Indian nationalism once again witnessed a severe blow by the separatist mentality in Kashmir valley when Muslim students in a function at the Kashmir University, refused to sing the National Song Vande Mataram in the presence of Governor A N Vohra. In an apparent bid to demean the National song, these students remained seated while it was being sang and hence, deliberately insulted the song.A shocked Governor asked Riaz Punjabi, Vice-Chancellor of the university to probe the happening. But to his utter surprise and a disgrace to his position, VC refused to obey the Governor and rebutted him openly. In an apparent disgrace to the Constitution, the Chief Proctor of the University Md Afjal Zargar responded to Governor stating that the honoring of national song was a ‘personal matter’ and they could not order students to honor it, nor could they ask them to stand while Vande Mataram was sung.Actually, The VC knows that ‘Secularist Atmosphere in Kashmir favors insult of Indian Traditions and Nationalist Symbols . But the larger question still remains:‘Who is guilty for this Degenerated state of Kashmir valley?’
The BJP government of Madhya Pradesh, in a landmark decision, has decided to start giving education of professional courses like Engineering & Medical in Hindi. Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan announced this historical decision of the government in a meeting of the Higher Education Department.# हम कराएँगे हिंदी में एमबीबीएस और इंजीनियरिंग की पढाई : शिवराज सिंह चौहानChief Minister Chauhan said that “We have noticed that many intelligent students are deprived of quality professional education only because they don’t know English. This is because of which we have decided that we will provide professional education in Hindi as well.Countries like Japan & China, have given their students education in their mother language for centuries, If they don’t lag behind, how is it possible that our youth will be behind anybody else, if he gets education in his mother language. We are confident that the youth of our state will set new records of success after taking degrees in Hindi.”Shri Chauhan said this in the meeting of the Higher Education Depatment. He directed department officials to accelerate the formalities of starting the Hindi University. He said “We are not against any language, but this is a worrying thing if a student is denied good education just because he doesn’t know a particular language.We want that Hindi should become the frontrunner of the coming revolution in University Education.” He also told the people present that land for proposed university has been chosen in Khurd village near Raisen, about 15 kilometres away from the capital. Also, a proposal has already been sent to the Governor regarding appointment of Vice Chancellor for the proposed University.It is to be noticed that Swami Ramdev is also fighting for the cause of starting professional education in Indian languages for many years.
Shivaji was a military genius who built an empire from scratch but it is for sparking a national revival that he should be remembered.Shivaji, the Maratha warrior who established a modern and powerful Hindu kingdom in south-western India from 1642-1680, is undoubtedly the greatest Indian of the modern era. To understand Shivaji’s importance in Indian history, especially his role in rekindling the spirit of Indian nationhood, one must recognise that he built his empire against impossible odds.India in the 17th century was hurtling towards catastrophe. Hindus, who comprised the vast majority of the country, were hopelessly divided, leading a disenfranchised and moribund existence under Muslim rule. The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had launched jihad against Hindus by destroying their ancient and beloved temples and re-imposing the hated jaziya, a punitive and offensive tax which every Hindu had to pay or convert to Islam. Before him, his father Shah Jahan and grandfather Jehangir had banned the construction of Hindu temples, and destroyed many new ones.The world was changing rapidly, with new discoveries and advances in sciences being made. While Europe was beginning to crawl out of poverty, plagues and fanatic Christian dogma, India was going in the reverse direction. Since the destruction of the leading universities of Nalanda and Taxila by Muslim invaders, not one new university had been built. India’s intellectual landscape was barren because Hinduism was battling for survival. Furthermore, a new threat was emerging in the form of European nations like Portugal, France, Britain and Holland who, under the pretext of trade, were looking for opportunities to colonise India.Other great liberators like Italy’s Garibaldi and America’s George Washington had two things in their