8 November, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Times Of India
07 November, 2010
Obama’s Indian Diwali
Tarun Vijay
The Obamas arrived on the auspicious occasion of Diwali. And Michelle stole our hearts with her simple 'Rang De Basanti' gesture. Welcome a most extraordinary couple that India loves to listen to. Since the day he gave his first speech, as Democratic presidential candidate from an elaborate, columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple, he has been my personal favourite, for the simple reason that he broke the arrogance of a racist electorate. My brother, a professor of IT at Michigan, would tell stories about Obama's simple demeanours, how once he helped a woman he did not know at airport with a hundred-dollar bill, how he was raised, his Muslim connection and his faith in American values. Obama's America, which shows how people of different ethnicities are becoming governors, gives hope to a world that thrives on diversity. Compare it to the BJP's slogan of "Justice to all, appeasement of none". This example shows how vote bank politics is not for the 21st-century India too.
I don't want him to give us grants, neither would I request him to do anything special for India. We will take care of our concerns, God willing and surely the day is not far when a strong Indian leadership will emerge matching the Indian people's strength and pride, replacing the present 'Khandaani Raj antics'. I love him for what he is and want him to serve the American cause sincerely, for which the American people have elected him, and help democracies and pluralism prosper, even at the cost of his re-election.
I am sure he has been briefed by his aides that Diwali means Rama's return to Ayodhya after the annihilation of the demons and the freeing of Janaki from the clutches of Ravana.
Will he be able to forge an alliance with Rama’s India to free Mother Earth from the clutches of terrorism? Does that form part of his American dream or his business in India?
No. He is here on an economic mission. Taking India together to fight terror may form part of his speech but doesn't form part of his immediate action plan. America fights the threats of terror on its own shoulders, using others as instruments to achieve American goals. They provide protection to the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, the Saudis, with marines and dollars and lavishly overfeed Pakistan's dictators to the delight of the Taliban. He is not obliged, quite legitimately, to bother himself the terror anxieties of others.
Still, as two great and functional democracies, India and the United States must be seen standing together and exuding confidence of a distinct world view, based on protecting pluralism and peoples’ will. His Mumbai visit and stay at the Taj, even if primarily guided by the death of unfortunate Americans in the 26/11 attack, helps India, and his statement on 26/11 has soothed Indian feelings. We must not confuse American interests with the Indian ones. And we can’t expect the US to fight an Indian war. As I had said earlier also, an Indian war needs Indian shoulders. Everything else will follow if we take this as our basic departure point for any negotiation. Take him as a Rhodes Scholar visiting an Indian university. He will speak words of wisdom and praise our culture. But his aides are different.
They should have taken Obama to the Akshardham temple in New Delhi, the most marvellous icon of a contemporary, upwardly mobile Indian’s spiritual dreams. No, that’s not on his list. He would like us to sign the CTBT, have no nuclear ambitions in spite of being encircled by two non-friendly nuclear powers. His list of business includes seeking greater market access for US companies in the retail and financial services sectors, and greater technology protection for energy companies.
White House economic aide Michael Froman said India was a "tremendous" market for the export of American goods and services. It was a source of investment back into the United States and together these could support the creation of American jobs. US exports have grown fourfold over the past seven years to hit $17 billion a year. Services exports have tripled in the same period to $10 billion a year. Indian companies supported 57,000 US jobs, the second-fastest growing investors in the United States.
As Kishore Biyani, CEO of India’s largest retailer, Future Group, says: "There are a lot of interdependencies in this globalized world, India can get a lot and India can give a lot.” But does India understand and does it have the will to ‘get a lot’ in an era when Indian entrepreneurship is resisted through Obama’s ‘Buffalo to Bangalore’ speeches and outsourcing is sought to be curtailed. Obama’s American interests must synchronize with India’s Indian interests. We will have to think twice before we say ‘yes’ to a surefire item on the American president’s economic agenda regarding the opening up of India’s much-vaunted retail sector, where the likes of Walmart are clamouring for freeing multibrand direct retail to foreign investors.
Hence when GK Pillai, the most famous Home Secretary we have ever had, reiterated for the 12th time that the US didn’t share information on Headley, he only exposed New Delhi’s actual position in Washington. Those who matter get their share of information and dollars without asking. Those who don’t are treated to mouthwatering dinners and seen off. It’s demeaning to see Indians asking for American help, complaining that the US should have done much more for us and demanding to have the US tell Pakistan to behave. Obama speaks from his strength and India must speak from her own power points. The help we receive from the US and especially from Israel in the form of intelligence inputs has to be deciphered and utilized professionally. Mumbai’s 26/11 exposed our own unpreparedness. In an era of an obliging media, it’s easily forgotten that the Congress was so shaken post-26/11 that it had to dismiss the home minister and the state’s chief minister. It had no answers to the agitating wives of Karkare and Kamte. The 26/11tragedy could become possible because police were less equipped, because there was no coordination between the intelligence agencies and the ground-level executioners and the supposed fighters. The neta-type use of the khaki, the paucity of bulletproof jackets and the poor quality of weapons and training remain significant factors that has nothing to do what the US administration did or didn’t do. In fact, hIndia has gone down in the world esteem rapidly under the present UPA governance. In this age and time, when the US chose a different path by electing Obama, leadership is still stuck in family fiefdoms and projecting a king overshadowing all the democratic norms and practices we boast of in Central Hall’s subsidized food mart. Our security priorities are mired in vote-bank politics and Kashmir’s fate is not guided by the unanimous resolution passed by the Indian parliament but by foreign policy considerations of a third country. Like a baby nation born out of the clutches of an Idi Amin, we are nauseatingly deep in the muddy waters of CWG and 2G spectrum corruption scandals and tolerating anti-national rhetoric in the national capital for superficial political gains with abysmally delayed milestones in infrastructure building. We are still in the middle of addressing basic issues like providing safe water to Indian villages and helping 40% of the population earn more than Rs 20 per day with a little bit of literacy too. That’s us today, talking to a US president with truckloads of request and complaints.
