'Donations, goatskin sale funded SIMI'

Rakesh K Singh | DailyPioneer

Zakat (donation) by devotees and the money collected from the sale of goatskin offered at mosques during the celebration of Bakr-Eid are major sources of terror funding for the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India.

The confessional statements of SIMI chief Safdar Nagori and a senior commander of the outfit, Aamil Parvaz, have revealed that the outfit responsible for several terror blasts across the country also received significant contributions from its former members based in the Gulf.

The money received from the Gulf has particularly been used by former ansars (full-time members) of SIMI, mainly for meeting litigation expenses, top SIMI commander Aamil Parwaz told interrogators while providing details about the finances of the outfit.

Parwaz also told the officials that the funds were also used by the Shaheen Force, a front of SIMI, to attract children into its fold with a view to catching them young for terror activities. The children and relatives of SIMI members were "activated" for the Shaheen Force which, in turn, would bring their friends into the fold of the front. Religious books and sweets were distributed among the members of the front. "Besides, Quranic teachings were also recited on occasions," Parwaz told the interrogators and claimed that the front was inactivated after the ban on SIMI.

The revelation came during the interrogation of Parwaz by the Madhya Pradesh police earlier this year. Parwaz is currently under the custody of Gujarat police for interrogation into the Ahmedabad serial blasts.

During his interrogation by the MP police and intelligence sleuths, Nagori revealed that collection of funds prior to the ban on the outfit was done in a "normal" manner. After the ban, however, the outfit members collected donations from other members and sympathisers at the local level. After deducting the expenses for local activities, the remaining amount was sent to the treasurer of the outfit.

Parwaz, 34, also told the interrogators that SIMI finances were also strengthened by donations from well-off members of the community, including from Manzoor of Pakeeza Collections of Indore, owners of Mayur Hospital and Balwas Hotel of Bhopal. Other influential community members who knowingly contributed to SIMI included Hazi Israr, Abdul Rais and the owners of Madhumilan Talkies of Indore.

In his confessional statement, Parwaz also told the investigators that these community members contributed despite the knowledge that SIMI was a banned outfit under the law.

The interrogation report of Parwaz, classified as top secret, also reveals the mobile telephone numbers used by the top SIMI commanders. While Parwaz largely operated from his cellular phone (number 9755121736), Safdar Nagori used number 9907788584 and Kamruddin operated through his connection (number 9907788564). The input is expected to be analysed by the Gujarat police to further unravel the perpetrators behind the Ahmedabad serial blasts, which had killed over 50 persons and left more than 100 injured.

Parwaz, an accused under the National Security Act, also revealed that services of ex-Armyman Rasid Khan were also used for furthering the cause of the outfit.

The intellectual scene in Post-independence India

S. Gurumurthy | IIT Chennai A speech of S. Gurumurthy given to IIT Chennai

... Defeat and anger go together. Abuse and defeat go together. So, it is in this norm and with this understanding of what an intellectual debate means, I would like to place before you some of my thoughts today. Some of may find it provocative. I am confident that the audience is competent enough to absorb this and think rather than get into the mood which all of us have got used to in the last 30-40 years abuse.

Background: India before Independence

Let us see the pre-independence background, the intellectual content of India. See the kind of personalities who led the Indian mind Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Gandhiji, Tilak- giants in their own way. Most of them were involved in politics, active politics, day-to-day politics, handling men, walking on the road, addressing meetings, solving problems between their followers. And, meeting the challenges posed by the enemy, the conspiracies hatched against them. They were handling everything, yet, they were maintaining an intellectual supremacy, and an originality which history has recorded.

Let us look at the academic side. Whether it is a P.C. Ray who wrote on Indian Chemistry in 1905 or Sir C.V. Raman who wrote about mridangam, tabala, and violin, and saw the physics in it (this was in 1913); whether it was R.C. Majumdar or Radhakumud Mukherjee who saw greatness in the Indian civilization; trying to bring up points, instances, historical evidence to mirror the greatness of India to the defeated Indian race, they were all building the Indian mind brick by brick.

