India needs a common civil code rooted in reason, not sentiment – Mohan Guruswamy

People of India

Mohan Guruswamy“If a common set of laws for inheritance, marriage, divorce, custody, adoption and guardianship were to be framed with a special emphasis on gender equality, which neither resembled any existing personal law nor sought to impose any one personal law on the rest, it would simply be a common and secular civil code. Such a common and secular civil code, while not interfering with any of the rituals and many practices of the various religious and caste groups, would seek to merely legitimise the larger precepts of law that are being made secular.” – Mohan Guruswamy

Supreme Court of India in New DelhiThe Supreme Court on [October 12th] gave the Union government three weeks to come up with a proposal to amend the Christian divorce act while asking it to take a quick decision on a uniform civil code to end the confusion over personal laws.

“If you want to have a uniform civil code, have it. If you want to follow the uniform civil code, follow it. But you must take a decision soon,” a bench headed by justice Vikramjit Sen told solicitor general Ranjit Kumar.

We have a National Democratic Alliance government, and with the Bharatiya Janata Party alone having a majority in the Lok Sabha with 282 seats, the excuse for shelving the discussion for a Common Civil Code has evaporated. The BJP manifesto had promised to deliver on this issue. It’s time for a debate once again. It’s time that we are no longer separated by law.

Relevant laws

The cornerstone of a democratic society is equality. Without equality, there can be no justice, just as without justice there can be no equality. True justice cannot be based on unjust laws, though it is possible to have a law-abiding society with the most unjust laws in place.

Just laws are a pre-requisite for a democratic society and, therefore, a just and orderly society. The concept of justice also changes with the dynamics of the times. Laws evolved and deemed sacred in more primitive times cannot continue to be considered so, if they do not satisfy the conditionalities of the doctrine of equality.

On this, the tallest philosopher of our times, John Rawls, wrote: “Laws and institutions on matter, however efficient and well arranged, must be reformed, or, abolished if they are unjust.”

In his celebrated work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls said that every person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. As such, justice denies that this loss of freedom for a few is made right by a greater good shared by others.

It does not allow that the sacrifice imposed on a few is outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore, it follows that in a just society, the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled. The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.

Favouring personal laws

Much of the legal argument by those still in favour of the existing system of separate personal laws on the basis of religion and custom derive from the premise that personal laws are part and parcel of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. This is despite the fact that Clause 2 of the same article specifically saves secular activities associated with religious practices from the guarantee of religious freedom.

Even so, personal laws are not laws under Article 13, and, therefore, do not have to conform to fundamental rights and the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14.

But if personal laws were tested against the doctrine of equality under law, it will be found that a large number of them are unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. It is this issue the Supreme Court addressed in the matter of Father John Vallamattom, when the Chief Justice ruled: “we find section 118 of the Act being unreasonable, is arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Choosing reason

Most of those who oppose a common civil code do so on the grounds that this is not the time as the minorities, especially the Muslim community, spoken for by its self-declared leadership, are not ready for it.

A “theological” argument has also been advanced, that these existing laws are God-given and, therefore, cannot be tampered with. The rationality of such an argument, and of the persons who advance them, do not deserve any serious attention in this day and age. This is the same logic that wants us to suspend reason and believe that a particular God was born at a particular spot just because it is commonly believed to be so.

All laws, even the eternal ones, are man-made and reflect the level of thinking and advancement of human knowledge and civilisation at that moment of time. If we have to accept what lawgivers such as Manu evolved in the period before the Gupta Empire or in medieval Arabia as sacrosanct, then we will forever be condemned to be governed by archaic, unequal and unjust laws. In the age of reason, the demand that people obey laws must be rooted in reason and not sentiment.

Destabilise to modernise

The task of modernisation entails the destabilisation of many institutions. Our founding fathers, Hindus and Muslims alike, in the process of seeking to modernise India, had destabilised and uprooted many traditional institutions. They destabilised the manner in which much of Hindu society was organised. They destabilised the hierarchy of castes. They also outlawed many discriminatory practices, apparently ordained by Hindu religion and custom.

The traditional objections of a uniform civil code hark back to the argument posed when the matter was debated in the Constituent Assembly. The two main objections then were that it would infringe on the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25, and that it would constitute tyranny of the majority.

The first objection is misconceived because the directive in Article 44 does not infringe the religious practices as stated under Article 25. As stated earlier, secular activities associated with religious practices are specifically saved from the guarantee of religious freedom.

Finding common ground

The second objection would be valid, if the laws of one community were made incumbent on the rest. However, if a common set of laws for inheritance, marriage, divorce, custody, adoption and guardianship were to be framed with a special emphasis on gender equality, which neither resembled any existing personal law nor sought to impose any one personal law on the rest, it would simply be a common and secular civil code.

Such a common and secular civil code, while not interfering with any of the rituals and many practices of the various religious and caste groups, would seek to merely legitimise the larger precepts of law that are being made secular.

For instance, a Hindu from Kerala may marry his niece under the Marumakkathyam Law, whereas it would be decreed as a voidable marriage for a Mitakshara Hindu. Under a common and secular civil code, the validity of a marriage would begin with the age of consent and end with a legitimate registration or certification by any authorised person or body such as a priest or locally elected officials or even traditional village elders.

