|| Satyameva Jayate ||

What is stopping you from joining active politics?

Some of you would remember NDTV’s “Big Fight” from a few weeks back where the topic was “Younger politicians - time to take over“.

I had taken some notes while watching the programme and what struck me was that none of the participants (mainly leaders from mainstream political parties) identified what I felt were the *real* reasons why you dont see more “young politicians”…

While I was discussing this with a friend last week, he suggested taking a straw poll on my blog to find out why youngsters (or anyone else for that matter) do not consider politics as a conscious (or a realistic) career choice.

But before that, some quotes from the “Big Fight”:

Abhishek Singhvi: “(we)…need to change the system so that people with alternative talents can get into politics…we have to make politics somewhat of a meritocracy”

Rajiv Pratap Rudy: “…politics has become discredited…No one wants their son or daughter to become a politician today…

Shahid Sidiqui: “…stop demonising politics and politicians; media only shows (the) negative face…that is not true…there are good things in poliics…”

Tavleen Singh: “…we must have younger politicans…but young people who are interested in politics…in doing something for the country…we don’t have that yet… 

I have maintained for a very long time that you will not see more people into politics unless you make it pay and it becomes less *risky* (in a real, physical danger sense of the word).

So one of the first challenges is to redefine the way “politics” is currently understood and practised in India…

To check that I am not living on another planet - and following my friend’s advice, here is a quick straw poll:

UPDATE: You can still participate in the poll by clicking this link:

http://www.polldaddy.com/p/969643/

***

Poll continued on sidebar…It will remain open for a few more weeks (I have got about 80 responses already)

Please indicate your votes on the sidebar widget.

***

I will keep this open for a few weeks and then publish the results. Please actively participate and forward this link to your friends. Thanks.

Related Posts:

Fixing the “system” - getting down to the nuts and bolts 

Lets come together to build a *new* and proud India

Politics & Corruption: Here’s how to fix the “system” 

Do we deserve the politicians we get? 

October 4th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Corruption in India, Current Affairs, Elections Analysis, Politics and Governance in India | 9 comments

Who was the real “Ashoka the Great”?

To those of us whose image of “Samraat” Ashoka (Ashoka the Great) has been shaped by Amar Chitra Katha�or the eponymous movie, it will come as a suprise that there may actually have been three different Kings by the name of Ashok and the real history of the “Ashok the Great” may be more complex than hitherto imagined.

I am reproducing below some excerpts from some early but ground-breaking research by Kishore Patnaik which he shared on a Yahoo! group recently…It makes for fascinating�reading (emphasis mine).

*** Excerpts BEGIN - Long Post ***

…it may be too premature for me to say…(but it appears that) there are three Asokas in the history whose identity has to be established:

1. The Mauryan king Asoka vardhana, as described in Puranas. I am not sure if anything was told about Asoka vardhana by puranas, even though he has ruled the longest in his dynasty

2. The Bauddhist king Asoka(Tissa?) as described in the various Buddhist and Jain works. Clearly, they try to mostly identify Asoka with with Asoka Vardhana but it is possible that the writers are confused since these works were composed centuries after Asoka

3. Priyadarsi, the king of edicts who was supposed to be dear to the gods and of course, just once he calls himself Asoka (in the edict of Maski)

…In any case, we see that all the three kings differ in their nature and dating. Keep Reading…

July 23rd, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Indian History, Medieval Indian History | no comments

“Samay” hout balwaan

How many of you have heard the story of great warrior Arjun suffering an ignominious defeat�at the hands of a gang of marauders*? I had a vague recollection of it but�when someone mentioned it to me the other day, I decided to dig deeper.�

Courtesy psych-prism, here is�the�short story…and within it, a great lesson for all of us.

Once Bhagwaan Shri�Krishna was wounded and Arjun decide to go and see him…On the way, he met Narad Muni who advised him not to touch Shri Krishna, otherwise great harm would befell him.

As Arjun�entered Shri Krishna’s chamber,�Bhagwan Krishna said, “I was waiting for you. Come and sit besides me.”

Remembering Narad Muni’s advice, Arjun was in a dilemma…and decided not to sit next to Bhagwaan Krishna. His discomfort was obvious so Shri Krishna asked him to touch his wounds with his bow if not with his hand.

