic truth – that what we know is a tiny fraction of what remains to be understood. The reason why religions are called “Faiths” – and what makes any thinking worthwhile at all – is that believers have Faith in some things, beyond what is claimed to be understood by science. This is at the root of the saying “More things are wrought by Prayer than this world dreams of” – an utterly nonsensical proposition, per the faux-‘scientific’ arrogance of Witzel and Farmer.  Thus, per their logic it is perfectly OK to take a piece of scratched masonry and a fantasize a bull attached to it, but Indian believers are frauds if they imagine a horse there instead. Perhaps Witzel & Co. should consider looking in the intellectual equivalent of a mirror when they next toss accusations of fraud? Use a Harvard Bull Rear letterhead in lieu of the bloody shield with the silly Eyetalian words, as the fount of their scholarship?
Witzel and Farmer represent the standard theme of the Inquisition and the Taliban that those outside their own “faith” are frauds.  Where I was raised, one was supposed to outgrow this stage by age 5. For instance, it has not occurred to the IER to rant against those who hold Faith in their own legends of the Immaculate Conception, of the Holy Spirit Rising From the Grave and Promising to Return, of Moses coming down the Mountain with a story of being handed ten heavy stones by a Divine Hand from the clouds (early USB memory sticks? Satellite Phones?), or of Noah building a boat that could carry 2 of every living species on the planet – and then being silly enough to let it run aground on a mountaintop. Nor would they describe those who believe in these to be frauds, because most religions are unforgiving of loutish behavior against their Faith.  Not so Hinduism – none of us would approve of Fatwas against his ilk, their loutishness or slander notwithstanding. Hence, like the porn-peddling “psychoanalysts” of Emory and Chicago, the Harvard “Indology” bull-peddler tribe feels perfectly safe in their freedom to abuse Hindus.
Vive L’Ignorance! N’est ce pas chic?
I was not trying to be disrespectful of Mr. Farmer by repeating his flaunting of illiteracy in Sanskrit. He is in excellent company. Witzel cites one of his co-signors as “India’s Most Famous Historian”. True. This person is articulate, and adept at ensuring coincidence of “research” conclusions with those of the “mainstream” money and power centers. The “fame” is mostly because of all the incredulity about this person’s state of literacy in Sanskrit or any other ancient Indian language.
Stanley Wolpert, another signatory, is author of the abysmal “Nine Hours to Rama” (which I have read as a child since it was banned, and still resent the time wasted) and “A New History of India” (where I did not repeat the error). Excerpts from the review by James Mills, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom:
“… It would be a misjudgement for any undergraduate to submit an essay on such subjects without bothering to consult the authorities so it is a fundamental flaw for a book that seeks to be taken seriously as a history of these periods and topics to commit such neglect …  simply narrates the region as a succession of kings, viceroys, prime ministers, and policies on the assumption that the people were a ‘lumpen’ mass capable only of mule-like forbearance or unpredictable and sudden violence.
Thus the well-meaning but rather out-of-touch Mr. Wolpert is an ideal choice to perpetuate the “Caste Curry  Communal Riot Taj Mahal” school of “Indology” that Witzel and the RISA so desperately guard. Is it any surprise that the “Prominent Academics” have thrust Wolpert in as one of 3 “Super CRP” Dictators of the Curriculum?
The RISA and the IER wear their ignorance with all the pride of David Macaulay’s Archaeology Expert wearing the “Ceremonial Headdress and Neckwear” (a toilet bowl and toilet seat) in the classic “Motel of the Mysteries” (available at Amazon.com).  Their attitude reminds me of the story about the expensive Russian restaurant in a Southern U.S city. Someone asked the waiter why the menu had not a single Russian dish. “Ze Czar Nikolai he never eat ze Roossian feud! He always prefer le Cuisine Francais!”
Research Standards of the IER and RISA