Sri Aurobindo spoke of Sanatana Dharma as the nationalism of India. He didn't rank it as a philosophy. He brought it down to the level of emotional consciousness. Swami Vivekananda spoke of spiritual nationalism; it was the same Swami who spoke of Universal brotherhood. For them philosophy was not removed from the ground reality. The nation was at the core of their philosophy. Swami Vivekananda was called the "patriot monk".
Mahatma Gandhi spoke of Rama Rajya. Bankim Chandra wrote Bande Maataram. The song, the slogans in it, the mantra in it made hundreds of people kiss the gallows smilingly and many others went to jail. It transformed the life of the people. This was the intellectual scene, this was the content. This is what powered the intellectual as well as the mass movement in India. This was the core of India, the soul of the Indian freedom movement.

The symptoms: India immediately after Independence

Imagine what happened in 1947 and after, India was able to intellectually lead not only Indians but also the whole world because of the intellectual assertion that the freedom movement brought about. Let us look at post Independence India. The persons who led post-Independence India were also trained in the same freedom movement. They went to jail, but they were not rooted in the intellectual content of the Freedom movement!

The first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru was in jail for 7 years. He was a great intellectual, purely in the sense of his capacity to reason, understand, read, and expound a thought. He told Galbrieth once, "I would be regarded as the last English Prime Minister of India." See the intellectual capability of the man, the enormously competent mind.

But intellectualism doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be rooted in something concrete. Swami Vivekananda's universal brotherhood was rooted in India's greatness as a civilization. The concept of "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam" cannot exist without a living form, a population which believes in it and believes in itself. You need to have a society which believes in it.

That is why India could invite the Jews who were butchered, raped, all over the world. In 107 out of 108 countries, this race was butchered. At least they had the courtesy and the gratitude to publish a book. The Israeli government published a book that out of 108 countries that we sought refuge, the only civilization, the only country, the only people, the only ideology that gave us refuge was the Indian civilization. They published a book, which most Indians are unaware of.

And we invited the Muslims. The refugee Muslims first landed in Kutch. And they are called the Kutchy Memons even today but not the Memons who bomb Mumbai. But the Memons who lived with us.
In the year 1917, many of you might be aware, a case went to the Prey Council, equivalent to the Supreme Court now. The Kutchy Memons went and told the Prey Council that we are Muslims for namesake, but we follow only the Hindu law. Please don't impose the Shariat on us. The Prey Council ruled that they are Muslims but the only sacred book they have is called "Dasaavathaara", it is not Koran. In fact they knew no language other than the Kutchy language.

And in the "Dasaavathaara", nine avatharas were common between Hindus and Kutchy Memons. We call the tenth avathaara "Kalki" and they call him "Ali". The Prey Council ruled that the Shariyat law is not applicable to them. The All India Muslim League took up the case, went to the British and told them that this finding is dangerous to Islam and requested them to pass a law which will overrule this judgment. The British government passed a law in 1923 which was called the "The Kutchy Memons Act" declaring, "If a Kutchy Memon wants to follow the Shariat, allow him to do so". It doesn't mean a Muslim must follow the Shariat. Between 1923-1937, before the All India Shariat Act was passed not a single Kutchy Memon filed an affidavit with the plea that he wants to follow the Shariaat. That was the integration prevalent in India. In 1937, when the All India Shariat Act was passed, the preamble to the act mentioned that this was being passed by a demand made by the AIML leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Today, the Shariat has become a part of Muslim consciousness.

The purpose behind making you aware of this background is that 99% of the people who speak about the constitutional rights of the minorities or the distinctiveness of Muslim life are unaware of the facts. Till the year 1980, in Cooch Behar district, the Shariat law was not applicable. In 32 instances between 1923 and 1947 by legislation, the Shariyat law was not applicable to the Muslims. This is the extent of the intellectual gap in India.

Secularism: A Reversal and perversion of the Indian mind.