Arjun agreed to that…not realising that all the “shakti” from his bow had drained away when it touched Shri Krishna Bhagwan’s wounds. After the meeting,�Krishna Bhagwaan asked Arjun to take responsibility for the safe passage�of�Gopikas who had come to see him.� Arjun of course agreed.

On their way back, the group was attacked by Bheels* who, in spite of�Arjun’s prowess in archery�and his “Gandiv“, managed to abduct the Gopis.�Arjun’s�bow�- the famed “Gandiv” failed him at this moment…The greatest archer of his�time could not protect the Gopikas when they needed help the most.

That was when Arjun realised “It is not�man who is powerful and potent; It is TIME”

The version which I heard from my wife is slightly different…Arjun was not escorting Gopikas but widows of the Yadav soldiers and officers who had perished in the Great War (recall that while Shri Krishna Bhagwaan had fought on the side of Pandavas, his army had fought with the Kauravas - this story is probably for another post).

These widows were being escorted from Dwarka (modern day Gujarat) to Hastinapur (in North India) and the attack happened in/around modern-day Jhabua (which is Bheel Pradesh). Also Arjun failed to protect the widows not because he could not use his Gaandiv but he actually “forgot” the mantras.

This “dohaa” has been ascribed to Kabir:

Manushya bali hout nahi;�Samay hout balvAn
Bhillan luti gopikA;�Wahi�Arjun wahi baan

Another version:

Manushya kadi balwaan nahi; Samaya sab se balwaan
Kaabe Arjuna lutiyo; Wahi dhanush wahi baan

And the version I had heard before (thanks to my wife):

Purush bali nahin hout hai; Samay hout balwaan
Bheel gopiyan bhagaye lae; Wahi Arjun, wahi baan

* Note that the association of “Bheels” (or “Bhils”) with the gang of marauders is probably inaccurate and historically debatable. In spite of that this�mis-perception (Bheels = Marauders, Thugs, Looters) is widely prevalent - both in the minds of the public as well as the media e.g.: “Our community (the Bhils) is famous for robberies“.

The causes of this association probably lie in the history of past 200-odd years. E.g.�see this fascinating extract from the official Gazette of Jalgaon in Maharashtra from the period 1818-1947 and “Imperial Solution of a Colonial Problem: Bhils of Khandesh up to c. 1850″.

Find of the day: Royal Chronology and History of India�

Related Posts:

A Search for the Historical Krishna�

Mahabharata War - A Backdrop

July 18th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Indian History, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Spirituality & Philosophy | one comment

Our Kurukshetra is approaching fast

For many of us, the government’s craven capitulation on the�Amarnath issue was less of a surprise and more of a denouement of something�we had feared�all along…i.e. our political leadership can no longer be trusted to look after India’s national interest.

Parama Karuna-ji summed it up neatly in one of her posts on a Yahoo! group:

I understand your point…I (we) have been trying my (our)�best to be as diplomatic as possible, for many years.� My point is that I think we don�t have much time left now.

Our task today is not to convince lukewarm people - not any more.
Our task now is to sort people out for two camps - the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Our Kuruksetra is approaching fast.� When the conch shells start blowing on the battlefield, it means the time for diplomacy is over.

As Winston Churchill said on November 12, 1936: �The Era of Procrastination, of Half-Measures, of Soothing and Baffling Expedients, of Delays, is coming to its close.� In its place, we are entering a Period of Consequences.�

Kashmir looks like it may be slipping away from the Union…but if we do nothing, Kashmir is just the beginning…

Think of Assam and West Bengal…Think of Ladakh…Think of Nagaland…and Arunachal…Today, a spineless, power hungry leadership has the potential to undo all that our freedom fighters fought for…and to extinguish all the values we cherish…If we stay mute, we will be silent accomplices to this act of destruction…

Let us remember the sacrifices that were made to attain what we have today…and the enormous price we�pay�to maintain our freedom and dignity…All of this must not go in vain.

The time to do “something” is now…it is here…I recall what I wrote a few years ago: “Touch someone, somewhere � please try and make a difference. This is the time when inaction is not an option and indifference will be suicidal.”