By applying the doctrine of equality, all grounds of divorce, like adultery, desertion and cruelty, will be equally available to husband and wife. Thus, if a concealed pregnancy by another man before marriage is a ground, so will the concealed pregnancy of another woman by the man. If bigamy is to be a ground for divorce, so will polyandry. Naturally, divorce by mutual consent will be allowed to the husband and the wife jointly.

Doctrine of equality

A common and secular civil code will also then address the issues that make marriages void or voidable in a uniform manner. A void marriage is one that in law does not exist. A voidable marriage is one that exists legally, and can only be annulled by a court of law.

When the equality doctrine prevails, it will entail that in matters of maintenance and alimony, it will become the duty of the spouse with the greater or only income to maintain the other. A similar application of the doctrine on the questions of inheritance, maintenance of children, custody and guardianship and adoption will result in a dramatically different and more egalitarian social scenario.

It is this more equal society that all religious conservatives fear most. Unfortunately, the political parties that profess to be secular and those who profess to oppose pseudo-secularism pander equally to conservatives the most. That seems to be the real problem. –, 17 October 2015

» Mohan Guruswamy is Chairman, Centre for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi.

Indian army signpost in the Himalayas

All hail the Prince of Wail, who made sure neither Parliament nor Pretender prevail – Sharmila Kamat

Narendra Modi & Rahul Gandhi

The lead players in this soap-operatic show
are a mother, a son, and their mortal foe.
That there is bad blood between them is not new.
It goes back to what occurred in 2002.
Since then, it was clear as ice
that Momma and Rival were not ready to make nice.
In the polls that followed this animus gave voice
to ‘merchant of death’ as the slander of choice.

Rival held firm even as his party lost steam
to a competing alliance where la famiglia ruled supreme.
In the decade that Momma held fort,
every effort was made to drag the pretender to court.
With the challenger entangled in cases galore,
son found little need to mind the store.
His yen for vacations gave him wings
while Momma deftly worked the puppeteer strings.

In last year’s elections, the tables were turned
as Rival came up tops while Mom and son were spurned.
With the poison of power a chalice too far,
son fled the arena for some much-needed R&R.
Momma, meanwhile, clung to her chair,
stalling all counsel to offload the heir.

Sabbatical over, unsullied by blame,
son left Destination Unknown his legacy to claim.
“It’s time,” he told Momma, “that you move away.
This is now my team, my game, my style of play.
‘Yes, perhaps, maybe,’ is no way to go.
Now every request will get a ‘No! No! No!’

“We will showcase this trait
as they begin to legislate.
Our ranks may be depleted, no states have been won.
Still, in sheer cussedness, we will be second to none.
If the gridlock causes the GDP numbers to tank,
you taught us this gag, we have you to thank.
If the public frowns at us folk—
you cannot make an omelette without spilling some yolk.

“They stormed the well, we will collar the floor.
They wasted two sessions, we will double the score.
The Land Bill is ravaged, GST is toast.
Want more proof, bhaiyya, whose writ runs the most?”

Son’s speechwriter was tasked with the Herculean chore
to draft a speech that is read with ease but appears extempore.
Since Devanagari was Greek,
Roman was chosen as sleek.
A volley of jibes was held as reserve
to counter the digs his foes would serve.

Parliament is done.
Legislation is frozen courtesy an unyielding son.
He spells it out lo, “For movement to show:
three scalps must go.
Borrowing a line from a Broadway revue—
You put in your papers for Mama, Mama will put out your Bills for you.”

Sacrifices, there will be none.
An immovable challenger stares down an inflexible son.
Meanwhile, the nation wonders what it will take
for the clear stream of reason to bypass Obstinacy Lake.

Source : The Times of India, 18 August 2015
» Sharmila Kamat is an astrophysicist and an author. She has taught in India and the US and written for numerous scientific and popular media .

Sharmila Kamat

Verdict 2014: Awakening of Bharat’s Kundalini – Virendra Parekh

Narendra Modi to be India's PM

Virendra Parekh“Narendra Modi … stands for everything that the establishment detests and abhors. He is a Hindu, a nationalist and is neither ashamed nor afraid of acknowledging it. His modest family background endears him to the masses even as it puts off the likes of Salman Khurshid and Mani Shankar Aiyar. Unlike Vajpayee and Advani, he is not craving for respectability among sworn enemies of Hinduism by bending to win their approval. His style is not to confront the adversary, but make him irrelevant.” –  Virendra Parekh 

Bharat MataThe nation has spoken. And how! Election 2014 will go down as a watershed in India’s history. It marks the awakening of Bharatvarsh’s Kundalini. This ancient nation is casting off its stupor, as it were, and rising to regain its lost glory. As in the case of yogic sādhanā, the path ahead is anything but smooth; it is strewn with thorns, pitfalls and alluring distractions. However, the awakened life-forceprāńashakti—can overcome it all.

We can expect not just transfer of power, but transformation of the state. The election verdict marks the first decisive step towards dismantling of the Nehruvian political order that has dominated our public life since Independence. Its consequences will keep unfolding for months, years and decades. While its immediate effects will be felt in the economy and politics, the more lasting changes will be felt in the social realm. The perceptions, relations and power equations among castes—forward, backward and Dalits—and between Hindus and non-Hindus will change materially and we shall see a more cohesive and integrated society.

The emergence of Narendra Modi as a colossus on the national scene is the first takeaway of this election. He has conquered through fierce fight every inch of the political space he occupies. He has displayed extraordinary sense of purpose, determination, stamina and political acumen. In a long and arduous campaign that he took him to every corner of the country, he established a rapport with every section of the society.