And now, coming to what is the position today. Everything that drove the freedom movement - everything that constituted the soul of the freedom movement, whether it is the Ram rajya of Gandhiji or Sanaatana Dharma of Sri Aurobindo or the spiritual patriotism of Vivekananda or the soul stirring Vande Maataram song, came to be regarded not only as unsecular but as sectarian, communal and even as something harmful to the country.
Thus, there was a reversal, a perversion of the Indian mind. How did it occur? Today, the intellectualism of India means to denigrate India. There are mobile citizens and there are non- citizens deriding India. Go to the Indian Airlines counter you will find people deriding India. Go to a post office they will deride India. Go to a railway station, they will deride India. It is the English educated Indian's privilege to deride India. When I was talking to postal employees in the GPO, Chennai (a majority of them were women). I told them the basic facts about the post office. I said it is one of the most efficient postal systems in the world, one of the cheapest in the world, one of the most delivery perfect postal systems in the world. For one rupee, you are able to transport information from one end of the country to the other.

And you have a postman, no where in the world this happens the postman goes to the illiterate mother and reads out the letter, he is asked to sit there and shares a cup of coffee and comes away. Money orders are delivered to the last rupee. It is an amazing system, one of the largest postal systems linking one of the most populous nations, one of the most complicated nations with so many languages.

Somebody writes the address in Tamil and it gets delivered in Patna! It gets delivered to Jawaan at warfront! When I completed my speech many of the women were wiping their tears. I asked why are you crying I have only praised you. They said, "Sir, this is the first time we've been praised, otherwise we've only been abused!"
You know how many people use the railways in India? A million people and that is equivalent to the population of Australia! And we have only abuses for them! Have we any idea of what this country is? India has been compared with Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan and Taiwan. You can walk across many of these countries in one night (laughs)! The best politicians, intellectuals, sociologists in India have compared us with them because, we have never understood what we are and unless you do that, you can never relate us with others.

Demonising India: Projecting a negative image.

This enormous intellectual failure, to the extent of being intellectually bankrupt, did not occur overnight, it was no accident. There is a history behind this enormous erosion. And I told you about these mobile citizens, what they have done to us. Every country has problems. There is no country without any problem. Are you aware of what is one of the most pressing problems in America today? It is incurable according to the American sociologists; even American economists have begun to agree with them. American politicians are shaken, one third of the pregnant women are school going children. And mothers mix the anti-pregnancy pill in the food without daughter's knowledge everyday.

But this is not the image of America. The image of America is a technologically advanced country etc. etc. Ours is the only country where the mobile citizens of India have transformed the problems of India into the image of India -its identity is inherently related with its problems.

Go to any country and the same negative stereotype is echoed that India is suffering from poverty and malnutrition. India has no drinking water. Indian women are burnt. If they are married, they are burnt, if they are widows, they are burnt. See the image that has been built about this country. Who did this? The English educated Indian.

And one Kaluraam Meena (have you ever heard of him? Asks the audience to raise their hands if they have), only a small fraction of this large audience has heard of him. When Clinton came to India, he went to a village called Nayla where the villagers interacted with him. And one of the panchayat board members asked him, "Sir, I am told that in the West, all of you believe that this country is a rotten country, a backward country, a poor, hungry country. Do you also think like that?"

Clinton was shaken, because he might have thought that this person might be approaching him for some favour. I will relate my experience when I went to the Carter Centre in 1993. They were talking about dispute resolution and all that. I went there to meet somebody, if not Carter, somebody else at least. His Deputy, a lady, was very hesitant to receive me. "Mr. Gurumurthy", she said, "Mr. Carter is not around, anyway, I can spare seven-eight minutes for you." I said three or four minutes of your time would do. Even before I could start, she said, "Mr.Gurumurthy, we don't have funds, we will not be able to help" (laughter from the audience). I replied, "Let us assume you have a hundred billion dollars, how much will you give me? One billion? One million?" She kept quiet, I said: "I don't need your money. I came here to discuss whether community living is an answer to disputes. I have come to discuss this because you have suggested electoral means to resolve problems in communities which have no damn idea of what an election is; whether community living is an answer because you don't what that means. She sat and discussed this with me for two hours. This is the image we have projected that anybody, who comes from India, comes to beg. Ordinary Indians did not create this impression; educated Indians created it. This is the work of civil servants, NGOs. Christian missionaries during the freedom movement created this. Indians are filthy, rotten, dirty and unhealthy, advertising abroad these are the people who need to be saved. We have to Christianise them, enlighten them, and give us money. I can understand that because it is their business. But what did we do after 1947?