Let me again test the hypothesis that Witzel and his cohorts might be Researchers. Examine their Letter for some tell-tale characteristics:
  1. Sweeping generalizations:  The Mob of Fifty sneers at all of us who support the careful revision of school textbooks, declaring that we “discriminate against non-Hindus”. It would be trivial to prove that they are lying, except that it would be a case of “attributing to malice that which is adequately explained as stupidity”.
  2. Failure to study prior work. The letter reveals a gross lack of care about what changes the community had in fact suggested – and the Ad Hoc Board had accepted.
  3. Baseless statements. Ah! A whole page full of those, supplemented by reams on their website.
  4. Failure to understand context of one’s field. The abusive rants by Witzel and Farmer against Indian scholars is clear proof of their own utterly low class.
  5. False pretences of competence as “world specialists”. Face it: someone who “understands Sanskrit literature only in translation”, does not. Understand, I mean. Ignorance may be cute in “Indology” and other “liberal studies” among likewise ignorant cohorts, but not in general human society. Imagine an ‘Engineering Scholar’ who understands differential equations in solved color picture form. Or a Doctor of Medicine who understands Anatomy only when explained in gutter slang. Boggles the imagination. Indian schoolchildren learn Sanskrit fro 10 years by age 15, apart from a deep education (anything is deep compared to the depth of the IER) on Indian culture and epics.
  6. Conclusions sans Data: Witzel claims that the 50 signatories of his letter represent worldwide Hindu sentiment, without presenting the source to back that claim. Which Hindus exactly, approve of the abusive texts that Californians have been trying to correct? What is the basis for claiming that these constitute a majority of the estimated 800 million Hindus on Earth?
  7. False Analogies Witzel claims that the changes suggested by Indian-Americans to the CA School Board, are changes that have been rejected in Indian textbooks. Since when is the standard of California textbooks dictated to be below that of Indian textbooks? Many Indian textbook changes have occurred in States ruled by Maoist Communists. An example of “politically correct” Indian material, presumably approved by Witzel’s ‘global experts’ is the Mandatory Essay question in West Bengal:“Lal Kile Par Lal Nishaan, Maang Raha Hai Hindustan!” (sorry, Indologist, get someone else to translate that for you). Want California to teach its kids the equivalent, replacing ‘Lal Kila” with “Gora Makaan” and “Hindustan” with “Witzelstan”?
So much for the claim that these are “researchers”. So what are the conflicting positions on textbook revision?  Please see Table 1 below, from the submissions of the Indian-American community, and Witzel’s Letter from Prominent Academics.
Table 1: Community Suggested edits (detailed list) and the Witzel Mob’s demands and flailing abuse.
Community Request (CR)Witzel Mob’s Demands (WMD)
California adopt textbooks that correct or delete
1)Unbalanced and poor coverage of Hinduism as compared to other religions
2) Negative description of Hindu values and belief systems
3) Incorrect or one-sided portrayal of the origins of Indian civilization
4) Omission of earlier river valley civilizations of India
5) Teaching of theories as facts and biased teaching of one side of these theories
6) Biased description of Hindu and Indian women and their role in society
7) Factual inaccuracies regarding the dates of the historical events
8) Stereotypical colonialist descriptions of India as an ‘exotic land’Full list of suggested changes is at
documents/bluenov05item05.doc
“Reject the demands by nationalist Hindu  (‘Hindutva’) groups that California textbooks be altered to conform to their religious-political views.”“Proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature”
(Proposed revisions) “are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters andnon-specialist academics writing abut issues far outside their areas of expertise”
“There are ill-concealed political agendasbehind these views that are well-known toresearchers and tens of millions of non-Hindu Indians”
“Tens of millions of non-Hindu Indiansareroutinely discriminated against by these groups.”

