India’s Debt to Veer Savarkar

India’s Debt to Veer Savarkar: "
One thing that constantly astonishes me is my ignorance of Indian history. I admit that freely and feel sorry for myself — and for the hundreds of millions of Indians who are ignorant like me. I am partly to blame but we should remember that the Indian government — what I should really call the British Government 2.0 which started off with faux Britisher Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm — did much to misrepresent Indian history. Thanks to the interwebs (and thanks to Al Gore for inventing them internets), slowly I am learning a bit of history.



The other day I was thinking that even though I am ignorant of history, I figured out that Nehru was a clueless retard even though his name is plastered all over the country and they all say what a great man he was. I figured out that MK Gandhi must have been a self-obsessed authoritarian with an inflated ego.

The thing is, as Yogi Berra pointed out, you’d be astonished what you observe if you care to see. (I don’t know if Yogi Berra actually said it but it sounds like something that he may have said.) I saw without distorting glasses and I observed that India is a disaster zone. There were people who directed it since its political independence in 1947. They were in control. They — what’s the word I am looking for — yes, fucked up. Pardon my French.

My reasoning was syllogistic:

Major premise: India is evidently in dire distress.

Minor premise: India was led by Cha-cha and friends.

Conclusion: Cha-cha and friends were retards.

Those worthies — Cha-cha Nehru and his gang of retards — are definitely to blame. Cha-cha. Don’t you just feel like getting up and doing a bit of a dance. One-two-cha-cha-cha. Let’s do the cha-cha-cha.

The other day I was thinking. (A different other day than the other day mentioned previously.) In his book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution“, Richard Dawkins makes a point that I had not pondered before. He argued that circumstantial evidence is not the poor county cousin of eyewitness evidence, but rather circumstantial evidence can be more solid than eyewitness evidence.

Did you see that man enter the house at 7 PM? Yes, says the witness. But memories can be very unreliable at times. People make mistakes in identifying people. Circumstantial evidence, if available, can be quite foolproof. The finger prints on the knife, the shirt of the accused with the bloodstains that DNA shows to be the victim’s blood, the motive that the accused had, etc.

I pondered that matter at some length. I realized that the history we are taught in school about how great a person Cha-cha Nehru was is like an eye-witness account which has been retold a few thousand times. Someone somewhere made the assertion that Nehru was smart — and then it got repeated uncritically by others.

The circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Nehru was clueless about economic policy. Fabian socialism was known to be a disaster. Nehru was clueless about military policy. Thousands of Indian soldiers died in the disastrous war with China, thanks to Cha-cha. He was clueless about industrial policy. Import substitution industrialization (ISI, not to be confused with the Pakistani organization that DiggyVijay Singh moonlights for) chained India’s growth to what is now rightly called the “Nehru rate of growth.” Nehru was clueless about military strategy. He told the Indian army to halt their campaign to throw out the Pakistanis from Kashmir and took the matter to the UN. Tens of thousands of military and civilians have died as a consequence, and a few million Kashmiri Hindus are languishing in refugee camps in their own country.

I’d love to continue on the subject of the Nabob of Cluelessness, Mr Nehru. But I am sure you have better things to do and I don’t have the time to list all the cluelessness of Mr Nehru. India’s pathetic education system is his doing. The IITs are a prime example of that. But I will go into why the IITs have been a curse to India later.

Anyway, if you need convincing that Nehru, Gandhi and the rest of the unholy bunch were crazily mistaken, take a look at India — and weep.

So here’s what I learned today. India owes a debt to Savarkar. Taken from The Daily Pioneer. Reproduced in full since it is hard to find the piece when you need it in a hurry. If they come after me for copyright violations, I will take this down.

India’s debt to Savarkar

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Second opinion: Priyadarsi Dutta

His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as ‘Sawarkar’, and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that “why the paper did not burn”. In those days, India’s freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal’s partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement.

India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength.

Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi’s policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream of “talking his way to leadership of the world”, and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was — a meek leader of a Third World country.

Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.