Narendra Modi to be India's Prime MinisterNarendra Modi symbolizes change with a capital C. He stands for everything that the establishment detests and abhors. He is a Hindu, a nationalist and is neither ashamed nor afraid of acknowledging it. His modest family background endears him to the masses even as it puts off the likes of Salman Khurshid and Mani Shankar Aiyar. Unlike Vajpayee and Advani, he is not craving for respectability among sworn enemies of Hinduism by bending to win their approval. His style is not to confront the adversary, but make him irrelevant. He is incorruptible; he suffers no fools, tolerates no non-sense and can call a spade bloody shovel. Among the courtiers of Delhi Durbar, strongly interlinked by favours received and returned, Modi is the ultimate outsider. He is not beholden to anyone for any favours, and is likely to play with a straight bat in dealing with ‘practical’ people used to bending rules, bypassing laws and manipulating others to have their way. In short, Modi is the Man of the Hour for a country yearning for change.

Secondly, the political dynasty founded by Motilal Nehru is facing terminal and irreversible decline. The halo around Sonia Gandhi has given way to dark clouds of suspicion. Both her children have been shown up for what they are: semi-literate, arrogant, ignorant brats. All the three suffer from an entitlement syndrome and have nothing to offer the people except empty pro-poor rhetoric and fairy tales of family ‘sacrifices’. Priyanka Vadra blindly apes Indira Gandhi in her style and mannerisms, without realizing that Indira has become an anachronism today. Indira had infinite faith in the stupidity and gullibility of Indian villagers, but they have become smarter by now; and the young generation has no patience with non-performing dynasties.

Thirdly, this is a vote for political stability. Unaligned regional satraps from J & K to West Bengal, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were salivating at the prospect of milking the new government in return for their support. They are left high and dry, for their services will not be needed. Even NDA allies will not be able to pressurize Modi as they did Vajpayee. Modi is no accidental prime minister, and BJP has numbers to act independently of its allies. The decimation of the Leftist parties is in itself a cause for celebration.

Last, but not the least, the secular-communal divide artificially created to isolate the BJP and garner Muslim vote will become irrelevant. Modi has broken the power of Muslim vote–or veto–by demonstrating the power of the Hindu vote. He has shown that a Hindu leader can come to power without wooing Muslims as Muslims, provided he wins over enough number of Hindus.

This should be no reason for Muslims to panic. For decades, secularist parties have scared Muslims into voting for them by conjuring up terrifying scenarios of Muslims being butchered, women being raped, mosques being destroyed and so on in case BJP ever came to power. Muslims cooperated in this con game because it enabled them to exercise political influence far disproportionate to their numbers. They acquired a veto on certifying who was secular and “fit and proper” to rule the country. That trick was tried this time too.

Modi’s response to this scaremongering was benign neglect, studied indifference. He refused to court Muslims as Muslims. He steadfastly refused to single out castes, communities and religious groups in his addresses. Instead, he sought support of all the 125 crore Indians including Muslims for growth and development that will benefit all Indians, including Muslims. He made no specific promises nor held out any threat to any community. Elsewhere in the world, this conscious refusal to appease religious groups for political support would be regarded as secularism. In India, it is proof of communalism! That should tell non-Indians something about what passes for secularism in this country.

Modi succeeded because Hindus who are genuinely secular by nature trusted him and decided to give him a chance. Modi’s strategy offers a refreshing contrast to Vajpayee and Advani. Both of them went out of their way in wooing Muslims to win acceptability in secular establishment. Modi made secularists’ certificates irrelevant.

He dealt with casteism in a similar manner, by promising policies and measures that will benefit all, cutting across caste lines. His record in Gujarat clinched the issue. Naturally, he was reviled by leaders who have made careers and fortunes by dividing people on caste and communal lines. His glorious success inspires the hope that the divisive politics of caste and community will soon become irrelevant.

The top priority of the new government would be the economy. Modi fought the election on the twin planks of change and development. He promised change from the corrupt, insensitive and incompetent regime unleashed by the UPA.

But it is not a purely negative vote. The verdict is for development: for faster growth, creation of jobs, control of inflation. The new government will have its hands full. The UPA has metaphorically handed it a house on fire. Nor should it expect any comfort from the enemies—local or foreign. As Radha Rajan has pointed out, communal riots, student unrest, insurgencies, disruptive AAP-like movements, jihadi terror attacks, tensions along national borders, bringing the national currency under tremendous pressure—everything will be tried to distract and derail Modi.

But then this election has released positive energies of a giant nation. Mr. Modi has the backing of all right thinking Indians. The stock market has shown that investors are willing to put their money where their mouth is. A vast array of technocrats is willing to offer their expertise to tackle knotty problems. The young generation is raring to make its mark. It is the dawn that has come, as it must after every dark night. May 16, 2014 will be remembered as the second Independence Day.

» Virendra Parekh  is the Executive Editor of  Corporate India and lives in Mumbai. 

Narendra Modi receiving his mother's blessing.