We repeated the same mistakes. We projected India as a country of unending problems. As I said, every country has problems. Only in India, problems become identities. How many dowry deaths take place in India in a year? Yet, India is projected as a country burning its own daughter-in-laws. And we also talk about it. Every damn newspaper will be writing about it. We believe in self-deprecation. And this goes on in the guise of intellectualism in India. And one woman, she attempted to take a film of the widows. I wrote an article, asking her to go to Lijjat Paapad. A widow brought me up. Millions of widows have worked to bring up their children. It is a nation, which believes in Tapasya. You may not believe in it but you are an exception. Compare Deepa Mehta"s attitude with Sarada Maa's who was the wife, who became a widow after Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's passing away. She went to the very same place where Deepa Mehta went and saw the widows. Sarada Maa said, "These widows are so pure, they are an illustration and an example to me." Deepa Mehta saw them as prostitutes. The widows have already been hurt once. Why are you sprinkling salt on their wounds?

I am very sorry to speak about this, but I have to, this audience is enlightened enough to understand me. Indian women are sexually unsatisfied and so they are becoming lesbians? This is one bloody story against us, about us. This is the image of Indian men and women, and this film is in English. Catherine Mayo wrote a book and Mahatma Gandhi said about it, "I have no time to read this filth. But I am under a compulsion, under pressure because this has been published abroad. The image of India has been rubbished and I have to counter it." With this introduction, he wrote about the book and said that this woman is a gutter inspector (laughs).

The intellectualism in India is gutter inspection- people are of this kind etc. Understand the level of erosion.

Indian Politics: Weaknesses and Pitfalls

Let us look at the post independence scenario from the macro level. We installed a system of governance and it postulated all the important goals for the Indian society and polity, which was gulped by the Indian academia, by the Indian intellectuals. We will have a classless society through socialism. We will have a casteless society through equality. We will have a faithless society through secularism. We will have a modern society devoid of tradition.

Instead of politics restructuring caste, caste has restructured politics today. Political parties are talking only in terms of castes. Has any Indian intellectual come to terms with caste? You must understand caste if you want to handle the Indian society. You cannot say that I want to have a very different kind of society. You have to handle the Indian sentiment, the Indian tradition and Indian beliefs. You can't clone a society of your choice in India. Social engineering has failed everywhere; the masters of social engineering have given up the Communists - whether it is sociologists or economists you have to accept a society as it is. You can only increase the momentum of evolution in the society; you can't forcibly bring about a revolution today. But, Indian leaders and intellectuals, till today, keep abusing caste. They don't know how to handle the caste. Let me narrate to you how a community in Karaikudi handled this issue. The Chettiyar community assembled top businessmen, professionals from all over the world for 3 days to discuss their culinary act, how to construct houses, what languages they use, what old adages and stories their grand parents used to tell, what clothes they used to wear; not one word of politics, mind you. This was not even published in the newspapers. Intellectuals were not even aware of it. So, caste is a very important instrument in India, you may not like it. Unfortunately, every intellectual leads a caste life inside, but outside he is casteless! He is cloning an approach outside. There is no intellectual honesty at all.