Why should any of this concern Indian-American and Hindu families?
As of this writing, all the careful, patient efforts of the concerned parents and the Board appear to be down the drain. The California Board has been bullied into underhanded antics bordering on treachery, appointing Witzel and two cohorts as a “Super” board to dictate their version of “history” and to protect the status quo of the abusive texts on India and Hinduism. The processes of open debate and freedom of expression, provided to the Christians, Muslims and Jews, have been shut in the faces of Hindu Americans. Someone pointed out that this gang being put in control of deciding what to teach about Hinduism, is like Heinrich H. being appointed to decide what to teach about Judaism.
This has destroyed the carefully-built trust and faith between parents and the California Board. The IER has “won” – they have divided good, caring people, and stopped progress. The losers in this are of course, California students who will miss the chance to understand India and Indians – they will continue to say, like the vast majority today, “Ah cyaint say this name!” when faced with putting 4 syllables together to say “Narayanan”, while having no trouble with “Zbgniew Brzezinski”. Indian-American, and specifically Hindu, children are condemned to suffer the humiliation of being taught from racist books by ignorant teachers, to impressionable and gullible classmates. There will be several more hate attacks on Hindus and Sikhs.
Should California trust Witzel and the RISA to dictate what our children are taught? Do we want them to grow up being as loutish and ignorant, in a world that demands cross-cultural understanding? Witzel and cohorts imply that people like me have no right to object to these evils. They have failed in their basic duty to society as teachers and researchers, and revealed themselves to be shockingly primitive hate-mongers.
How can it ever be appropriate for religion to be taught by those who sneer at the deepest items of faith of that religion’s believers?  For instance, should Christianity be taught by a bigot who sneers at the notion of Immaculate Conception as a “scientific” impossibility, and ignores the deeper philosophical and moral lessons behind that notion? How can it be appropriate for any religion to be taught by bigots who sneer at our deepest articles of faith, using the most obscene tavern songs, while ignoring the deep philosophy behind our symbols? This last item is precisely the specialty of Witzel and his co-author Farmer – the “global expert” Indologist Comparative Historian who’s been learning Sanskrit for “months”.
Harvard is a fine university, but not in teaching Hinduism or Indian History. Harvard’s Hinduism and Indology teaching appears to be comparable in intent and level of scholarship to the teaching of Christianity at the “renowned scholar” Sheikh Osama bin Laden’s Binori Madarssa in Pakistan. The Coat of Arms of Harvard has been sullied by Witzel, by dragging it through the mud of his hate letter. At any rate, it is utterly offensive to use a Crusader shield, symbol of religious tyranny and unspeakable torture to those who know of the Portuguese Inquisition in western India, in dictating the teaching of Indian history to children of a free, modern society.
It’s your country, your vote, your tuition dollars, your Constitutional right to equal treatment and human dignity for youselves and your children, your children’s education and their future in a global marketplace that are stake. Other than that, there is no reason for anyone to get concerned, or get off one’s chair and make that call to one’s representatives, or write that letter, or find out more what is being done with one’s taxes.
If, on the other hand, you feel that this matters, then please consider some implications:
  1. We cannot get fair treatment from the present Academic Power Structure. Far from representing community concerns, those who occupy the “mainstream” academic furniture on Indology, Hinduism, Sanskrit studies etc. are very clearly determined to protect the status quo of bigotry, and go to any extremes of abusive behavior to obstruct progress.
  2. The standard of  intellectual honesty, not to mention competence, in Indology studies, is abysmal. Can we rest happy about these as our children’s teachers and role models?
  3. Why should we continue to send donations to universities that do not afford us the courtesy of even listening to us? To those who perpetuate abuse against us?
  4. Why should such low standards as Witzel and Farmer exhibit in their letter, be accepted as Indology scholarship?
  5. As an Indian-American asked: “Why should 3 anti-Hindu non-Hindus get to dictate what is taught about Hinduism?” Would California countenance 3 Taliban Islamists dictating Christian history and religion curricula?
  6. We have to generate our own books, our own internet-based educational resources, and our own peer reviewed journals to advance knowledge on Hinduism and India. Clearly, abusive mobs like those who signed that hate letter, cannot be accepted as our “peers” to review our work. They are, after all, illiterate.
  7. This means that right now, you and I have to stand up for what is right – and insist that the California Board of Education follow due process and treat Indian history, culture and Hinduism with respect. They need to start by accepting, in toto, the edits recommended by their own Ad Hoc Board, under Prof. Bajpai’s guidance. They need to reject the bullying from the hate-mongering Witzel mob. If they will not act in fairness, we need to demand that the Governor find people who will be fair to replace them. Nothing less will do.
Mr. Witzel and his cohorts need to learn the first principle of Hindu and Indian culture before they can have any credibility as “scholars” or “researchers”. That is simply that Humility is the first pre-requisite for knowledge or wisdom – something Harvard clearly does not teach its faculty.