Restore civility to political debate – M. N. Buch

M.N. Buch is the former chief secretary of Madhya Pradesh.“It is obvious that in this election there is no great ideological appeal made by any party. For example, the Left it not preaching dogmatic socialism and the Right is not making a case for laissez-faire capitalism. The centrist parties are not advocating Nehruvian socialism. Instead, we have a new election paradigm in which all means, the more foul the better, have become legitimate in the effort to gain power.” – Dr.  M. N. Buch

India Tricolour & Parliament HouseSoon after Independence, when the first general election took place, one could take pride in the fact that the level of political debate, whether during electioneering or in Parliament itself, was of a high order in which issues were discussed, policies criticised, suggestions for governance were made, the opposition was heard with respect but there was very little personal mudslinging. That is why a stalwart like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee or a gadfly like Ram Manohar Lohia could flay the government or even attack Jawaharlal Nehru, but with no rancour and no ill will. In fact even whilst being iconoclastic, which was the forte of Lohia, there was also a touch of humour and a degree of humility that took the sting out of even the most trenchant criticism. One actually went to election meetings to listen to our leaders and Parliament itself was a delight because during debate there was point and counterpoint, the airing of diametrically opposite views but in an understated manner and it was almost as if one was watching a well-matched bout of fencing in which the rules were strictly observed.

Indira Gandhi & Sanjay GandhiThat was then and this is now. In 1967, the rules of the game suddenly changed because the politics of purchase of power through bribing politicians to defect became a means of negating the choice of the electorate, with bribery bypassing the vote and turncoat politicians unseating governments and substituting new conglomerates in their place. Till 1967, power was a means of governing and promoting welfare. After 1967, power became a purchasable commodity. To purchase power one needed money and for that illegal sources had to be tapped. These sources demanded their pound of flesh, to give which one had to set aside rules, grant undue favours and promote what is today called crony capitalism. Power that is purchased has to be constantly repurchased if it is to be retained and, thus, the chain of corruption becomes both linear and unending. When service is no longer the goal of government and self-aggrandisement and wealth collection become the only objective then, for the purpose of elections, there are no rules of debate, honesty, fair play or even freedom of choice. This is a harsh reality we Indians now have to face and the sooner we do it the better.

Dia Mirza with Khar policemen after voting.Let us take the 2014 general elections. Has any Indian ever sat back and thought about the level to which we have reduced this country as proved by the fact that the elections have to be stretched over nine phases because elections can only be held under the shadow of the guns of policemen? Because we cannot possibly deploy millions of policemen simultaneously, we stagger our elections and move our forces all around the country to provide coverage to the constituencies going to polls. During the course of my service I have conducted several elections, including two general elections, and I have been an international observer of four elections in Sri Lanka, ranging from local government to provincial and national elections. Even in troubled Sri Lanka, elections were held simultaneously throughout the country and the general elections that I oversaw in my district were part of a one-day national poll. If proof is needed of law and order going haywire the nine-phase election cannot be bettered as evidence.

Ideology or Ideallery?Our Constitution mandates free and fair elections. It allows, in fact encourages, different political parties to present their ideology, broad policy framework, specific programmes and agenda of government. Ranging from the extreme left to the extreme right every party has the right to do this, subject only to the constraints prescribed by the Constitution, which means they have to acknowledge and adhere to the principle given in the preamble that India will be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Any party which advocates otherwise has no right to exist. The question, however, is that in appealing to the voters what, if any, are the parameters within which the parties are required to run their election campaign. It is obvious that in this election there is no great ideological appeal made by any party. For example, the Left it not preaching dogmatic socialism and the Right is not making a case for laissez-faire capitalism. The centrist parties are not advocating Nehruvian socialism. Instead, we have a new election paradigm in which all means, the more foul the better, have become legitimate in the effort to gain power.

WB CM Mamata BanerjeeThere is complete loss of political innocence and the entire political scenario has become one of just attacking one’s opponents, not for their policies or performance but on totally personal grounds. The new form of political debate is shrill, accusatory, perfectly comfortable with telling lies and happiest of all when heaping unprintable abuse on the opponent and accusing him or her of everything, including murder, sexual depravity and misbehaviour, corruption, even legitimacy of their birth. The new mantra is that under no circumstances tell the people what one has to offer them if one comes to power, because one has nothing to offer and in any case the electorate is treated as a kind of voting machine that can be milked. One is not sure if we shall ever see a replication of how Morarji Desai refused to victimise Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee took care of the comfort and honour of Sonia Gandhi. At times there was acrimony but no vendetta. Certainly, there was not the kind of churlishness exhibited by Mamata Banerjee towards the Left in West Bengal after she came to power.

What is worrisome is that the parties now seem to be engaged in promoting factors such as religion, caste, region, language and group animosities to promote the narrow interests of a party. One has already seen this translating Politics Destroys Civilityinto communal violence, undue emphasis on caste, senseless violence and weakening of the administration—these are the antithesis of government.

Part IV A of the Constitution gives the fundamental rights of the citizens, including the duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. Can this be achieved if the level of political debate is reduced to a public brawl? If democracy is to be saved and the Constitution respected it is absolutely vital to restore civility. Civility in debate and civilised debate leads to civilisation or a stage of development in human society which is socially, politically, culturally and technologically advanced. That is why if we are to ensure a corruption-free good government we need to restore to politics a standard of values and morality, we need to return to civilisational roots, we need to restore civility to debate. –  The New Indian Express, 25 April 2014

 » Dr. M. N. Buch, a former civil servant, is chairman, National Centre for Human Settlements and Environment, Bhopal; E-mail: buchnchse@yahoo.