"

MIM, Dawood and The Maoists – The New Axis Plan of ISI

MIM, Dawood and The Maoists – The New Axis Plan of ISI: "Aron

Post partition, the opportunism and foregoing of secularity by Political Parties and their patronage and alliance had helped history come full circle- in the return of the Razakrs redressed in parties like MIM. Above the current leader and son of the grand patriarch of MIM who exploited this weakness of nationalist Congress leaders like Indira Gandhi who actively wooed and sponsored its ideologically separatist movement to take roots. The MIM is a remnant of the dreaded Razakars of Hyderabad State that started butchering Hindus and sought separation and annexation with Pakistan. The ideology, leadership and the roots of this so called Political Party functioning under the Indian Constitution are merely to take advantage of its benefits that could be passed on to the Radicals in the field. The mushrooming of such Islamist ‘democratic Parties' are not without its own Jihad rationale

Read more...

"

Journalist Kamble’s despicable criticism of Rajamata Jijabai

Journalist Kamble’s despicable criticism of Rajamata Jijabai: "Ratnagiri (Maharashtra): 'Rajamata Jijau and Dadoji Konddev had immoral relations. Dadoji Konddev had raped one minor girl, therefore, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had cut off his hands', was the despicable criticism by Journalist Kamble."

Legally speaking

Legally speaking: "

By Swapan Dasgupta

There was something eerily predictable about the reactions to last Tuesday's Special Court verdict on the gruesome Godhra killings of February 26, 2002—the incident that triggered the equally horrible communal riots in Gujarat.

For a few days before Justice P.R. Patil delivered his 815-page judgment that led to the conviction of 31 of the 134 Muslims charged with either conspiracy or participation in the arson attack on the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express, the less restrained section of the media had been speculating on the possible implications of a 'guilty' verdict. Would it inflame communal passions? Was justice at all possible in 'Narendra Modi's Gujarat'? The implications were obvious: the cause of communal harmony and justice would be best served if the entire case was thrown out.

If the questions were predictably tendentious—the Special Court had been set up in April 2009 on a Supreme Court directive and had no relation with the state government's administration of justice—the post-verdict reactions followed the 'activist' template. Father Cedric Prakash, an activist clergyman who runs an NGO, was quick to denounce Justice Patel's judgment as a 'miscarriage of justice'; Prashant Bhushan, who was briefly amicus curie in the Gulbarga Housing Society case, called the verdict a 'travesty of justice'; lawyer Mukul Sinha who had contested the 2007 Assembly election and lost his deposit, described the conviction of 31 people as based on 'concocted evidence' and 'falsehood'; and Teesta Setalvad, herself under scrutiny by the Special Investigation Team for allegedly presenting dodgy affidavits, debunked any 'conspiracy' to attack the train.

True, BJP's Jaynarain Vyas, the Gujarat Government spokesperson, did proffer a pugnacious reply to the sceptics. He gloated that 'the verdict comes as a slap on the face of all those so-called NGOs who were busy maligning Gujarat.' But his seemed an odd, contrarian voice amid the multiplicity of well-heeled 'activists' feigning outrage. Any citizen unaware of the backgrounds of the sceptics or the convoluted course of the inquiry and legal proceedings would be forgiven for harbouring the suspicion that the Special Court in Ahmedabad had been driven by an underlying political agenda.

It is understandable that there will be litigants and activists dissatisfied by a court verdict on the ground of either evidence or interpretation of the law. They have an inalienable right to approach a higher court for relief and, presumably, the Godhra case will go to the High Court. What is disturbing, however, is not the exercise of the right of appeal but the readiness with which any judgment with political overtones is rubbished in the public domain. Indian democracy offers litigants, activists and commentators a generous space to dissect judgments and court proceedings. Indeed, more often than not, lawyers and others tend to treat TV studios and newspapers columns as a substitute for arguments in the appellate courts.

On the face of it, this may appear to be a worthless and even self-defeating exercise since judges are expected to be swayed by arguments in the courtroom and not by spirited exchanges in TV studios. The judiciary, however, is not detached from society and judges don't live in ivory towers. Like any other citizen, they too are prone to being influenced by their immediate environment. The purpose behind activists using the media to argue points of law and evidence (without having to bother about the opposing counsel) is simple: create a climate of opinion favourable to the cause they are espousing and portray other perspectives (including court judgments) as a travesty.