And what happened in the case of secularism? In India, any one who is not a Hindu is per se secular. In the year 1947, just 10 years had passed after the Muslim League demanded and got the country partitioned, the leader who voted for the resolution for the partition of India was Quazi Millath Ismail, (who was leading the same Muslim League on the Indian side), the Congress certified that the Muslim League in Kerala is secular and hence it can associate with them. The Muslim League outside Kerala is communal with the same president! Three hundred and fifty crores are spent today for the Haj pilgrims out of the funds of secular India every year. No one can raise an objection. At least I can understand why politicians don't want to do that because they want the Muslim votes. But what about the intelligentsia. What about newspaper editors and journalists? And academicians? None of them speak out. The reason is that we have produced a state dependent intellectualism in India. We don't produce Nakkeerans anymore, our intellectualism is a derivative of the State and the State is a derivative of the polity. And in turn the polity is a derivative of the mind of Macaulay and Marx.

The Indian education system: A Legacy of Macaulay.

This Macaulayian system of education is a poison injected into our system. At least I had the opportunity of schooling in Tamil and hence could withstand the corruption that this English education brings with it. This corruption begins the moment the child steps out of the house. He is told to converse in English at home. This did not happen even in pre-Independence India, even when Macaulay wrote that notorious note sitting in Ooty. How many of you know Macaulay's formulation? Just those two or three sentences at least which form the crux - "We require an education system in India which will produce a class of interpreters, who will be Indian in colour and Englishmen in taste, opinions and morals."

This is the education system, which we have been continuing with, which was earlier conceived to produce clerks for the British Empire. If you have to differ from an English educated person you have to differ only through the English language. If you have to abuse somebody, even that has to be done in English! If you abuse the Anglicised Indian, he will not find fault with the blame but with the grammar in your language! This is the extent to which a foreign language has possessed us. But, we must master English, that is needed, but why do we have to become slaves of the English language? We must use that language as a tool, but why do we consider it as a status symbol? This is the influence of Macaulay.

If you want to understand the Macaulay/Marxist mix in India, you have to go a little back to see how Marxism grew out of the Christian civilisation. I recommend that you read the Nov 27, 1999 edition of the Newsweek, which describes how the Christian idea of the end of time called the "apocalypse", influenced the entire history, art, music, prognosis, sociology, economics, and the entire attitude of the Christian civilisation towards the non-Christian civilizations.

A Christian scholar who describes how Communism grew out of Christianity has written it. In 1624, Anna Baptists, a group of Christians who believed in the basic tenets of Christianity seized power in a particular place, banned private property and use of any book other than the Bible. When Marxism came up later through the exposition of Das Capital, the Marxists began expounding their doctrine as an extension of Christianity.

The thesis, antithesis and synthesis of making Christianity acceptable to the age of enlightenment was the Hegelian way demanded rationalisation of Christianity in the days of the Protestant movement. Hegel began with a disagreement, then started interacting with Christianity and ultimately ended up accepting Christianity. You can see the same phenomenon with Marxist postulates- "capitalism is my enemy, we have to deal with capitalism" and finally "we have to find a synthesis with capitalism".

Marx on India

In fact in the year 1857, Marx wrote about India, " India was a prosperous civilisation. It had a very high standard of living. Their productivity was higher. India was an economic giant." It was so. If you look at the statistics in 1820, India's share of world production was 19%, and England's share was 9%, please note that Britain was deep into the industrial revolution at that time. 18% of the world trade was in Indian hands at that time whereas 8% was the figure for Britain and 1% for US. When 80% of the American population was engaged in agriculture, India had 60% of the population engaged in non-agricultural occupations. This is supposed to be an index of development. All these statistics can be found in Paul S. Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers". So, Marx says, "This was a great civilisation which had produced prosperous communities." A prosperity which went deep into the villages. In the early stages, when the East India Company came to Murshidabad, an unknown name in Bengal today the Britishers were awe struck with its prosperity and wrote that it was more prosperous than London. This is no more disputed anyway, even by Indian intellectuals. Marx acknowledges the fact that this was a prosperous country and also had equality but unfortunately, he says for 2000 years the society did not change nor did it allow any revolutionary forces to enter! In his worldview human beings cannot progress without a revolution!