Civility In Debate

War and the dissolution of India – Gautam Sen

Dr. Gautam Sen“A fresh and devastating political and military challenge to the Indian Union seems likely because deepening internal chaos is prompting foreign foes and friends alike to review their goals with regard to it. There have indeed been public discussions in China of the desirability of dealing with a pesky India before 2017. Political allies and well wishers cannot be relied on unconditionally since, with rare exceptions, they are usually fair weather companions.’ – Dr. Gautam Sen

British India in 1909 corresponded to the borders of the India of the Ramayana and Mahabharata.Predicting when a war will occur is a difficult task. It is the likelihood that nations prepare for and some circumstances make it more likely. Perfectly sane statesman, even great ones, have regularly erred in their estimate of the probability of war and even more often of its consequences and outcome.  The Great War of 1914-18, to which Europe unexpectedly succumbed, devastated it. And it also presaged the end of the mighty British Empire and especially its control over the jewel in its crown, India. The omniscient, all-knowing Joseph Stalin, the single most consequential individual in world history, almost lost his realm, despite assiduous preparations over more than decade for it, to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa.

A mixture of rage, spite and strategic calculation prompted the British to incite latent religious animosities that resulted in India’s blood soaked break up, the implications of which have not yet ended. India had rarely been a united political entity in history despite the vast reach of its shared culture and faith. Indeed only the wilfully blind will insist its present political configuration and geographical extent are an immutable and timeless reality. On the contrary, centralised control of the region has been in retreat for many centuries, rising and ebbing periodically. It shrank successively from its historic western borders in Afghanistan to the Punjab in the west and Bengal in the east after 1947. The ceiling of India’s greatest geographical magnitude, in terms of total territory, had been reached under British colonial rule and the extant subsequent phase possibly only a historical pause.

Pak-China NexusA fresh and devastating political and military challenge to the Indian Union seems likely because deepening internal chaos is prompting foreign foes and friends alike to review their goals with regard to it. There have indeed been public discussions in China of the desirability of dealing with a pesky India before 2017. Political allies and well wishers cannot be relied on unconditionally since, with rare exceptions, they are usually fair weather companions. Athens’ steadfast Plataean allies, who cheerfully chose political oblivion, slavery and death, are remembered with awe precisely because their courageous deed was remarkable.

India will also find itself alone if it fails to give a good account when the challenge of mortal combat is posed against it by the Sino-Pak alliance. The moment India seems unlikely to endure militarily in the face of the enemy others will make their peace with them to salvage their own geopolitical interests. It will begin the formal Sino-America concordat for condominium over Asia, the main loser being Japan, though all of Southeast Asia as well. If India fails to respond effectively in the battlefield that will nix any desire of outsiders to offer serious material assistance to influence its course because that ought to essentially come from India’s own efforts. They will be aghast, but cannot be realistically expected to enter the fray directly except at the margin, in order to sustain Indian resistance.

India's Political ClassThere are odd parallels between the fifth century BC Peloponnesian Wars and the Indo-Pak conflict, with India as the mightier Athens and Sparta the Islamic Ghazi State of Pakistan, whose sole raison d’etre is warfare. The Spartans finally defeated Athens with Persian help, which enabled them to outclass formidable Athenian sea power. The vast Persian Empire may be compared to modern China, taking advantage of the local Indo-Pak rivalry. Athens sued for peace when its fleet was decimated in the Second Peloponnesian War. The Delian League, akin to Federal India in some respects, led by Athens, dissolved. Athens itself was cut down to size politically, territorially and conceded primacy to Sparta, a fearsomely militarized entity. It may be noted that not an inconsiderable number of Greeks, akin to a significant segment of contemporary India’s treasonous intelligentsia, sided with Persia in their own life-and-death combat with Athens. Is this the fate that awaits India in a future encounter with the Sino-Pak alliance, while its vacuous political class engages in dim-witted parleys with both in the interim?

It would not be an exaggeration for an unbiased observer to suggest that the Indian State has all but ceased to function. Even some who sympathise with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty express dismayed agreement in private. The extent of the dysfunction of the Indian State apparatus and its bureaucracy is fully apparent to most and certainly to India’s enemies. It is being studied closely by them and specific policies, like land acquisition and arms contract investigations, that hamper Indian BureaucracyIndian’s industrial development and military modernization, are being influenced by their covert intervention through proxies. These pressure Indian politicians, held hostage by vote banks. In addition, vital decisions of State are emerging haphazardly, from what is effectively a royal court. Many conscientious officials are looking anxiously over their shoulders and reluctant to act for fear of a CVC inquiry on any decision.

India’s disgraceful National Advisory Council has proven an unmitigated disaster, allowing ignorant parlour chit-chat and prejudices to become State policy. Political and personal favourites, eager to gratify, though without any vestige of competence or expertise, have acquired ultimate say over policies. These are designed to please members of the first family, even as these villainous traitors promote their own interests and that of their families. It is also clear that members of the ruling family, engaged in sordid business malfeasance, are directly choosing everything from seats for Air India’s freshly inducted fleet and top Delhi police brass to university vice chancellors, senior bureaucrats and Indian ambassadors. Worst of all, the chief of the Indian army turns out to be a relative of the wife of the supreme Indian VVIP. She demanded his selection, precipitating a massive crisis of authority within the Indian army.

Under the present dispensation, there seems no chance that India will manage to engage the invading Sino-Pak hordes with the unprecedented courage and determination that halted the German army outside Moscow in 1942 and then thrashed them all the way to Berlin. Nor are preparations being mounted for a long and bitter struggle for India’s survival, likely Manmohan Singh & M.S. Ahluwaliaguaranteed to run out of even ordnance in no time. It would be stretching the imagination to expect the deputy chairman of India’s Planning Commission to reorganise India’s industrial assets for total war, with the unbelievable élan of the extraordinary Russian wartime planner, Nikolai A. Voznesensky.