Related Links and Posts:

No land for the Yatris - Government capitulates

The Online Petition re. Amarnath�

The Beginning��

�India Breaking� - Read this and Weep�

July 3rd, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Current Affairs, Jammu & Kashmir related, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History | 2 comments

How many “Hindus” would it take to change the demography of Kashmir?

Amidst all the violence and “protests” around the issue of transfer of 40 hectares of land to Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB), I noticed two�questions that appear to have gone unanswered.

The first question…and this is really the elephant in the room, is, “How many “Hindus” would it take to change the demography of Kashmir?

It is important to consider this question as this is what seems to upset most Kashmiris. To wit:

…President of Action Committee Against Land Transfer (ACALT) and former Kashmir Bar Association President, Mian Abdul Qayoom…termed the (SASB) decision as a conspiracy to change the demography of occupied Kashmir [ link ]

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chairperson of the hard-line Hurriyat faction, has been�quoted as saying, “Transfer of forestland to SASB is a conspiracy to change the demography of the Valley. We will not allow this ploy to succeed,”

Let us look at some numbers.

According to 2001 Census of India, �the population of�Jammu and Kashmir was just over 10m of which�6.8m (66.97%) were Muslims; Hindus were just over 3m�(29.63%) -�note that the % Muslim population has increased since the last census�in 1981 and the proportion of Hindus has decreased (at�least�partly due to migration);�According to the 1981 census, Muslims accounted for 64.19%� and�Hindus were at 32.24%.

However, this distribution hides the skewed demographics in the “Valley”. In Kashmir (Valley), the proportion of�Muslims is generally accepted to be�~ 95% (e.g. see here),�possibly more.�

The 1981 census put the Pandits’ number (in� the Valley) at a little over 124,000 in a total population of 3.1 million (It should be noted that between 1941 and 1981, the Pandit population declined from 15% to just under 5% while the Muslim population grew from 83% to 95%.�The Hindu population in the Valley today is certainly lower than the 1981 number while the Muslim population has grown. According to this report, “…of the estimated 200,000 Hindus, known as Pandits, who lived in the Kashmir Valley…only some 10,000 remain.”�

Against this backdrop, is it�not a joke�to talk about the land allotment to SASB being an attempt�to change the “demographics” of Kashmir - and to reduce Muslims to a minority?

Or am I missing something?

To change the demographics of the Valley, the entire Hindu population in Kashmir will have to move to the Valley and then some…even then, they may be short of a few lakhs, in numbers…

Why does not anyone expose the specious argument?

***

The second question is who exactly are the environmental critics or “local environmentalists” who are�opposing the transfer on ecological�grounds?

E.g. “Critics say building �permanent� structures at base camps of the pilgrimage will ruin the fragile ecology of the mountainous region…” and “…Local environmentalists protested against the decision and local politicians joined them in opposing the issue…”

I did not find a single “expert” being named in any of the tens of news-reports…

It needs to be mentioned that the one department in the government that you would expect to have raised objections on environmental grounds - the Forest Department - has actually approved the proposal.

Specifically, “the matter was examined in the forest department at various levels and was finally submitted to the minister by the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department recommending that the proposal be approved.”�[�link ]

Am I the only one here�with the feeling something is not quite right?

Related Posts:

Specious Arguments and False Propoganda�

More on Muslim Population Growth in India��

Some startling stats from the eastern front��

P.S. As many of you would know, Kashmir’s association with Hinduism goes back through the ages…The name itself is�said to be derived from Kashyapa, one of the seven Saptarishis…and Kashmir is home to some of the holiest shrines in Hinduism…Amarnath, of course but also Kheer Bhawani,�Shankaracharya Mandir, Hari Parbat etc…

Eminent Kashmiris (from the ancient�past) are said to�include�Abhinavagupta, Kalhana and Charaka (and possibly Kalidasa). More here.

Also recommended:�Amarnath exposes Kashmir Faultlines�(from�Offtsumped)�

June 28th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Enviroment Related, Jammu & Kashmir related, Muslim Population in India, Politics and Governance in India, Politics of Minority Appeasement, Post Independence History | 5 comments

Crisis in Darfur - Who will bell the cat?