And we think we will be talking to Obama like the Chinese, with our heads held high on our shoulders?
Obama’s India visit shouldn’t be seen in the light of ‘not sharing Headley information’ or the reverses Democrats suffered on the eve of his departure for Mumbai. His first priority is the United States and he is trying to prove that he is as good and strong as Lincoln or Martin Luther King.
India was never his priority and will never be. He spoke in Cairo and his Assalamu Alaikum drew world attention. He went to China and his bending a bit too much drew flak back home. He is standing firm on his permission to build a mosque at Ground Zero. His foreign policy is in shatters and his Asian message is yet to be understood. He has great respect for India and its ancient wisdom that was shining in his first statement on this visit. But economy and strategy are different matters and here India gets his anxieties and a will to exploit our market. And also to use our region to increase his influence and have American interests protected in Central Asia and Islamic countries. So he will use Kashmir, Islamabad, and Kabul and so on. He will continue giving dollars and training to Pakistan’s Taliban in uniform, the devilish army, in spite of Indian worries and a democracy under threat from an avowedly Islamic state. He will never shut the American market for China, the biggest economic support for a one-party dictatorship of communists hungry for global supremacy.
Still, all said and done, of all the presidents of the United States, he stands out as one of the most elegant, transparent and honest leaders his country has ever produced. He is liked in India not because we think he will donate a few million dollars to us, but because Indians like men of character and wisdom, even if they fail electorally in public life and get defeated politically. His speeches reflect his mind and his heart. He is the CEO of the United States of America, hence that’s his first priority and if we do not get as much attention as China gets, he is not to be blamed. Ask your leaders in New Delhi what they did when China was building its military and economic strength.
Obama is disliked in a section in the US for racist reasons too and that factor also gets him our sympathies.
As a man of wisdom and straightforward heart that loves India, he is welcome. The rest is a ruthless race for business.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
case filed by youths against Geelani and Roy in New Delhi
Press Brief by Aditya Raj Kaul
28th October 2010
On October 21st, 2010 a group of separatists and their symathisersfrom all over the country took part in a seminar titled Azadi:The OnlyWay at LTG Auditorium, Copernicus Marg in the heart of nationalcapital. The contents of the said seminar were inflamatory in natureand instigated communal passions. Since it could harm communal harmonyin our country we had informed the local DCP Police in advance aboutthe event, who assured us action. Unfortunately, those who protestedagainst this communal anti-India gathering waving the tri-colour wereforcefully evicted out of the venue during the course of the seminar.
For last seven days we waited for the Government to take formalaction. The Ministry of Home Affairs has lately shown no keen interestto move ahead with the case. We therefore decided to move as privatecitizens who attended the said event to the Tilak Marg Police Stationto file a formal complaint. The concerned SHO has assured us enquiryinto our complaint and further action. We expect him to file an FIRover the complaint that he has accepted. If there is no action withinnext 72 hours, we'll use further legal rights available with us to getthe accused booked.
We were outraged to see anti-national elements abuse our nation. Weare dismayed by Government inaction into the case.
Case filed by Sushil Pandit - 9811111088.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Times Of India
23 October 2010
Mafiosi, their lies and a fake state
Tarun Vijay
Delhi witnessed a scene which would have been unimaginable in any other country with a governance that speaks for the land and its people. A person known as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, allegedly a known hawala racketeer and a backstabber Kashmiri who is a qualified Pakistani agent demanding "Azadi" from India, was allowed to speak at a meeting on "Azadi the only way". And the patriotic Indian protesters were arrested while the traitors were given law’s khaki protection.
Geelani, even by a modest definition, is a traitor who has no qualms about accepting Indian money for his medical treatment and getting Indian security for his life, and still abusing Indian democracy and people. He is the one who had more than a hundred Kashmiri youth killed by instigating them to pelt stones while his own kith and kin are enjoying foreign jaunts and a secure future abroad.
And lo and behold, this is what our home minister, P Chidambaram, said, "Geelani will be punished if sedition charges proved". He added that the proceedings of Thursday's seminar had been videographed and the footage was being checked to see if there was any violation of law in Geelani's speech at the seminar organized by sympathizers of Kashmiri separatists.
It’s like taking a picture of a caged jackal and sending it to wildlife experts to "have it examined" and figure out whether it’s a jackal or a rodent.
The seminar’s subject was clear. The organizers and the speakers were known anti-India schemers who abuse Indian democracy and guarantees of freedom of speech. The speeches made at the meeting were dismissive of the Indian state and insulted the spirit of the tricolour. In spite of the evident sedition, the Sonia-Rahul government has decided to go soft and further cause injury to the morale of those soldiers who have been sent to Kashmir by the state power to protect the Constitution and India’s integrity. Why should a soldier fight and die for such an enemy-friendly government? If the voices of sedition are to be allowed to spread venom against the armed forces and patriotic people of India and then the home minister, confused and much-maligned by the Sonia loyalists, issues such ridiculous statements that reflect his "mazboori" to placate the traitors, then at least the armed forces should be spared the humiliation of being the target of both the traitors and the rulers in the valley.