This impending catastrophe will take the shape of simultaneous Chinese assaults along more than one point of the Sino-Indian LAC. Our incumbent National Security Adviser and External Affairs Minister will probably dismiss them all as mere kerfuffle because it is undemarcated, until, presumably, the fall of Tawang itself and worse! There will likely also be an airborne assault on Arunachal Pradesh and widespread surprise pre-emptive strikes on airfields, perhaps India losing much of its precious fighter assets before they scramble. All Pakistan needs to do, at the start of hostilities, is mobilise and tie up significant Indian military resources by threatening J&K and even Delhi. They would have been taken if in 1965, according to a senior Indian general, had it not been for General  J. N. Chaudhuri’s reforms after the 1962 Nehurvian debacle.

Pakistan will also wave its nuclear manhood, including its low yield battlefield member, to dissuade the Indian political leadership from taking the fight to the enemy pre-emptively, to free up military assets for use in the north. But the moment India is militarily exposed and prostrate in the aftermath of a successful Chinese assault, its leadership fleeing in disarray Pakistani & Chinese military training supposed safety, Pakistan will launch its own invasion of India. There are also apparently well developed plans that have been drawn up in Beijing to help Nepal regain territory it lost to British India in 1816 as a result of the Treaty of Sugauli and to which claims have been made recently. What will Bangladesh seek from India in this situation of unusual opportunity?

Their dreams may be easy to realise if a third of West Bengal’s population, much of it strategically placed in the city and Kolkata, decides to initiate a general uprising. They have already demonstrated a capacity to mobilise tens of thousands in the streets of Kolkata, when they violently protested the conviction of Pakistani collaborators in Bangladesh for war crimes recently. They brought the city to a halt and the government of West Bengal virtually went into hiding in terror at this display of brute force.

In any case, much of West Bengal’s Hindu intelligentsia always sought a united Bengal, even under the shariah jackboot, the aspiration of Sarat Bose and his overrated brother, Subhash. This was to be the Bose family Zamindari though they themselves would have been speedily consigned to the river Hooghly the moment an independent Islamic Bangladesh was established. It was Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and N. C. Chatterjee, the erstwhile Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath’s patriotic pater, who thwarted the nightmare though it begins to appear transient. The Punjab may be tempted to secede, with so many Sikhs convinced Hindu India is their real enemy. What of the rest of India is hard to conceive though its venally Punjabi Rebels?opportunistic politicians are scarcely able to engage in anything more than unbridled avarice on behalf of their own immediate family? The leaders of most of them organising to fight for the survival of the nation is a remote possibility though collaborating with invaders to secure temporary respite for themselves would be unsurprising. Many quasi autonomous enclaves that subsist blatantly deep within the Indian body politic already, including its India’s capital city and swathes of Kolkata, where official authority hardly prevails, may spread.

The question is can the Indian nation fight a long and bitter war, defeat from which would equal the fate of its people during the darkest days of Islamic subjugation. It certainly does not possess a political class that shows any signs it can join such a historic struggle. In addition, many of its most prominent politicians seem to harbour suspect foreign ideological loyalties, religious and political, and treasonously maintain ample assets abroad. Firing off BrahMos missiles at Chinese military assets and formations may not suffice to forestall disaster. Boots on the ground, proper equipment and skilled military leadership will remain indispensable. All of these were absent in 1962 and even during Kargil war the Bofors guns, which played a critical role in the conflict, quickly ran out of ammunition. Unfortunately, Nehru’s successors have largely turned out to be pure carpetbaggers, making him appear saintly despite his sheer mediocrity.

Gen. V.K. Singh (L), Defence Minister Antony & Lt-Gen. Bikram Singh (R)It is only now that India’s Defence Minister, whose principal qualification is unsparing loyalty to the ruling family, has taken cognisance of the need for reserves as well as additional forces, the two critical factors that Hitler grievously underestimated because his armies destroyed a huge portion of the regular Soviet forces in the first weeks of the invasion in June 1941. The Soviet people and their leadership were stunned and reeled, but found their feet and the necessary manpower to recover and embark on a defence without parallel in history. In India’s current state of administrative and political chaos, military uncertainty and lack of preparation, battlefield nuclear devices must be considered for deployment. It will send a chilling message to its tormentors that if there is to be an end to India its neighbours will end up joining it.

Whether the ongoing anarchy will find remedy after the 2014 Lok Sabha elections is hard to predict. India’s anointed heir is no Athenian Pericles, likely to stop the rot, though like him, descended from an elevated social background. Even the Athens Pericles ruled suffered dismemberment as a result of defeat in the Second Peloponnesian War. Nor is the immediate forebear from abroad of the anointed pretender a counterpart of the formidable Catherine of Russia, a German princess in origin. And it is hard to imagine India’s dismal incumbent CEO’s as Catherine’s efficient principal administrator, governor general, Grigori Potemkin! One visualizes the perfumed first family fleeing India, if not to an embassy in Delhi, to a Modi's youth support base is huge.salubrious retreat in Europe, the moment the first signs of India’s military collapse become evident.