In the past six months, the no-holds-barred attacks on court orders have become an epidemic. In September last year, there were the shrill denunciations of the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, including suggestions of communal bias. Ironically, the loudest protests came from those who were in the forefront of demanding a judicial resolution of a very complex religio-political dispute that has defied resolution for centuries.

This was followed three months ago by the breast-beating that followed the conviction of Dr Binayak Sen on a sedition charge by a Sessions Court in Chhattisgarh. The spectacle was repeated some weeks ago when the Chhattisgarh High Court turned down Sen's bail application.

The Binayak Sen case is an eye-opener for all those concerned about the larger civic culture surrounding judicial proceedings. In an article written after Sen's conviction, an outraged Amartya Sen wrote that 'If the High Court has its thinking straight and unbiased it will overturn the decision.' Anything else, he argued, would imply that 'as happened in Gujarat—justice is difficult to get in the state which is under the control of a political regime that is keen on justifying its policies, some of which are very deeply problematic, rather than bringing justice to a people living in Chhattisgarh…' This was followed by an appeal signed by scores of Nobel Prize winners, with little familiarity of either India or the specific circumstances of the case, pressing for Sen's release.

Actually, it is Amartya Sen's pronouncement that is deeply problematic. If the integrity of the judiciary is made hostage to politically correct, rather than judicially tenable, judgments, India will lose its status as a democracy where the rule of law prevails.

In establishing pre-meditation, the Special Court in Ahmedabad relied on forensic evidence; the Allahabad High Court relied on archaeological evidence to suggest that a grand temple predated the Babri mosque in Ayodhya; and the Chhattisgarh Government relied on witness testimony and seizure records to suggest Binayak Sen's Maoist links. The conclusions of the judges were governed by evidence—a reason why 63 of the accused were acquitted in the Godhta case—and their refutation has to be based on technicalities, not on the strength of rhetoric.

A battle is either fought in the political arena or in the courts. The two can't happen simultaneously.

Asian Age/ Deccan Chronicle, February 25, 2011

"

Govt must consider Bharat Ratna for Uncle Pai

Govt must consider Bharat Ratna for Uncle Pai: "

25th Feb 2011-Making a special mention regarding the sudden demise of India's greatest story teller and creator of Amar Chitra Katha Shri Anant Pai, who was reverentially called Uncle Pai, Shri Tarun Vijay, MP and national spokesperson BJP paid rich tributes to him in Raya Sabha today and asked the government to consider his name to award him Bharat Ratna .

The text of Shri Tarun Vijay's special mention in Rajya Sabha is as below-

In the sudden death of Shri Anant Pai last night the country has lost one of the greatest story tellers and children’s dearest uncle. He was the creator of Amar Chitra Katha and Editor of Tinkle, children’s popular magazine. He instilled Indian values in the minds and hearts of new generation through marvelous depiction of India’s glorious heritage and sagas of brave Indian heroes. He was the most beloved and respected uncle of millions of children world wide. He was born in Karakala, Karnataka in 1929 and lost his parents at the age of two. At a Doordarshan quiz contest when he saw children were easily answering questions regarding Greek myths but were unable to answer who was Rama’s mother or who was Shivaji he thought of starting a comic book series devoted to Indian culture. He toured extensively all over India and addressed millions of school children from Kerala to Kashmir. He was also the creator of Partha series of video documentaries which aimed to create self confidence and moral values in the hearts and minds of little kids. An entire Indian generation belonging to every religion, caste and state owe its moral upbringing and introduction to the great past of India’s culture and civilization to the success of Amar Chitra Katha and Uncle Pai’s tireless efforts to bring India back to Indians. He wrote and produced two video films, namely Ekam Sat and The Secret of Success. He wrote books on personality development for children and teenagers. He also created audio books of Amar Chitra Katha. Several Indian leaders including Smt. Indira Gandhi, Shri Rajeev Gandhi, Shri L.K. Advani, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee deeply accepted Uncle Pai’s stories influence on them. He married Lalita ji from a great Gandhian family of Karachi. He was childless, but had a family of millions children. I request that the government should consider his name for awarding Bharat Ratna.

Shri Tarun Vijay(centre) with Shri Anant Pai and Smt. Lalita Pai

"