Except during the emergency, I have never seen such a terrified media and a fearful section of the opposition that feels scared to call the bluff of the ruling elite putting Indian security and morale of the forces at its lowest ebb. It was left for the fighting spirit of an opposition leader, Arun Jaitley, to come out with a statement that reflected the anguish of the Indian patriotic people. Where have all other leaders gone? Is the tricolor and its honour the responsibility of just one party? Can the rest can speak in favour of secessionists or maintain silence, looking for the right kind of vote-gathering opportunity? The professor who should have been sent to the gallows for conspiring against the Indian state is seen leading the attack on the nation’s integrity again, rather than feeling grateful to the democratic ironies of our society where the social secular sirens helped him to get a new lease of life.
Freedom of speech cannot be an absolute right etched in stone. Those who made use of this freedom in Delhi to assault the sentiments of millions of Indians do not give this right to anyone in their respective areas of influence. Geelani not only instigates his hired hoodlums to silence the other voices in the valley but is the main instigator to push Kashmir into the black alley of backwardness and Talibanism. He is, by any modest definition, a traitor, who has no qualms about accepting Indian money for his medical treatment and getting Indian security for his life and still abusing Indian democracy and the people.
Freedom of speech has limitations. Hence hate, secessionism and pornography do not constitute essential parts of the right to speak and write. As Stanley Fish puts it, "free speech, in short, is not an independent value but a political prize". No society has yet existed where speech has not been limited to some extent.
I must quote a few lines from the invitation that was circulated for the "Azadi" meeting. It said, "The happenings in Kashmir over the past few months need no retelling. The situation has deteriorated to extreme levels with unarmed civilians, mostly young teenagers, being killed by the Indian armed forces with impunity. The toll from June 11 has reached 109, with the numbers of injured, maimed, and blinded much more. Curfews, bullets, tear smoke have become a routine to suppress the peaceful democratic protests.
"It is important at this juncture to bring the attention towards the fact that the basic issue at hand regarding the Kashmir dispute is the Self-Determination of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, for which they have been steadfast and hence been the target of the repressive military machine of the Indian State. The people of Jammu & Kashmir are clear about the fact that what they want is Azadi, which they have time and again defined in coherent terms of letting them decide their own future.
"The latest people’s resistance — which forms part of recently launched ‘Quit Jammu & Kashmir Movement’ — needs to be viewed as a continuity of the Resistance movement (Tehreek) which the people of Kashmir have been sustaining for over six decades.
"The political dispute vis-a-vis Kashmir need not be confused with the superficial measures like the removal of AFSPA, human rights violations, other draconian acts, stopping of unlawful killings, torture, enforced disappearances, etc. Though all these things do exist and need to be stopped at any cost, they manifest only symptoms of a broader and deeper malaise — militarized governance used to maintain a military occupation of the region by the Indian state, through its armed forces, numbering at least 7,00,000."
Lies, absolute lies. You can talk to an honest enemy. You may have a dialogue with a secessionist who is sticking to his guns with some integrity and conviction. But how can you have a debate with a dishonest pleader?
Who are the people of Jammu & Kashmir waging this "Tehreek"? Is it true that "unarmed civilians" are being killed by the Indian armed forces? Or the violent and hateful stone pelters fell victim to Geelani’s instigations to attack Kashmir police, which is 95% Kashmiri Muslim? Why is the name of Indian armed forces being falsely dragged by these stone pelters' Delhi shields?
Aren't they playing the game of Pakistan by attacking the Indian armed forces, while everyone knows they are not at all at ground zero in the valley and all the active assignments of enforcing the law are being executed by J&K police or by CRPF, that too at the instructions of the state government, which is headed by Omar Abdullah, the "confused Indian and an uncertain Kashmiri" CM.
Who are these people, working as journalist in a mainline paper or dollar gatherer jugglers of words of an anglicized tribe to hold a brief for the "self-determination of the people of Jammu & Kashmir"? Do they know what constitutes J&K? Do they even know where Ladakh is? Do they know the patriotic people of Ladakh? And Jammu? And of the valley too? A small pro-Pakistan coterie of the Wahhabism, not more than 10% of the entire population of the state, is trying to grab the centre stage through violence and forcefully exiling its minority Hindu community. Why is this factor never discussed by or seen on the radar of "Azadi" seekers and their traitor friends in Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University?
Who is this Wazahat Habibullah, the backroom boy of the ruling family, speaking for the secessionists? Is he trying to repay some kind of a debt to his mentors?
India has fallen victim to a fake state - rulers who are taking the angst and patriotism for granted - inviting an unavoidable storm.
Mafiosi, their lies and a fake state
Tarun Vijay
Delhi witnessed a scene which would have been unimaginable in any other country with a governance that speaks for the land and its people. A person known as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, allegedly a known hawala racketeer and a backstabber Kashmiri who is a qualified Pakistani agent demanding "Azadi" from India, was allowed to speak at a meeting on "Azadi the only way". And the patriotic Indian protesters were arrested while the traitors were given law’s khaki protection.
Geelani, even by a modest definition, is a traitor who has no qualms about accepting Indian money for his medical treatment and getting Indian security for his life, and still abusing Indian democracy and people. He is the one who had more than a hundred Kashmiri youth killed by instigating them to pelt stones while his own kith and kin are enjoying foreign jaunts and a secure future abroad.
And lo and behold, this is what our home minister, P Chidambaram, said, "Geelani will be punished if sedition charges proved". He added that the proceedings of Thursday's seminar had been videographed and the footage was being checked to see if there was any violation of law in Geelani's speech at the seminar organized by sympathizers of Kashmiri separatists.