Among India’s contemporary politicians, Narendra Modi alone seems to possess the ideological clarity, administrative competence and pure love of motherland that would inspire India’s millions to follow him to the gates of Hades, if the worst happened. He will need his Alexander Suvorov, but the only Indian solider of the past generation, Lt. General J.F.R. Jacob of Calcutta, worthy of the highest esteem is now past ninety, though without much honour in his own country. However, the moment of truth will soon arrive for Indians, who need to think long and hard about the future of their motherland. Clearly, the gods have intervened and chosen an avatar that has come into our midst from humble origins, but tempered like steel by hardy circumstance. Voting for Narendra Modi in 2014 and those who will allow him to function is the only choice.

» Dr. Gautam Sen is President, World Association of Hindu Academicians. He taught international political economy at the London School of Economics and Political Science for more than two decades.

Jihadi Justice + Inquisition Courts = Communal Justice Bill – N.S. Rajaram

Dr. N. S. Rajaram“This bill also makes it possible for any Hindu to be made a criminal merely on the complaint of a non-Hindu. This is how Islamic theology treats Kafirs. Even worse, only anti-Hindu evidence is admissible and none that can prove him innocent. This is how the Inquisition courts operated. It is no secret that Sonia’s NAC is a hotbed of anti-Hindu fanatics and her advisers include such rabid anti-nationals like Teesta Setalvad and Harsh Mander.” – Dr. N.S. Rajaram

Sonia Gandhi in ParlimentSonia Gandhi’s closeness with Jihadi groups

In spite of being in virtual control of the UPA Government for close to ten years, the public by and large is ignorant of Sonia Gandhi’s ideological position and even her loyalty and commitment to her adopted country. Many people, especially in so-called ‘nationalist’ groups believe or used to believe that she is a Vatican plant, installed to facilitate the conversion of India to Christianity. But a close examination shows that since entering politics by becoming Congress President, she and her followers have been friendly to Islamic outfits including terror groups.

Only in the last few months have the media raised the issue of her government’s softness towards terrorism, and its dangers to India’s national security. Emboldened by this softness, Islamists have taken advantage of it to draft a sinister law that holds Hindus alone to be guilty of communal violence by treating them as criminals regardless of evidence.

Before we get into the gist of that sinister bill, we may take a look at the latest terrorist outrage in Patna where the Indian Mujahideen (IM) operatives planted 18 bombs at Narendra Modi’s rally of which several exploded killing five and wounding several. Captured terrorists admitted their goal was to cause panic which they hoped would be catastrophic. But thanks to the volunteers and Sri Modi’s appeal to the crowd to remain calm, no panic ensued.

The question is who is this Indian Mujahideen? The strange story is that it began its life calling itself the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). It was banned by Vajpayee’s NDA Government immediately following the September 11 (9/11) bombings in the USA. Then things took a strange turn. Somehow SIMI got into the good books of Sonia Gandhi. Here are some forgotten facts.

Salman KhurshidIn her speech in Parliament in March 2002, and later in June 2002, Sonia attacked the NDA government for banning SIMI. Earlier in September 2001 itself, her party had opposed the ban. Thanks to Sonia’s defense, the Congress-led UPA Government had to allow the ban to lapse in September 2005. But the Supreme Court asked it to re-impose the ban in February 2006. Thus it allowed the terror outfit a free run for five months! Sonia Gandhi’s Congress-led Maharashtra government admitted that it was SIMI that masterminded the July train blast in Mumbai. It arrested over 200 SIMI activists. Yet, it was the Sonia-chosen president of the UP Congress Party, Salman Kurshid, now a cabinet minister, who was SIMI’s advocate in courts pleading for lifting its ban. It was Sonia herself who was the advocate for SIMI in Parliament.

After the third ban, and despite repeated attempts to have it lifted by UPA luminaries including Sonia Gandhi and Salman Kurshid, SIMI members went on to become part of the overtly terrorist and internationally banned Indian Mujahideen (IM). The Delhi Police stated that Fasih Mahmood played a key role in transforming SIMI into the terrorist outfit IM that was responsible for the Mumbai bombings, and most recently the bombings at the Narendra Modi rally in Patna. Read more at S. Gurumurthy’s Yet, Sonia defended them in Parliment.

This is still not the full story of Sonia and her family’s softness towards Islamist and even terrorist outfits. In November 2001, when the world was still recovering from the shock of the 9/11 attacks, Sonia Gandhi was asked to give a lecture at the Congress secretary Rahul Gandhi partied after Mumbai attack in 2008. CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGEBin Laden family-founded Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. In her talk titled Conflict and co-existence in our age, she essentially whitewashed Jihadi terrorism and even the still fresh 9/11 attacks by talking vaguely about ‘extremism and fundamentalism in all religions.’ The Telegraph of London called it a strongly pro-Muslim speech and more than half the audience walked out. Read an analysis of her speech here at N.S. Rajaram’s Sonia Gandhi’s Reluctant War on Terror.

This was in November 2001, less than two months after the 9/11 attacks. One has to wonder why the Bin laden family chose to invite Sonia Gandhi as a featured speaker other than for its propaganda value. After all she is not known to be an Islamic scholar. But somehow they sensed she could be made to take a pro-Islam stand and give a friendly turn by blaming some extremists for the 9/11 attacks and paint it as though Islam and Muslims had little to with it.