[1]“It is regrettable that we are unable to have a discussion of those reservations on the main RISA email list as Rajiv Malhotra and other critics are precluded from joining the list for reasons that have never been made public.  Therefore some of us have started a yahoogroup to provide an open forum for discussion of these issues: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openrisa  Membership is open to all – but please read the group description, and the messages so far before posting.” Noyce. J.,http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?mnthyr=&action=show&id=28&comment=Comment
[2] Columbia University, “Encyclopedia”. Entry: “horse”: Equus originally evolved in North America by the late Pliocene epoch, about three million years ago, spreading to all continents except Australia. Horses disappeared from the Americas for unknown reasons about 10,000 years ago, to be reintroduced by Europeans, c.A.D. 1500. Many species of Equus arose in the Old World. Horses were probably first domesticated by central Asian nomads in the 3d millennium B.C. Horses were recorded in Mesopotamia and China (c.2000 B.C.), Greece (c.1700 B.C.), Egypt (c.1600 B.C.), and India (c.1500 B.C.). Horses were domesticated in W Europe no later than 1000 B.C…”http://www.answers.com/topic/horse  Viewed Dec. 1, 2005 AD

http://narayanankomerath.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/scholarship-of-equine-posteriors-harvardappa-style-november-2006/

Intern harassment case: SC has no authority to take up the case -- Somnath Chatterjee

$
0
0

Intern harassment case: Former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee questions SC's authority to take up the case

Former Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee has questioned the apex court's authority to take up the intern harassment case. In an exclusive interview with Headlines Today eminent jurist Chatterjee said, "I have no idea about the source of authority of the SC to get into the matter... neither any rule nor law that contemplates such enquiry by the Supreme Court Chief Justice".

Somnath Chatterjee
Talking further on the case he said, " NCW does not mean that they can come to any conclusion".

He pitched in his support for Justice Ganguly and said that he has been unfairly targeted.

"I find it difficult to believe that Ashok can do this...I know him since his young days...but still there should be a fair trial and only then should he be punished".




4000 year-old chariot, found in Serbia

$
0
0
This is a matter of interest to ancient Indian History in the context of the history of ratha and Aryan Invasion Theory Myths propagated by the likes of Witzel.

See: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Open_Letter_to_Prof_M_Witzel.pdf On the dishonesty of Witzel and about chariots. "The scholars of the 19th century translated the Rigvedic ratha (or anas) as 'chariot' thinking of Greece and Rome, and the notion stuck. Surely it is obvious that this ashtavandhura mini-bus has nothing to do with your imaginary chariots?" asks NIcholas Kazanas in an open letter to Prof. Michael Witzel. 

Harvard Univ. should review Witzel's competence in view of the damage he is causing to Harvard Corp. with motivated anti-hindu myths and denigration of Hindus. See more on Witzel's escapades with truth and academic ethics at  http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/12/scholarship-of-equine-posteriors.html

Kalyanaraman

Serbian Archaeologist Finds 4,000-Year-Old Chariot

Photo: Kurir/Tanjug
Photo: Kurir/Tanjug
According to Mitic, this an unique and extremely important item, which he found near the village of Stanicenje.
“This is a chariot, drawn by two horses. My assumption is that the chariot belonged to a Thracian citizen,” Mitic told Tanjug.
He said that this is backed by the fact that, at the location where the chariot was found, was also found a tumulus – a tomb.
“Judging by the manner of burial, I guess that it was a member of Thracian people, not ordinary, but someone who occupied an important place in the hierarchy, due to the fact that the chariot is decorated with beautiful bronze applications,” he said. 