It’s like taking a picture of a caged jackal and sending it to wildlife experts to "have it examined" and figure out whether it’s a jackal or a rodent.
The seminar’s subject was clear. The organizers and the speakers were known anti-India schemers who abuse Indian democracy and guarantees of freedom of speech. The speeches made at the meeting were dismissive of the Indian state and insulted the spirit of the tricolour. In spite of the evident sedition, the Sonia-Rahul government has decided to go soft and further cause injury to the morale of those soldiers who have been sent to Kashmir by the state power to protect the Constitution and India’s integrity. Why should a soldier fight and die for such an enemy-friendly government? If the voices of sedition are to be allowed to spread venom against the armed forces and patriotic people of India and then the home minister, confused and much-maligned by the Sonia loyalists, issues such ridiculous statements that reflect his "mazboori" to placate the traitors, then at least the armed forces should be spared the humiliation of being the target of both the traitors and the rulers in the valley.
Except during the emergency, I have never seen such a terrified media and a fearful section of the opposition that feels scared to call the bluff of the ruling elite putting Indian security and morale of the forces at its lowest ebb. It was left for the fighting spirit of an opposition leader, Arun Jaitley, to come out with a statement that reflected the anguish of the Indian patriotic people. Where have all other leaders gone? Is the tricolor and its honour the responsibility of just one party? Can the rest can speak in favour of secessionists or maintain silence, looking for the right kind of vote-gathering opportunity? The professor who should have been sent to the gallows for conspiring against the Indian state is seen leading the attack on the nation’s integrity again, rather than feeling grateful to the democratic ironies of our society where the social secular sirens helped him to get a new lease of life.
Freedom of speech cannot be an absolute right etched in stone. Those who made use of this freedom in Delhi to assault the sentiments of millions of Indians do not give this right to anyone in their respective areas of influence. Geelani not only instigates his hired hoodlums to silence the other voices in the valley but is the main instigator to push Kashmir into the black alley of backwardness and Talibanism. He is, by any modest definition, a traitor, who has no qualms about accepting Indian money for his medical treatment and getting Indian security for his life and still abusing Indian democracy and the people.
Freedom of speech has limitations. Hence hate, secessionism and pornography do not constitute essential parts of the right to speak and write. As Stanley Fish puts it, "free speech, in short, is not an independent value but a political prize". No society has yet existed where speech has not been limited to some extent.
I must quote a few lines from the invitation that was circulated for the "Azadi" meeting. It said, "The happenings in Kashmir over the past few months need no retelling. The situation has deteriorated to extreme levels with unarmed civilians, mostly young teenagers, being killed by the Indian armed forces with impunity. The toll from June 11 has reached 109, with the numbers of injured, maimed, and blinded much more. Curfews, bullets, tear smoke have become a routine to suppress the peaceful democratic protests.
"It is important at this juncture to bring the attention towards the fact that the basic issue at hand regarding the Kashmir dispute is the Self-Determination of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, for which they have been steadfast and hence been the target of the repressive military machine of the Indian State. The people of Jammu & Kashmir are clear about the fact that what they want is Azadi, which they have time and again defined in coherent terms of letting them decide their own future.
"The latest people’s resistance — which forms part of recently launched ‘Quit Jammu & Kashmir Movement’ — needs to be viewed as a continuity of the Resistance movement (Tehreek) which the people of Kashmir have been sustaining for over six decades.
"The political dispute vis-a-vis Kashmir need not be confused with the superficial measures like the removal of AFSPA, human rights violations, other draconian acts, stopping of unlawful killings, torture, enforced disappearances, etc. Though all these things do exist and need to be stopped at any cost, they manifest only symptoms of a broader and deeper malaise — militarized governance used to maintain a military occupation of the region by the Indian state, through its armed forces, numbering at least 7,00,000."
Lies, absolute lies. You can talk to an honest enemy. You may have a dialogue with a secessionist who is sticking to his guns with some integrity and conviction. But how can you have a debate with a dishonest pleader?
Who are the people of Jammu & Kashmir waging this "Tehreek"? Is it true that "unarmed civilians" are being killed by the Indian armed forces? Or the violent and hateful stone pelters fell victim to Geelani’s instigations to attack Kashmir police, which is 95% Kashmiri Muslim? Why is the name of Indian armed forces being falsely dragged by these stone pelters' Delhi shields?
Aren't they playing the game of Pakistan by attacking the Indian armed forces, while everyone knows they are not at all at ground zero in the valley and all the active assignments of enforcing the law are being executed by J&K police or by CRPF, that too at the instructions of the state government, which is headed by Omar Abdullah, the "confused Indian and an uncertain Kashmiri" CM.
Who are these people, working as journalist in a mainline paper or dollar gatherer jugglers of words of an anglicized tribe to hold a brief for the "self-determination of the people of Jammu & Kashmir"? Do they know what constitutes J&K? Do they even know where Ladakh is? Do they know the patriotic people of Ladakh? And Jammu? And of the valley too? A small pro-Pakistan coterie of the Wahhabism, not more than 10% of the entire population of the state, is trying to grab the centre stage through violence and forcefully exiling its minority Hindu community. Why is this factor never discussed by or seen on the radar of "Azadi" seekers and their traitor friends in Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University?
Who is this Wazahat Habibullah, the backroom boy of the ruling family, speaking for the secessionists? Is he trying to repay some kind of a debt to his mentors?
India has fallen victim to a fake state - rulers who are taking the angst and patriotism for granted - inviting an unavoidable storm.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Harvard and the Indian Billionaires
by Rajiv Malhotra
Oct 15, 2010.