favour—they had only a single enemy and their people were solidly behind them. Shivaji had to reckon with Aurangzeb’s mighty Mughal army, the smaller but powerful Bijapur sultanate, the Pathans, the fierce Abyssinians of Janjira on the west coast, the fanatic Catholic Portuguese and the wily English. His own people, the Marathas, were serving as soldiers and chiefs in Muslim armies and totally lacked nationalistic spirit.Birth of an Army : Shivaji got his inspiration from the Mahabharata saying, “One thousand horsemen of one mind are enough to conquer the whole world.” Barely 15 years old, he formed a tightly knit group of Mawala and Konkani boys and captured some forts of the sultan. Maharashtrians now felt a patriotic obligation to serve Shivaji, although many still served the Bijapur sultan.The amazing thing is the Mawalas and Konkanis were physically much smaller than the Pathans, Mughals and the African Muslims, and yet they prevailed in battle after battle. Starting with guerrilla raids, soon the Marathas were engaging in pitched battles with Aurangzeb’s battle hardened Mughal and Rajput armies. Instead of fighting for jagirs and cash, the Marathas were now fighting for God, country and most importantly, honour. They defeated more powerful armies and also beat the Portuguese and the English on the high seas.Reclaiming the Seas : Shivaji was the first Indian ruler in the modern era to understand the importance of a strong navy. The Mughals and Bijapuris had been utterly irresponsible by neglecting the coast, thereby ceding control of the seas to the Europeans. After he conquered the Konkan, Shivaji realised the importance to protecting coastal trade.Though most Marathas were not natural seamen, the Kolis and Bhandaris of the west coast were good sailors and were tough and well built. Shivaji built hundreds of ships, large and small, in the creeks of Kalyan, Pen and Panvel. These fleets manned by Kolis, Bhandaris and Muslims successfully battled the British, Portuguese, Dutch and Abyssinian fleets.Historian Jadunath Sarkar writes, “Shivaji proved by his example that the Hindus can defeat enemies, conduct their own defence, maintain navies and ocean-trading fleets of their own, and conduct naval battles on equal terms with foreigners. He taught the modern Hindus to rise to the full stature of their own growth."Handling the European Threat : Shivaji was farsighted in his dealings with the Europeans. More than any other ruler, he knew of their unfair trade practices, their bribe taking and giving, their religious fanaticism, and their dabbling in Indian politics with an eye on dominions. But realising that the bigger threat were the Mughals and southern Muslims kingdoms, he initially stayed away from confrontation. Also, the Europeans owned powerful cannons and matchlocks which would have been deadly if transferred to his enemies. So while he was in favour of meeting the Europeans as far west as possible, he knew the time to deal with them was after ending the land wars.
But he meted out exemplary punishment when required. In June 1661, Shivaji’s soldiers plundered Rajapur and captured several Englishmen. This was payback for the English aid to Bijapur. The following year, he captured a band of Englishmen in Surat for supplying ammunition to his enemies. In Shivaji: The Founder of Maratha Swaraj, C.V. Vaidya quotes from an interesting letter from the president of the English factory at Surat to the disconsolate prisoners: “How you came to prison you know very well. This punishment is not for your defending company’s goods. It is for your going to the siege of Panhala and firing cannon under English banner. Anybody who is strong enough would have punished you in these circumstances. Merchants have no business to sell ball and power nor fire on enemies.”The Western powers were constantly fighting one another but they were shrewd enough to take advantage of the weaknesses of the country. Shivaji played the same game against the Europeans and took advantage of the jealousies among these powers. He would, for instance, use cannons and ammunition from the Portuguese to attack the English, and take English help to fight the Dutch. Each of these nationalities would be overjoyed when Shivaji’s armies or fleets would defeat a European force. Often they would pay good money to Shivaji to fight the other. The one common thing in their relations with Shivaji was all of them paid hefty tribute to him.End of Islamic Tyranny : Shivaji’s legacy is that he laid the foundations of a strong kingdom which ultimately under the later Maratha rulers re-established Hindu rule over most parts of India—from the Krishna in the south to the Indus in Punjab. The Marathas became the masters of Delhi and the Mughal emperor their protectee. Hindus