In the two articles on British rule in India and the East India Company- history and results written by Marx, quoted in the New York daily "Karl Marx does grant though somewhat in a grudging manner that "materially, India was fairly industrious and prosperous even before the onset of the British rule. He said that India was an exporting country till 1830 and started importing because it had opened its trade to the British." Many of you may not be aware that the kings in India had no right to over the lands, which came under the jurisdiction of panchayats. Whether it was Emperor Ashoka or Bhagavan Sri Ramachandra, the rule was the same. It was changed only during the British rule under the Ryotwari system. Even the Mughals could not change it. It was also found that family communities were based on domestic industry, with the peculiar combination of hand-spinning, hand- weaving, agriculture etc. which gave them a supporting power.

The misery inflicted by the British on Hindusthan is of an entirely different kind and infinitely more intense than what it had to suffer before civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines all these did not go deeper than the surface. But, England broke the entire framework of Hindusthan, the symptoms of reconstitution are yet to emerge clearly. This loss of the Old World without the emergence of a new order imparts a particular melancholy to the present misery of Hindus and Hindusthan. Marx goes on to say that the British interference destroyed the union between agriculture and the manufacturing industry. Suddenly he remarks that the English interference dissolved this semi barbarian, semi-civilised community.

He concedes that they were prosperous, that they organised their affairs well, they have a measure of independence, they have a democracy at the lowest level, all this has been conceded. Then, how does he classify us as "semi-barbarian and semi-civilised communities"? He notes that India's social condition remained unaltered since remote antiquity. This is important, for him revolution is the core, the soul and centre of the society. This society never had a revolution; hence it cannot be modern! There is an underlying assumption, which considers revolution as a pre- requisite for being modern. Hence, he feels that the destruction wrought by the British is the inevitable revolution needed for the development of the Indian society. England had vested interests, violent interests in bringing about this "revolution". But, the question in focus is whether mankind can fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state? Whatever might have been the crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about a revolution, whatever bitterness the spectacle of crumbling of an ancient world may evoke, from the point of history, we have to exclaim - should this torture torment us?

Since it brings us great pleasure, were not the rule of Taimur, souls delivered without measure? It is a creative destruction in the cause of revolution according to him. If you see Indian Communism which was expounded by a man called Rajane Palme Dutt. Has anyone heard of his name? (Two persons from the audience raised their hands). Two. He was born of a white woman and an Indian father in England. He was in charge of Indian Communism for 25 years. He never came to India though. In his book, "India Today", he laid down the framework, the policy for Indian Communists, what must be done, what is the kind of revolution needed in India, the development model etc. In those days, even good photographs of India were not available, yet this man spoke about India sitting in London. He came to India for the first time in 1946, ten years after he wrote this book and realised that he had to revise it. He stayed for 30 days! A visitor to India was the father of Indian Communism! And from that day till date, the Indian Communist has never been with India. Not only that, they took over the Indian mind in the post- independence period. It is these Marxist/Macaulayist intellectuals who will certify whether somebody is modern or traditional, backward or secular or communal, progressive or regressive. They were running an Open Air University issuing certificates every day through the press. They have branded me as a communal man.

Labels: Tools for stultifying important debates

Labels substituted debate in India. Simply a label - communal, that is enough. Four or five editorials will appear preaching that Gurumurthy is communal and the matter must end there. No one would even discuss what communalism is! Religious fundamentalism, RSS/Bajrang Dal fundamentalism! Anyone, who exposes the Hindu cause in India is a fundamentalist! We have seen this term being used so casually and superfluously and incessantly by politicians and newspapers. Has anyone bothered to understand the meaning of religious fundamentalism going beyond these slogans?