This morning, Times of India celebrates the headlines that, "Harvard gets biggest international donation in 102 yrs, from Tata Group." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Harvard-gets-biggest-international-donation-in-102-yrs-from-Tata-Group/articleshow/6752185.cms The timing on the eve of Obama's India visit has strategic importance. This whopping $50 million gift is part of a massive trend that deserves some thought, so here I go...
Many years ago, when RK Mishra (Dhirubhai Ambani's right-hand man) was alive, he and his wife stayed a weekend with me specifically to get briefed on what to do about Harvard's request for funding chairs there. I brought in 6 scholars who were part of my team studying the state of South Asian Studies in the west. The data we supplied were eye-openers for Mishra, as they had never been made aware of the anti-India tilts in places like Harvard. One talk I gave compared how harvard studies China with great respect, while India is seen through the human rights lens - caste, women's "oppresion", minority "oppression", etc... Others gave specific areas of biases as well - from Aryan theory on. The result was that Mishra went back and advised the Ambanis to NOT give Harvard a dollar, until they would make changes to their stance on India. China, I was able to show, gets treated as a serious civilization. One factor was that China studies is done largely in Mandarin while India is studied in English. Also, China regulates visas for western scholars such that it blacklists those it finds troubling, whereas India is open and welcomes everyone without supervision, and fails to do any analysis after the fact as to whats being produced. In fact, Indians find it a compliment when westerners study them, as though suffering from an inferiority complex of feeling left out. Finally, a key difference is that Indian intellectuals are heavily anti-India because of pseudo-secularism and marxism deeply entrenched in Indian intellectual circles, and most important Indian scholars are western trained and/or funded and/or craving to be in their good books for fame and prestige. Chinese do not suffer such complexes, which in India are the after-effects of colonization. This is because Gandhi got superseded by Nehru in defining the elitist Indian ethos. Gandhi was emphatic about his Indianness, whereas Nehru bragged to John Kenneth Galbraith that he was the "last white man to rule India."
This intervention by me through R.K. Mishra did put a temporary dampener on their crusade to dip into the pockets of rich Indians. It also put me on the hit list of harvard. I also ended Infinity foundation's annual sponsorship of the Indology Roundtable at Harvard which was my "listenind device" of what they were up to. As a follow up to this saga, my friend, JC Kapur in Delhi, called up the head of FICCI at the time, and told him point-blank to stop supporting Harvard's PR campaign with Indian industry for such funding. This too worked, and grudgingly the FICCI head at that time stopped opening doors for harvard in India. But the lure to become famous in harvard and dine with the who's who of white american establishment is too powerful for Indians to resist. The real "success" for most is when they are recognized by the west. This is what the west knows well, having studied Indian culture for centuries, and used precisely this knowledge to manage, control and topple one raja after another in the 17th and 18th centuries. Take the kids to Cambridge, play polo with them, have western women to flirt, etc. - so they can feel like admitted to the club as honorary whites in front of other Indians. After independence, the brits got replaced by the americans, hence the strategic importance of places like harvard.
Some years later, there came a call from a prominent Indian that Anand Mahindra was being roped in by Harvard, and he had given them office space in his Mumbai HQ. So I was set up for a persional one-on-one meeting with Anand Mahindra. He is a very decent, gentle, open-minded executive for sure. He listened to my frank talk. He was unaware of these issues which clearly bothered him. But he made clear that he owed a lot to harvard, as they had given him a scholarship to study there when his father had refused to support him go there. So it was payback time for him, nothing more. Not to worry, he said, because he was giving only very small sums of money, such as $20,000 at a time, and that too for Indian students to go there as scholars. He suggested that I write to him my objections concerning harvard, so he could pass it on, and make sure they change their approach. I also suggested to him that Indians who want to fund Harvard should fund their business school, which has become pro-India, but NOT the humanities which are the nexus of this "south Asian" nonsense. A few days later, at Mr. Mahindra's suggestion I had a brief phone chat with Harvard's Sugata Bose who was visiting India as harvard brand ambassador to raise funds. I have publicly criticized Sugata Bose for his writings that depict pre-Mughal India as uncivilized, his idea of colonial problems focusses only on British but exempts the islamic colonizers, and he sees de-colonization as the return to a unified south asia under quasi-islamic civilization (positioned as "secularism"). This, of course, his girlfriend and co-author, Ayesha Jalal, has very skillfully managed to make into the core curriculum on south asia at places such as Harvard. (Jalal while not on the Harvard faculty was on the committee of their South Asia program until I pointed this strange anomaly out, and then she suddenly left that visible spot.) Prof Bose was cordial and frank, and we agreed to continue to chat later - which never materialized. Bose also lashes out against his great grand-uncle, Subhash Chandra Bose, the freedom-fighter, portraying him as a fascist. Music to the ears of the harvard establishment. These folks bring in Kashmir separatists, Maoists, "abused Hindu women", Dalit activists, etc. routinely as the "voices of the real India." Anand Mahindra announced last month that he is donating $10 million to Harvard specifically designated for the Humanities.