This is not an isolated case. Wikileaks has revealed that Rahul Gandhi told the U.S. Ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu organizations are a greater threat to peace and security than Jihadi organizations like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. He didn’t of course dare make such a statement in public, but surreptitiously at a dinner where the Ambassador was also present. Whatever the reason, it is undeniable that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi carry an extreme hatred towards Hindus and Hinduism while depending on the Hindu majority both for their security and prosperity. (It is unlikely that either of them will dispense with Hindu guards and ask the less dangerous Lashkar-e-Toiba for their personal security.)

Click image and read the Bill.Details of the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill

The latest manifestation of their anti-Hindu bigotry is the so-called Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill (PCTV). It institutionalizes anti-Hinduism. This legally indefensible and perverse bill makes Hindus criminals by definition. It borrows elements from Islamic theology of dividing the people into “us against the Kafirs.” Kafirs are lesser human beings who are criminals by definition because they are not Muslims. Since this is the assumption, any non-Hindu (Muslim or Christian) can bring a charge against any Hindu—without evidence and without revealing his or her identity!

This will be claimed to be done in the name of secularism—like the Shah Bano case and the Imrana outrage.

The complete details of the bill as drafted by Sonia Gandhi’s unconstitutional gang called the National Advisory Council (NAC) can be found at (download) or read (cached) . It is a complicated creation made nearly incomprehensible yet sinister in language, but here is the gist of this exercise in Hindu hatred:

1.  A Hindu against whom any Muslim/Christian/minority makes any Complaint shall be presumed in law to be guilty by Police & Courts till that Hindu proves his innocence (Sec 70, 71 & 73). Comment: He cannot prove his innocence as he is guilty by definition for being Hindu!

2. An accused Hindu shall have to be immediately arrested as all offences under this bill are non-bailable and cognizable (Sec 56). Comment: This is how the Inquisition courts operated in Europe.

3.  This law can be invoked only by a minority against Hindus. Comment: Since Hindus are Kafirs and only Kafirs can be guilty.

4. The accused Hindu shall not be informed as to who has complained against him (Sec 38) but the police has to inform the complainant about the progress of the case. Comment: This too is borrowed from the Inquisition. Only charges are made and heard, not who made the charge.

5. A minority is not required to give any evidence to support his complaints against Hindus (Kafirs) (Sec 70, 71 & 72). Comment: This again is a combination derived from Islamic theology and the Inquisition.

6. A Hindu refusing to do business with any minority shall be immediately arrested (Sec 3 (f) (i)). Taking advantage of such anti – Hindu laws, a minority can force a Hindu to sell /rent his property and even surrender his daughters to minorities. Comment: This takes us back to the days of medieval India where Hindus and their property including children could be confiscated by Muslims. This was so in the Ottoman Empire also where non-Muslim children were the property of the Muslim rulers.

7. A minority cannot be punished for making even false complaints/ statements against Hindus (Sec 40). Comment: This combines Islamic ‘justice’ and Inquisition courts. As Kafirs, Hindus are always guilty, while in an Inquisition the accuser is always right because the Pope is infallible.

Infidel / KafirDeadly implications

This means if this law is passed, it makes Kafir Hindus guilty and punishable simply because they are Hindus and some member of the ‘Group’ (non-Hindu) has a complaint! Many minority institutions including Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind are putting pressure on the Congress for passing this bill. Hence the Congress will try to pass this bill saliently to win the upcoming 2014 elections with the help of Muslim votes. Gulam Nabi Azad has said that the UPA Government is committed to passing this bill.

Further, this bill also makes it possible for any Hindu to be made a criminal merely on the complaint of a non-Hindu. This is how Islamic theology treats Kafirs. Even worse, only anti-Hindu evidence is admissible and none that can prove him innocent. This is how the Inquisition courts operated. It is no secret that Sonia’s NAC is a hotbed of anti-Hindu fanatics and her advisers include such rabid anti-nationals like Teesta Setalvad and Harsh Mander.

The goal seems to be to terrorize Hindus to be slaves in their own country. If passed, the PCTV bill makes it potentially a crime to be a Hindu. This will be the true legacy of Sonia Gandhi and her Congress party. – India Facts, 31 October 2013

 » Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician and historian who lives in Bangalore.



98% Indians want criminals out of parliament – N. Aditi

Crime and Politics in India

'Ashoka's' CapitalA vast majority of Indians, about 98 per cent, want criminals out of Parliament and Assemblies, says a national survey by global online campaign network,

The survey comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court rejecting the UPA Government’s review petition against its decision to bar convicted politicians from continuing in Parliament or State Assemblies.

Meanwhile, the Government has introduced a Bill in Parliament, seeking an amendment in the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill 2013, which, if passed, would overturn the apex court’s ruling.

According to the survey, conducted by Marketing & Development Research Associates and, covering 8,000 people across India, 96.6 per cent people thought that those convicted of serious crimes should not be allowed to govern the country.

In a press release, Avaaz said several public figures, including some Parliamentarians, such as Jay Panda of the Biju Janata Dal and Dinesh Trivedi of Trinamool Congress, were backing their campaign to keep criminals out Parliament and Assemblies.

The release quoted Panda as saying “Sitting MPs and MLAs ought not to be given benefits which are not available to the average citizen. This defies the equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.”

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha independent MP, has said,”Politicians who have been convicted of criminal offences have no place in Parliament.“

According to the Association of Democratic Reforms, in the 2009 general elections, there were 275 serious criminal cases pending against 76 of the people elected to the Lok Sabha. – The Hindu Business Line, 6 September 2013

  • Vote against corrupt politicians on