were finally able to walk free in their own country after more than four centuries of almost ceaseless Islamic tyranny.Meritocracy : The most remarkable achievement of this soldier king was the completely non-feudatory nature of his empire. Shivaji’s was the first modern Indian state that had large numbers of soldiers, commanders and military strategists from brahmin as well as lower castes such as Holkars and Mahars. For the first time in the modern era, jobs were not necessarily connected to one's caste. Even women, starting with Shivaji’s mother Jijabai, showed interest in administration. Muslims were treated equitably, his chief secretary being a Muslim. Shivaji, who was deeply influenced by the ancient Hindu epics, was keen on establishing an equal opportunity society. That it worked offers hope to those wanting to kick start social engineering in India.Shivaji died in 1680 of blood diaeorhea. When the news reached Aurangzeb, the emperor was elated but then the reality sunk in, and he muttered: “He was a great captain and the only one who has had the magnanimity to raise a new kingdom, while I have been endeavouring to destroy the ancient sovereignties of this country. My armies have been employed against him for 19 years and nevertheless his state has been increasing.”Modern India’s pseudo-secularist historians and political leadership have refused to accept Shivaji's greatness. Believing that mentioning Shivaji’s name will offend Muslims, he is rarely acknowledged for his military genius, his administrative brilliance or his nation building efforts. In fact, Nehru and Gandhi both described the great Maratha as a misguided patriot. Incredible, coming from two men under whose watch India was partitioned.When Shivaji started with a few good men in the 1640's, perhaps only he could have imagined that just over a hundred years later, a mighty Maratha army would plant the Hindu flag on the walls of Attock in the Afghan heartland and liberate Punjab after 800 years of Muslim rule.
American newsmagazine Time has described Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh as an 'underachiever', three years after describing him as the man who changed millions of lives for the better.Dr Manmohan Singh appears on the cover of this week's issue of Time, and in the accompanying article, the magazine has raised questions about his ability to act in the face of slowing growth, policy inaction and unpopularity of economic reforms."India needs a reboot. Is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh up to the job?," asked Time.The magazine flays Dr Singh for having "squandered" the last three years, his lack of confidence, inability to rein in his ministers and "unwilling" to carry out reforms that would continue the process of liberalisation he helped start in 1991.Criticising the UPA the article says, "The laws that could help create growth and jobs are stuck in parliament, sparking concerns that politicians have lost the plot in their focus on short-term populist measures that will win votes.""India is stalling. To turn it around, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must emerge from his private and political gloom,” elaborates the write-up, calling the Prime Minister "a man in shadow".The magazine says retaining the finance portfolio following the exit of Pranab Mukherjee gives an opportunity for Dr Singh to turn the economy around, though it is not sure if he could manage that.
Veteran journalist and head of interlocutors team on J&K Dalip Padgoankar tried hard to defend their report, in a first ever free public interaction on it, here on Saturday. He failed miserably when he chose to keep mum on a commoner’s question, ‘what recommendations in the report are in the interest of the nation?’
While defending the report, though Padgaonkar claimed that he has not ignored the issue of Kashmiri Pandits or refugees. He accepted Islamic radicalization of youth in Kashmir is a fact but has not found any place in the report. For the first time after the release of interlocutors report to public on May 24 the head of interlocutors team on J&K Dalip Padgoankar had offered himself to a free public interaction at a seminar organised by India Foundation at India International Centre.
The seminar was well attended by intellectuals from across the country and many retired military officers. The Opposition Leader in Rajya Sabha and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley was the principal speaker in the seminar and four member panel of speakers consisted of Dilip Padgoankar, BJP National Executive Member and chief spokesman of J&K Dr Jitendra Singh and former Union Minister Arif Mohammed Khan. The interaction was moderated by BJP national spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman.