About 5 years ago, my colleague at Infinity Foundation, Krishnan Ramaswamy, and I went to see Rajat Gupta (McKinsey) to meet privately for several hours. I raised the topic that before Indian philanthropists give funding to US unversities, people like Rajat should do "due diligence" on what a given program has produced, how it fits into the image of India that the philanthropist has. After all, no management consultant proposes an investment by his wealthy client in any venture without due diligence. It struck a chord with him. Then I pointed out that nobody other than me had attenpted any such arms-length critical study of South Asian Studies in USA. I mentioned that Chinese government and Chinese private donors do an annual report on the state of China Studies in the west, just like any industry analyst would do for an indistry, and this guides them where and how to invest. This gives them the basis for evaluating a given program and negotiating from a position of knowledge about what is what in the discipline. He was candid in confessing that he had not studied the south asia studies discipline to be able to tell me what went on in depth. But, he remarked in typical India style, he thinks the persons involved in such studies seem like "nice guys" and decent folks. I responded that in evaluating a business investment, the due dligence would not be based on whether the management team were "nice guys" or decent folks in their personal lives, but that it would look for hard-hitting data and evidence to evaluate. Had he or anyone else studied the writings of such departments over the past 50 years, to be able to evaluate what was going from the Indian point of view? The answer then reamins the same today - no, they have not!
In one meetng after another for 15 years, I have raised such issues. One example of such an article I wrote in 2003 is on Rediff.com, titled, "Does South Asia Studies undermine India?" (See: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/08rajiv.htm ) I have also proposed that India could use its own India Studies and even South Asian Studies based in Indian universities (as a way to study neighbouring countries with an India-centric lens). I have argued that the money used to fund one Harvard chair (at least $5 million) could fund a whole department of scholarship in India. The irony is that even those who claim to be patriotic, nationalists, including those being described as "Hindu nationalists," seem confused and mixed up. The GOI has given major funding to western studies of South Asia - including both BJP and Congress led governments. Yet there is not a single government or private philanthropist report on the state of this "industry" that studies India, which consists of several thousand scholars full-time who come from various disciplines - religious studies, history, anthropology, sociology, political science, human rights, women's studies, etc. On the other hand, China Studies in the academy is secure in China's hands, with western scholars are "outsiders" craving to be allowed entry.
Before spending money, one must have a strategic clarity as to what ideas of India are to be promoted. Otherwise, well formulated ideas of India by various other institutions get to dominate - such as ideologies of seminaries, US government thinktanks, academic south asian marxists-islamists, etc. Indians participate but not on their own rules. Tragically, Indians do not even have clarity on this amongst themesleves much less being able to project it. At a gathering at Ram Jethmalani's house last year, I was invited as the featured speaker for the evening. I spoke on this very issue that Indians must take control of India Studies. One prominent woman activist (Madhu Kishwar) diverted the issue by asking whether the studies would be done in Hindi! The whole gathering easily got distracted by any odd and irrelevant idea, that should not have diverted them from the core proposition being discussed. Some others asked "whose idea of India" would be studied, would it be the Muslims' idea and dalit idea, or would brahmins dominate? Indians do not even have a consensus on what is India as we want to see it.
Earlier this year, there was a rumor that Infosys founder Narayan Murthy was giving $15 million to harvard to translate and publish ancient Indian texts into English, for popular reading. On the surface this seems good for us. But the details count and such details are typcially glossed over by Indians. The editor appointed for the series is none other than Prof. Sheldon Pollock (Columbia), even though he takes an explicitly Marxist view of Sanskrit - explotation by brahmins of dalits, women, muslims, etc. His famous writing, "The Death of Sanskrit" laid out his idea of its history as a source of power in the hands of a few. He has been editor of the CLAY series of Indian Classics already, and one has to see that to get an idea of his biases. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Sanskrit_Library ) While doing a great job bringing out the "beauty" of the indian materials, the fact remains that he simply assumes and states the Aryan invasion/migration theory as a given without even raising any issue with it. Very elegant and beautifully produced, this series already has 46 volumes in print, and its influence is considerable. My concern was that the Murthy family might not have invested time and resources to go into the details of the issues at stake in the translation of Indian classics in the west. The Murthy donation will also take this new series from harvard, and send it back into Indian education, making this "Made in USA" depiction of Indian Classics the canon for Indians to study as their definition of themesleves. This is what max Mueller's works did a century ago. It is their money and they have a right to do what they please with it. But wouldn't it have been wiser if they had funded something to do with their area of expertise and competence, so they could at least evaluate and monitor professionally, and not depend on "they are nice fellows" level of naivete. When this rumor was critiqued by me, the head of the Hindu American Foundation inquired and concluded that the runor was false based on his "inside" information from the Murthy's. A few days later the official announcement was made. Also, Prof. Pollock was awarded the Padma Shri award by GOI at a Republic Day ceremony in Rashtrapathy Bhavan, for his great contributions to the study of sanskrit.
None of the reactions from the "Hindu activists" have made any sense either, be it issuing petitions or writing angrily to the parties concerned. They have failed to understand the deeper mechanisms at work. You dont fight a patient's infection by holding playcards shouting slogans against the germs! The doctor has to understand the mechanisms of the disease and how/where to intervene. But a lazy, incompetent man (despite his good intentions) would have no time to go to med school and learn all that, and THEN be competent to defeat the disease. He is in too much of a hurry, wants to make a big splash in public to look important; and hence he stands outside the hospital shouting slogans against the germs. This sounds like a strange analogy, but if you examine closely the "activists" at work, it is a fairly accurate one.
The author
Rajiv Malhotra is an author and the founder of Infinity Foundation. He is also a former telecommunication entrepreneur. After a career in the software, computer, and telecom industries Malhotra took an early retirement to pursue philanthropic and educational activities. He founded the Infinity foundation in 1995.The Infinity Foundation is an organization based in New Jersey promoting Indic studies. According to Prema Kurien, since 2003 it is one the most prominent and active Indic studies organization in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Malhotra
Oct 15, 2010.