Secularism is an intra-Christian phenomenon. It has no application outside Christianity at all. Secularism resolved the fight between two powerful persons, the King and the Archbishop who were loyal to the same faith, to the same prophet, to the same book and to the same Church. It is not a multi-religious virtue.
A multi-religious idea, a multi-religious living, a multi-religious culture, a multi-religious fabric or a multi-religious structure was unknown outside India. There was usually only one faith and no place for any other, not even for a variation of the same faith. Fifty six thousand Bahais were butchered in one hour in Tehran! They believed in the same Koran, in the same Muhammad, the only difference was that they said that Muhammad might come in another form again. That was their only fault and they were all butchered.
But we have no such problem. We can play with God, we can abuse God, and we can beat God!
If I say that monotheistic religions have had a violent history, and the reply will be "you are communal." But this is exactly the same conclusion that a study in Chicago revealed, probably, the only study on fundamentalism conducted by anybody so far. This fundamentalism project brought out five volumes each volume about eight hundred to nine hundred pages. The conclusion they have reached is that, "Fundamentalism is a virtue of Abrahamic religions. It is not applicable to eastern faiths at all.
What about the Indian intellectuals? Day in and day out, they keep abusing us as fundamentalists, communalists, that we are anti-secular and it is being gulped down by everyone including those from the IITs and IIMs, lawyers and police officials, journalists and politicians. Look at this intellectual bankruptcy.

An inner revolution: The much needed change

We need a mental revolution, an inner revolution; we need to get rooted in our own soul. There is a missing element in India today and it is this. That element has to be restored otherwise Indian intellectualism will only be a carbon copy of Western intellectualism. We are borrowing not only their language and idiom but also we trying to copy the very soul of the West.

So, all that we need to do is (it is impossible to share the entire depth of the subject in one evening's lecture programme. I have only tried out point out in an incoherent way, how a completely fresh mindset has to be evolved. And unless it evolves, the Indian mind, which leads India, will be in a perpetual state of confusion ordinary people are perfectly all right.

Consider for example how thirty years before there was a question whether Tamil Nadu will be a part of India or not. The Dravidian parties have taken over the mind of Tamil Nadu. It had virtually ceased to be a part of India. And their attack was aimed at Hinduism. The moment you attack Hinduism you attack India. This is a fact. Neither politicians nor intellectuals nor academicians realised this. But, the ordinary people did. Just three religious movements- the Ayyappa movement, the Kavadi movement and the Melmaruvatthur Adi Para Sakti movement- have finished the Dravidian ideology to a very great extent. It is only the outer shell of Dravidianism that remains today. Tamil Nadu has been brought back successfully by Ayyappa, Muruga and Para Sakti, not by the Congress or the BJP or any other political party.

How many people have intellectually assessed the depth and the reach, the deep influence of religion over the people? A paradigm shift in a study of India would be an intellectual approach to this subject. Or consider for example its influence on economics. Many of you by now would have studied economics in some detail. Take a look at the society in India and compare the figures for public expenditure for private purposes, which is called the social security system in the West. 30% of the GDP in America is spent for social security, 48% in England, 49% in France, 56% in Germany and 67% in Sweden. This private expenditure is nothing but what you and I do by taking care of parents, our wives and children, brothers and sisters and grandparents, widowed sisters and distant relatives. This expenditure is met by the society in India. And there is no law in India that people should do this. We consider it as our dharma. A person went to a court and demanded a divorce from his father and mother. The American court granted it saying that the only relationship that exists between two persons of America is their citizenship. The law in America recognises no other relationship ... In the year 1978, an interesting incident occurred in Manhattan. There was a power failure for six hours. Manhattan is in the heart of New York where you find the UN building, the World Trade Centre and the head quarters of many multinational companies. One third of the world's health is concentrated in Manhattan. Within six hours, hundreds of people were killed, robbed and assaulted. We don't need electricity to behave in a civilised manner. How many intellectuals in India have ever articulated from such a sympathetic approach? We have only tarnished the image of this country. We must be ashamed of this.