Addressing the seminar Mr Jaitley said that the entire problem of Kashmir is because of faulty Nehruvian vision that has proved costly for nation. He said that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda for Pakistan and Government of India has run out of ideas which is evident from the fact that the UPA Government under Dr Manmohan Singh has been appointing Working Groups and interlocutors without any fair policy.
Mr Jaitley was very critical of Justice Sageer Ahmed report which according to him was prepared when Sageer Ahmed was ailing and finally died after which the report was submitted to State Government without placing it before the leaders who were the members of the Working Group including him (Jaitley).
The BJP leader said that the cross border terrorism is an important factor supporting militancy in J&K and it suits the separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani for whom their politics survives only if Kashmir remains tense. He said the concessions can be made to the common people and not to the separatists of Kashmir. He also pointed out that the Kashmir issue might have not existed had veteran freedom fighter and then Home Minister Sardar Patel not been kept out from the scene. He said it was unfortunate that the veteran leader was not given the charge to deal with J and K.
The most dangerous thing in the report is that they (interlocutors) have diluted India’s stand on PoK by changing the nomenclature to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Jaitley said. It is legitimising Pakistan's claim on the occupied territory, he said. He also pointed out a number of similarities between the recommendations made by the interlocutors and those suggested by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf talked about things like joint administration and control and soft borders. This report also touches on opening up the LoC for trade and tourism, he said. The interlocutors' report would take the state back to its 1953 position and this was unacceptable, Jaitley reiterated.
Dr Jitendra Singh forthrightly questioned the psyche and intentions of the interlocutors. He said, “we don’t look at J&K as a dispute or an issue because our position is that J&K is very much a part of Indian Union like any other state. We also reiterate that those who look at J&K as a dispute or an issue are ones who have a vested interest in keeping the Kashmir pot boiling and projecting J&K as disputed for their personnel interests. There is no dispute over J&K either historically or Constitutionally particularly after the 1994 Parliament resolution stating that only un addressed aspect of J&K is how to retrieve the PoK.
Dr Jitendra Singh said the accession of J&K with Indian Union was never conditional and in fact ratified by J&K Assembly in 1954, which consisted of 75 MLAs from NC. The Constitution of J&K applicable from 1957 states in Section 3 that J&K is an integral part of India and there can be no amendment to that. He said Kashmiriyat stands for composite culture and it can’t be restored without the return of Kashmiri Pandits to Valley.
Arif Mohammed Khan said that from his experience as a Minister during the Indira Gandhi’s regime he understands that Kashmir has to be seen from wider perspective. From last 30 years Pakistan and ISI has been working to destablise the region in the name of religion, he added. Expressing his concern on this he said that the issue of J&K requires a deeper analysis and approach.
Defending the report submitted by the Interlocutors Dilip Padgoankar claimed that false allegations are made that the report is partisan. He referred to several pages of report to claim that all the regions have been equal mention in the report. The suggestions to review the provisions of post 1953 Indian Constitution was not made with the intension of encouraging separatist sentiment, he added. He said as of today whatever is the locus standi the report has tried to give the best possible suggestions on each aspect.
He said certain suggestions have been made about AFSPA but not clearly recommended its revocation. In the question answer session that followed several retired army officers were aggrieved at the manner in which the issue of Army and AFSPA in J&K is being handled.
When a resolute MP chaperones Rohingya Muslims from far eastern Myanmar to Hyderabad in the south without a hitch en route, it is obvious the Centre has consented to compromise nationality. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should explain if the entrenched complicity with the demographic invasion from Bangladesh is the template for his quest for open borders with our western neighbour, and if New Delhi is determined to disregard the communal and civilisational challenges posed by the Assam crisis.Bodos and other native tribes are tormented by the unending deluge of illegal immigrants who have grabbed all government and vacant land and are now squeezing the native populace. The arrest of Kokrajhar MLA Pradip Brahma (Bodoland People’s Front) in the wake of the recentviolence there has enraged locals as no one has been apprehended for the 20 July murder of four Bodo youths who were publicly snatched away from the police.