This morning, Times of India celebrates the headlines that, "Harvard gets biggest international donation in 102 yrs, from Tata Group." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Harvard-gets-biggest-international-donation-in-102-yrs-from-Tata-Group/articleshow/6752185.cms The timing on the eve of Obama's India visit has strategic importance. This whopping $50 million gift is part of a massive trend that deserves some thought, so here I go...
Many years ago, when RK Mishra (Dhirubhai Ambani's right-hand man) was alive, he and his wife stayed a weekend with me specifically to get briefed on what to do about Harvard's request for funding chairs there. I brought in 6 scholars who were part of my team studying the state of South Asian Studies in the west. The data we supplied were eye-openers for Mishra, as they had never been made aware of the anti-India tilts in places like Harvard. One talk I gave compared how harvard studies China with great respect, while India is seen through the human rights lens - caste, women's "oppresion", minority "oppression", etc... Others gave specific areas of biases as well - from Aryan theory on. The result was that Mishra went back and advised the Ambanis to NOT give Harvard a dollar, until they would make changes to their stance on India. China, I was able to show, gets treated as a serious civilization. One factor was that China studies is done largely in Mandarin while India is studied in English. Also, China regulates visas for western scholars such that it blacklists those it finds troubling, whereas India is open and welcomes everyone without supervision, and fails to do any analysis after the fact as to whats being produced. In fact, Indians find it a compliment when westerners study them, as though suffering from an inferiority complex of feeling left out. Finally, a key difference is that Indian intellectuals are heavily anti-India because of pseudo-secularism and marxism deeply entrenched in Indian intellectual circles, and most important Indian scholars are western trained and/or funded and/or craving to be in their good books for fame and prestige. Chinese do not suffer such complexes, which in India are the after-effects of colonization. This is because Gandhi got superseded by Nehru in defining the elitist Indian ethos. Gandhi was emphatic about his Indianness, whereas Nehru bragged to John Kenneth Galbraith that he was the "last white man to rule India."
This intervention by me through R.K. Mishra did put a temporary dampener on their crusade to dip into the pockets of rich Indians. It also put me on the hit list of harvard. I also ended Infinity foundation's annual sponsorship of the Indology Roundtable at Harvard which was my "listenind device" of what they were up to. As a follow up to this saga, my friend, JC Kapur in Delhi, called up the head of FICCI at the time, and told him point-blank to stop supporting Harvard's PR campaign with Indian industry for such funding. This too worked, and grudgingly the FICCI head at that time stopped opening doors for harvard in India. But the lure to become famous in harvard and dine with the who's who of white american establishment is too powerful for Indians to resist. The real "success" for most is when they are recognized by the west. This is what the west knows well, having studied Indian culture for centuries, and used precisely this knowledge to manage, control and topple one raja after another in the 17th and 18th centuries. Take the kids to Cambridge, play polo with them, have western women to flirt, etc. - so they can feel like admitted to the club as honorary whites in front of other Indians. After independence, the brits got replaced by the americans, hence the strategic importance of places like harvard.
Some years later, there came a call from a prominent Indian that Anand Mahindra was being roped in by Harvard, and he had given them office space in his Mumbai HQ. So I was set up for a persional one-on-one meeting with Anand Mahindra. He is a very decent, gentle, open-minded executive for sure. He listened to my frank talk. He was unaware of these issues which clearly bothered him. But he made clear that he owed a lot to harvard, as they had given him a scholarship to study there when his father had refused to support him go there. So it was payback time for him, nothing more. Not to worry, he said, because he was giving only very small sums of money, such as $20,000 at a time, and that too for Indian students to go there as scholars. He suggested that I write to him my objections concerning harvard, so he could pass it on, and make sure they change their approach. I also suggested to him that Indians who want to fund Harvard should fund their business school, which has become pro-India, but NOT the humanities which are the nexus of this "south Asian" nonsense. A few days later, at Mr. Mahindra's suggestion I had a brief phone chat with Harvard's Sugata Bose who was visiting India as harvard brand ambassador to raise funds. I have publicly criticized Sugata Bose for his writings that depict pre-Mughal India as uncivilized, his idea of colonial problems focusses only on British but exempts the islamic colonizers, and he sees de-colonization as the return to a unified south asia under quasi-islamic civilization (positioned as "secularism"). This, of course, his girlfriend and co-author, Ayesha Jalal, has very skillfully managed to make into the core curriculum on south asia at places such as Harvard. (Jalal while not on the Harvard faculty was on the committee of their South Asia program until I pointed this strange anomaly out, and then she suddenly left that visible spot.) Prof Bose was cordial and frank, and we agreed to continue to chat later - which never materialized. Bose also lashes out against his great grand-uncle, Subhash Chandra Bose, the freedom-fighter, portraying him as a fascist. Music to the ears of the harvard establishment. These folks bring in Kashmir separatists, Maoists, "abused Hindu women", Dalit activists, etc. routinely as the "voices of the real India." Anand Mahindra announced last month that he is donating $10 million to Harvard specifically designated for the Humanities.