Source:thehistoryblog.com
Archaeologists in Serbia have found a very importantsubject - the chariot - which is assumed that it is from the Thracian period, and that is between three and four thousand years old.
 
Within the protected archaeological site, work is beingcarried out in parallel with the construction of Corridor 10. At this site, archaeologist Zoran Mitic found the remains of abeautifully decorated cart, which is assumed to be between the ages of 3,000 and 4,000 years oldThe chariot was most likely belonging to the Thracian from the then highsocial ladder.

This extremely important artifact was found at the site near the village Staničenje.

- This chariot, the so-called biga, is drawn by two horses. My guess is that this is a finding which is between three and four thousand years old and belonged to a Thracian citizen," Mitic told Tanjug.In his opinion, what supports this theory is the fact that it was found near the location of tumulus graves.

- By the manner of burial, I think it was a member of the Thracian people, but not an ordinary one, but a man who has been occupying a very special place in the hierarchy, as they are well decorated with beautiful buggy applications of bronze - he said .

Thracians also believed in the afterlife and in the rebirth .

- When they buried a dead person, they used to kill a horse or a dog about fifty yards from the tumuli graves, the used to bring the most valuable gifts they have received during life, even their wives begged to be buried with them - Mitic said. 
 
 Thracians were a great nation with more than 200 tribes. The traces of their stay in the regionaccording to experts, open a new archaeological and historical chapter.
 
Experts of the National Museum in Belgrade will do a complete restoration of the chariot, and they will then made part of an exhibition, whic might be one of the best exhibits in the National Museum. 

Sardar and the swayamsevaks -- Christophe Jaffrelot

$
0
0

Sardar and the swayamsevaks

Christophe Jaffrelot Posted online: Sat Dec 07 2013, 02:04 hrs
Patel appreciated some RSS attributes. But he was not in favour of letting the organisation penetrate the state apparatus.


As early as the 1920s, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel showed ambivalent attitudes vis-à-vis the Muslim minority in Gujarat and India at large. On the one hand, he had been supportive of the Khilafat Movement, 
considering that it had “as a matter of fact, been a heartbreaking episode for the Indian Muslims, and how can Hindus stand by unaffected when they see their fellow countrymen thus in distress?” This sense of solidarity was fostered by his belief — that he emphasised in the 1940s in the name of national unity — that Muslims “originally belonged to India and were converted from Hindus”. On the other hand, Patel complained to Mahatma Gandhi one day that “the manners and customs of Muslims are different. They take meat while we are vegetarians. How are we to live with them in the same place?” Gandhi replied “No sir. Hindus as a body are nowhere vegetarians except in Gujarat.” Patel’s attitude vis-à-vis the Muslim minority changed after Partition. In a letter he wrote to Rajendra Prasad on September 5, 1947, he explains that, as home minister, he had “already given licences to two or three Hindu dealers for the sale of arms”, suggesting that he was promoting anti-Muslim militias.

Soon after Independence, in November 1947, Patel came to Junagadh — a state whose Nawab wanted to accede to Pakistan — in order to direct the occupation of the state by the Indian army. He seized this opportunity to visit the remnants of the temple of Somnath. According to his close associate, V.P. Menon, he “was visibly moved to find the temple which had once been the glory of India looking so dilapidated. It was proposed then and there to reconstruct it so as to return it to its original splendour...” He declared that “The restoration of the idols would be a point of honour and sentiment with the Hindu public”. While Gandhi and Nehru disapproved of a decision that was, in their view, affecting the religious neutrality of the state, Patel received the support of the Sangh Parivar.