Bodoland Territorial Council leader Hagrama Mohilary alleges that the only radical groups operating regionally are HUJI, Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam, and United Muslim National Army. He says the growing Bangladeshi population threatens Bodo culture, way of life, and peace in the entire region, and the only solution is to completely expel the illegal immigrants; seal the border with Bangladesh; and curb Dhubri MP Badruddin Ajmal’s help to the infiltrators.Dhubri district bordering Kokrajhar is full of Bengali-speaking Muslims, alleged to be illegal immigrants. All flaunt apparently valid legal documents: electoral rolls with their father's name on it; birth certificates; ration cards; and judicial stamp papers signed legibly by magistrates. Some have land tax records and Indira Awas Yojana houses.The Assam riots were followed by grim violence over the Assam situation at Azad Maidan, Mumbai. In this backdrop, a delegation of the National Commission for Minorities visited the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts and Dhubri district on 11-12 August. The Asian Centre for Human Rights has denounced its report as ‘inflammatory’ and demanded a probe by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes as Bodos are STs.ACHR director Suhas Chakma questions NCM’s wisdom in sending Planning Commission Member Syeda Hameed and Adviser G.B. Panda (with NCM Member Keki Daruwala) for the probe when NCM Member H.T. Sangliana hails from Mizoram and knows the regional demography. Ms. Hameed, interestingly, participated in a seminar hosted by the UN Information Centre at Delhi in September 2010, where rabid secessionists from Srinagar raised anti-India, pro-azadi slogans without hindrance from the organizers or panelists.The NCM report claims the displaced in camps include 300,000 Muslims and 100,000 Bodos; the cause of conflict is a half-century of immigration. The Bodoland Accord of 2003 was to give Bodos autonomy and constitutional protection under the Sixth Schedule to people of the four contiguous districts carved out as BTAD. The delegation visited one Bodo camp and noted that they feared to return home as they were surrounded by Muslim villages which had weapons like talwar and dao. It visited six Muslim camps and expressed dissatisfaction with facilities there, and recorded allegations that policemen in some camps were terrorizing Muslims.The NCM report says that besides Muslims, Bodos have a history of conflict with non-Bodo tribes. It notes ‘public opinion’ that Bodos (30%) want to drive out other ethnic groups to increase their population to 50% or more, so they can demand statehood for Bodoland. It says Government must firmly tackle BTAD chief executive Hagrama Mohilary in this regard.The NCM report adds that though infiltration is continuing, the current conflict was not between Bangladeshi immigrants and Bodos, but between Bodos and resident Muslims of the BTAD. It claims (with no evidence) that Bodos have arms like AK-47s leftover from their militancy over a decade ago, while Muslims are poorly armed in comparison; hence militant Jihadi outfits may start supplying lethal weapons in this area.Incensed at this report, Suhas Chakma counters that the Commission’s mandate is to protect religious minorities. Bodos are Christians (15%) and native Bathou (50%) and both are minorities under the NCM Act. But the delegation reduced the Assam riots to Bodos versus Muslims and treated only the latter as minorities, blatantly violating the Act. NCM’s “inflammatory statements” aggravated the vulnerability of northeastern people, and though the exodus of nearly 50,000 northeast people (majority Christians) from some southern states in the third week of August falls within its mandate, it was ignored.Worse, though the Bodoland Territorial Council was created under the Sixth Schedule which prohibits transfer to tribal lands to non-tribals, Bodo land rights remain unprotected. The Bodoland Accord failed to bring the National Democratic Front of Bodoland on board. The Bodo Liberation Tigers signed the Accord, became the Bodoland People’s Progressive Front (BPPF), and has been in the Congress-led coalition for the past six years, but has had no positive impact. Bangladesh handed over NDFB leader Ranjan Daimary to India in May 2010, but the Centre failed to dialogue with him and seems reluctant to bring the peace process with all Bodo groups to a logical conclusion.The Gogoi regime failed to act when two Muslims were killed by unknown persons in Kokrajhar on 6 July, and on 19 July two leaders of the All-Bodoland Minority Student’s Union and All-Assam Minority Student’s Union were shot at near Kokrajhar. On 20 July, four ex-members of the Bodo Liberation Tigers were killed in retaliation; this triggered violence across Kokrajhar, Chirang and Baksa districts under the Bodoland Territorial Council areas and in Dhubri district outside the BTC. As the state government dithered, nearly 80 lives were lost and four lakh displaced (community-wise figures have been suppressed by the government to contain emotions).With no convenient scapegoats available, the media and civil society groups are clueless about whom to blame for the crisis. The Prime Minister offered a relief package of Rs 300 crore during his visit, but gave no details of how it was to be spent. Then Congress president Sonia Gandhi landed and advised people to remain in the camps, triggering fresh tension and violence as suspicions rose that the torched homesteads would be grabbed. The conveniently timed exodus of northeast persons distracted national attention from Assam. As those who quit their jobs out of alleged fear take trains back south (free both ways on humanitarian grounds), the crisis of Bodo land and identity remains unresolved, as does the issue of national security.