About 5 years ago, my colleague at Infinity Foundation, Krishnan Ramaswamy, and I went to see Rajat Gupta (McKinsey) to meet privately for several hours. I raised the topic that before Indian philanthropists give funding to US unversities, people like Rajat should do "due diligence" on what a given program has produced, how it fits into the image of India that the philanthropist has. After all, no management consultant proposes an investment by his wealthy client in any venture without due diligence. It struck a chord with him. Then I pointed out that nobody other than me had attenpted any such arms-length critical study of South Asian Studies in USA. I mentioned that Chinese government and Chinese private donors do an annual report on the state of China Studies in the west, just like any industry analyst would do for an indistry, and this guides them where and how to invest. This gives them the basis for evaluating a given program and negotiating from a position of knowledge about what is what in the discipline. He was candid in confessing that he had not studied the south asia studies discipline to be able to tell me what went on in depth. But, he remarked in typical India style, he thinks the persons involved in such studies seem like "nice guys" and decent folks. I responded that in evaluating a business investment, the due dligence would not be based on whether the management team were "nice guys" or decent folks in their personal lives, but that it would look for hard-hitting data and evidence to evaluate. Had he or anyone else studied the writings of such departments over the past 50 years, to be able to evaluate what was going from the Indian point of view? The answer then reamins the same today - no, they have not!
In one meetng after another for 15 years, I have raised such issues. One example of such an article I wrote in 2003 is on Rediff.com, titled, "Does South Asia Studies undermine India?" (See: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/08rajiv.htm ) I have also proposed that India could use its own India Studies and even South Asian Studies based in Indian universities (as a way to study neighbouring countries with an India-centric lens). I have argued that the money used to fund one Harvard chair (at least $5 million) could fund a whole department of scholarship in India. The irony is that even those who claim to be patriotic, nationalists, including those being described as "Hindu nationalists," seem confused and mixed up. The GOI has given major funding to western studies of South Asia - including both BJP and Congress led governments. Yet there is not a single government or private philanthropist report on the state of this "industry" that studies India, which consists of several thousand scholars full-time who come from various disciplines - religious studies, history, anthropology, sociology, political science, human rights, women's studies, etc. On the other hand, China Studies in the academy is secure in China's hands, with western scholars are "outsiders" craving to be allowed entry.
Before spending money, one must have a strategic clarity as to what ideas of India are to be promoted. Otherwise, well formulated ideas of India by various other institutions get to dominate - such as ideologies of seminaries, US government thinktanks, academic south asian marxists-islamists, etc. Indians participate but not on their own rules. Tragically, Indians do not even have clarity on this amongst themesleves much less being able to project it. At a gathering at Ram Jethmalani's house last year, I was invited as the featured speaker for the evening. I spoke on this very issue that Indians must take control of India Studies. One prominent woman activist (Madhu Kishwar) diverted the issue by asking whether the studies would be done in Hindi! The whole gathering easily got distracted by any odd and irrelevant idea, that should not have diverted them from the core proposition being discussed. Some others asked "whose idea of India" would be studied, would it be the Muslims' idea and dalit idea, or would brahmins dominate? Indians do not even have a consensus on what is India as we want to see it.
Earlier this year, there was a rumor that Infosys founder Narayan Murthy was giving $15 million to harvard to translate and publish ancient Indian texts into English, for popular reading. On the surface this seems good for us. But the details count and such details are typcially glossed over by Indians. The editor appointed for the series is none other than Prof. Sheldon Pollock (Columbia), even though he takes an explicitly Marxist view of Sanskrit - explotation by brahmins of dalits, women, muslims, etc. His famous writing, "The Death of Sanskrit" laid out his idea of its history as a source of power in the hands of a few. He has been editor of the CLAY series of Indian Classics already, and one has to see that to get an idea of his biases. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Sanskrit_Library ) While doing a great job bringing out the "beauty" of the indian materials, the fact remains that he simply assumes and states the Aryan invasion/migration theory as a given without even raising any issue with it. Very elegant and beautifully produced, this series already has 46 volumes in print, and its influence is considerable. My concern was that the Murthy family might not have invested time and resources to go into the details of the issues at stake in the translation of Indian classics in the west. The Murthy donation will also take this new series from harvard, and send it back into Indian education, making this "Made in USA" depiction of Indian Classics the canon for Indians to study as their definition of themesleves. This is what max Mueller's works did a century ago. It is their money and they have a right to do what they please with it. But wouldn't it have been wiser if they had funded something to do with their area of expertise and competence, so they could at least evaluate and monitor professionally, and not depend on "they are nice fellows" level of naivete. When this rumor was critiqued by me, the head of the Hindu American Foundation inquired and concluded that the runor was false based on his "inside" information from the Murthy's. A few days later the official announcement was made. Also, Prof. Pollock was awarded the Padma Shri award by GOI at a Republic Day ceremony in Rashtrapathy Bhavan, for his great contributions to the study of sanskrit.
None of the reactions from the "Hindu activists" have made any sense either, be it issuing petitions or writing angrily to the parties concerned. They have failed to understand the deeper mechanisms at work. You dont fight a patient's infection by holding playcards shouting slogans against the germs! The doctor has to understand the mechanisms of the disease and how/where to intervene. But a lazy, incompetent man (despite his good intentions) would have no time to go to med school and learn all that, and THEN be competent to defeat the disease. He is in too much of a hurry, wants to make a big splash in public to look important; and hence he stands outside the hospital shouting slogans against the germs. This sounds like a strange analogy, but if you examine closely the "activists" at work, it is a fairly accurate one.
The author
Rajiv Malhotra is an author and the founder of Infinity Foundation. He is also a former telecommunication entrepreneur. After a career in the software, computer, and telecom industries Malhotra took an early retirement to pursue philanthropic and educational activities. He founded the Infinity foundation in 1995.The Infinity Foundation is an organization based in New Jersey promoting Indic studies. According to Prema Kurien, since 2003 it is one the most prominent and active Indic studies organization in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Malhotra
Monday, September 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)