He was to show some sympathy to the RSS a few weeks later. In December 1947, he made a speech in Jaipur that reflected his will “to turn the enthusiasm and discipline of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh into right channels”. On January 6, 1948, in a speech in Lucknow, he invited the Hindu Mahasabha to amalgamate with the Congress. He held out the same invitation to members of the RSS, criticising Nehru obliquely: “In the Congress, those who are in power feel that by virtue of authority they will be able to crush the RSS. You cannot crush an organisation by using the danda [stick]. The danda is meant for thieves and dacoits. They are patriots who love their country. Only their trend of thought is diverted. They are to be won over by Congressmen with love.”

Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member, three weeks later and the organisation was banned. As home minister, Patel was in charge of the repression that he justified in eloquent terms to S.P. Mookerjee, his colleague from the Hindu Mahasabha in the Nehru government: “The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the government and the state. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure.”
Still, Patel was prepared to engage the RSS. In December 1948, he “advised members of the RSS to join the Indian National Congress if they had the good of the country uppermost in their hearts”. Then he negotiated with RSS leaders the making of a constitution in order to lift the ban. In February 1949, he declared in the course of an interview: “To the RSS I have made an open offer. I told them: change your plans, give up secrecy, draft your constitution, come in the open field, respect the Constitution of India, show your loyalty to the Constitution and the flag and make us believe that we can trust your own words. To say one thing and to do another is a game which will not suit.”

Still, he wanted to make the best of the RSS. One month later, revealing his ambivalence, he said in an interview: “You will recall that there was a time when people called me a supporter of the RSS. To some extent that was true because these young men were brave, resourceful and courageous, but they were a little mad. I wanted to utilise their bravery, power and courage and cure them of their madness by making them realise their true responsibilities and their duty. It is that madness that I want to eradicate.”

Patel legalised the RSS after it adopted a constitution complying with his demands. He then considered that “the only way for them is to reform the Congress from within, if they think the Congress is going on the wrong path.” Soon after, on October 10, 1949, while Nehru was abroad, Patel had a resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee authorising RSS members to be part of the party. Nehru later had this resolution nullified.

While Patel appreciated some of the qualities of the RSS, he was not in favour of letting the organisation penetrate the state apparatus. In January 1948 — shortly before the assassination of Gandhi — he declared, during a press conference, that he “would approve the reported action of the Bombay government banning the employment of Rashtriya Swayamsevak men in government service... because it was not proper for government servants to identify themselves with a communal organisation” [sic].

These words stand in stark contrast with one decision that the BJP government made in Gujarat under Keshubhai Patel. In January 2000, Keshubhai Patel removed the RSS from the list of organisations whose members were not allowed to join the bureaucracy. The RSS general secretary, H.V. Seshadri, immediately demanded that the Centre adopt the same policy. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee publicly defended the Gujarat government order by arguing that the RSS was “a cultural and social organisation” and replied to President K.R. Narayanan that, while he had no intention to lift the ban on Central government employees joining the RSS, there were constitutional difficulties in asking the Gujarat government to reconsider its decision.

Among the BJP’s partners, the DMK was among the most embarrassed. Its chief, M. Karunanidhi, wrote to Vajpayee that if civil servants were allowed to take part in cultural or social associations affiliated to political parties, they would destroy the administrative machinery. The BJP’s spokesperson, J.P. Mathur, replied that this issue would “not be allowed to create a rift in the National Democratic Alliance”. On March 6, 2000, Rajendra Singh made a statement appreciating the Gujarat government’s decision but emphasised that “the RSS had not sought the withdrawal of the circular prohibiting government employees from participating in its activities, because RSS work has never been dependent on any government’s attitude, positive or negative, towards it”. The following day, the BJP high command asked Keshubhai Patel to rescind the order, and he immediately complied.

Sardar Patel had been vindicated because of one of the NDA partners, in spite of the spontaneous attitude of the RSS and BJP leaders who claim his legacy today.


The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/ CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London, Princeton Global Scholar and non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sardar-and-the-swayamsevaks/1204472/0
Viewing all 11039 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>