Last month’s violence in Kokrajhar district, Assam, which resulted in 77 dead (so far) and nearly four lakh uprooted from home, their humble hearths torched to cinders, possibly to prevent them from returning to reclaim the vacated lands, was both the consequence of the sharply changing population profile in India’s eastern States, and an attempt to perpetuate and entrench the demographic shift.
The Centre’s attempt to negate the “communal” angle by calling it an “ethnic” problem was disingenuous, if not unfair and incorrect. It hardly inspired confidence that the first to meet the Prime Minister on the issue was an all-party delegation of Muslim MPs, lobbying, of course, for the intruders.
The incontrovertible fact is that the violence involved the tribal Bodos (who have close cultural affinity with Assam’s other tribes and Hindu groups) and Muslim immigrants from present-day Bangladesh, who came in droves over the past century, and are still entering the State in quest of land and livelihood. They have been aided and abetted by lax border security (it’s a 3,437 km long border), helpful co-religionists, and political parties nurturing reliable votebanks. The result has been a steady squeezing of the native population from the most fertile lands, which caused the intense flare-up of the 1980s and the Bodo agitation of the 1990s. But no lessons were learnt.The current dispute began on July 6 when two Muslims were murdered in Kokrajhar, followed on July 20 by the killing of four Bodo activists in retaliation. Thereafter, the violence escalated leading to a predominantly Bodo exodus from their villages, and the torching of their hutments. To the surprise of their tormentors, however, the Bodos unexpectedly returned a few days later and indulged in tit-for-tat torching of rival settlements. Rattled, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi blamed the UPA Government at the Centre for delayed deployment of forces.
In a nutshell, this seems to be the root cause of the administration’s tardiness in curbing the violence. The Bodos had been driven out of their lands, and were not expected to return soon. Quick Army deployment would keep people in the camps. The delayed deployment plus the unexpected return of the Bodos in militant mood turned the tables on aggressors and administration alike.Bodo leader Hagrama Mohilary claims that armed Bangladeshis from across the international border incited the violence; Bodos in the refugee camps say they can no longer coexist with outsiders. As Assam tribals and Muslims both comprise formidable votebanks for the ruling Congress, there is extreme reluctance to admit the existence of a deep ethno-communal fault-line. Caught in a cleft, Congress party president Sonia Gandhi has told the people to be prepared for a longish stay in the camps.The conflict centres on land. For over four decades, government char land, traditional grazing lands, and forest areas, have been encroached by illegal migrants in connivance with district officials at the cost of the indigenous people. Besides Bodos, other tribal communities affected by ethnic cleansing and territorial encroachments include the Karbi, Khasi, Jaintiya, Dimasa and nearly 50 others. Hagrama Mohilary says Bodoland Territorial Areas District is governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and tribal bloc rules and regulations apply. But no one is listening.