French philosopher Bernard-Henri L�vy on the�crisis in�Darfur�quoted in�Guernica, June 2008:

…I was there (in Darfur)…just one year ago nearly to the day, smuggling myself across the border with Chad, crossing 500, 600 kilometers of a devastated Darfur. And I must say what I saw then, what I experienced there never left my mind and my heart since. I was deeply shocked in the most intense sense of the word by this experience, even if I lived many others in my life since my youth in Bangladesh, in Pakistan. What I saw in Darfur in a way bypassed, overwhelmed a lot of things which I experienced before.

I would like to sum up the conclusion I did draw from this journey. My first conclusion was and still is that we should stop speaking of the crisis of Darfur or even the war in Darfur. It is not a crisis. It is not a war. A war presupposes of course a frontline, presupposes organized battles, and presupposes, even more, two real armies. It is not a war between two armies. It is a war by an army against civilian populations. It is not a civil war, it is a war against civilians.

…My second conclusion, which I drew from this journey, is that we should get rid of at least … part of the myth of the Janjaweed. There are a lot of big stories about the Janjaweed, these horsemen of the devil, ill-equipped themselves, arriving in the villages burning the huts, spreading fear, like in the Middle Ages. What I saw is not exactly that. I saw huge holes in the ground, craters from bombs which were the result of a bombing…This is not Janjaweed. This is a real bomber. What everybody told me is that these Janjaweed when they arrive, generally in lorries, in trucks, they are commanded by people in uniforms or have uniforms that happen to belong to the Sudanese Army.

…Another thing which I never saw to this extent (and which makes the polemic about genocide completely outrageous and frivolous) is the impossibility of giving the real number of dead. Nobody knows if it is 200,000 dead, the number which has been given on and on for years, if it is, which is my evaluation, closer to 300,000 or 350,000; some human rights organizations�serious ones�say 400,000, maybe 500,000. From 200,000 to 500,000�nobody being able to decide which is the right figure? Which means that there might be in Darfur hundreds of thousands of children, women, men, raped, killed, burnt without any memory, without any inscription anywhere, without graves, without a face, without a name, without a number.

The question now is to know why. My last, or nearly last remark: why? And why is the international community so passive? For more than 4 years [facing] this situation, why this passivity? Why this inability to [make] decisions or, when they are made, to make them respected? Of course, there are some obvious reasons: the regime in Khartoum, the regime of murderers has some oil.

…You have also the reason (which is true) that the Khartoum regime managed to make the Western countries, and especially America, believe that they had a card to play, they�Khartoum�in the war against terrorism.

…And to end, what can we do facing that? Facing this devastation? Facing this uncomparable mass murder?

First of all, of course to try to make it visible…

Number two: we can and we should, and it is possible, to ask for real sanctions on the state of Sudan, despite the oil…

…And last but not least, there is one weapon which we have pleaded for, Mia Farrow in America and myself in Europe, for months and months. There is one actor in this terrible game, who has huge power, and can do a lot if it wants. This actor is China.

…China provides the weapons. China buys a big portion of the oil. China protects the Sudanese regime in the Security Council of the United Nations.

So the real pressure, the most efficient pressure should be and is still today the pressure on China.

And we have a tool, as you know, on China. We have a real weapon, which would prove to be very efficient if we tried. It has been tried for a few days about Tibet. It has already given results: the resuming of the dialogue with the Dalai Lama. It should be implemented [against] the Darfur tragedy, [and it] is the weapon of a boycott of the Olympic Games. …If we accept going to Beijing for the games, it will be�like in Berlin in 1936�games of blood and shame.

…all this should prevent us from saying that we are impotent, unable, that there is nothing to do. There is a lot to do to save what is still savable in Darfur.

Here are some shocking photographs of the tragedy.

The question is who will bell the cat?

Related Posts:

China�s investments and expansion in Africa��

India and China: Apples and Oranges�

P.S. As many of you would know, China’s role in Sudan is well documented and its critics range from the George Clooney to Steven Spielberg…

June 27th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), Global Terrorism, Politics and Governance | one comment