Conclusion

I shall conclude my speech with this example. When Sri Aurobindo came to Pondicherry in search of a new light. He used to get five rupees from a friend and four persons used to live on this. A cup of tea was one of the luxuries they used to have everyday in the morning, on the Pondicherry beach.
Sri Aurobindo used to always look at a mystic called Kullachamy (Subramanya Bharati has written a poem about him). He used to behave like a madman, wandering here and there, throwing stones ... One, day he came near Sri Aurobindo, lifted his cup of tea and emptied it in front of him. Then he showed the empty cup to him, placed it on the table and went away. Sri Aurobindo's friends were angry and wanted to chase him. Sri Aurobindo stopped them and said, "This is the kind of instruction I had been expecting from him. He wants me to empty my mind and start thinking afresh."

That is my appeal to you.

Appeasement is never good for a nation

Lalit Koul | 06 August 2008

Lalit Koul is the President, Indo-American Kashmir Forum, a US-based advocacy group. He can be reached at editor@kashmirherald.com 

10,000 forest trees are chopped down to build the Mughal road in Kashmir. No one makes a noise.

Acres of land in the Kashmir valley are given to install mobile phone towers. No one screams.

Acres and acres of land in the Kashmir valley are allotted to lay sewage and drinking water pipes. No one objects.

But when 40 hectares of uninhabitable land is handed over to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board to provide better facilities to the Amarnath Yatra [Images] pilgrims, all hell breaks loose.

Why? Because the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board caters to Hindu pilgrims who want to visit the Amarnath shrine in the valley of Kashmir. It is as simple as that.

Politically correct politicians, policy-makers and administrators might try to tell you that it is not about religion, but the fact of the matter is that it is all about religion. It is a design by communal forces within the valley to completely Islamicise the valley by removing every symbol of Hinduism and other faiths from the valley.

Today, these communal forces are preventing the setting up of facilities for the yatra, tomorrow they will even go to the extent of banning the yatra altogether.

The land transfer fiasco has already consumed the Ghulam [Images] Nabi Azad-led Congress government and is on its way to now adversely damage the state's economy. The fear psychosis has already resulted in a sharp decline of tourists to the valley. Counter-strikes and bandhs announced by the pro-land-transfer parties within the Jammu province have paralysed the life in that part of the state as well.

So far it has been a win-lose situation in favour of communal forces in the valley.

Let us take a hard look at the arguments presented by the locals who opposed the transfer of land:

1. The allotment would have adversely affected the environment around the area. One wonders where these tree-hugging environmentalists were when the same government allowed the felling of 10,000 forest trees to build the 89 km-long Mughal road.

40 hectares of land that was going to be used to provide temporary shelters and night-time facilities to pilgrims was in fact going to help in proper maintenance of the current day waste that actually pollutes the environment. But who can argue with senseless politicians who instigate people to come out on the streets?

2. The allotment is the government's ploy to settle Hindus from outside the state to change the demographics of the valley. Look, who is talking! One has to only go back 18 years in the history and check who changed the demographics of the valley.

Islamic terrorists changed the demographics of the valley by ethnically cleansing Kashmiri Hindus from the valley. I wonder where these we-do-not-want-to-change-demographics-folks were when Kashmiri Hindus were slaughtered and the valley's demographics were altered.

One would like to ask a few questions: a. Is 40 hectares of land enough to settle so many Hindus that it would change the demographics of the valley?

b. By putting this argument of demographic change, are the valley's Muslims implying that Hindus are not welcome in the valley anymore? And I do not mean the Hindus from outside Kashmir. I mean the Hindus from the state of Jammu & Kashmir itself.

What if the Hindus, who hold the state subject certificate of J&K state and are legally allowed to purchase land in any part of the state want to purchase land in the area around the Holy Amarnath? Are the valley's Muslims saying that those Hindus cannot buy the land there and settle down? Is that what they are implying? Are they trying to protect the environment by preventing the Hindus from settling in the valley?

Another argument Kashmiri Muslims present is that the land cannot be allotted to the Shrine Board because Article 370 does not allow anyone outside of J&K to own land. Their argument is that since the J&K governor is the chairman of the board and he is an outsider, this transfer of land is illegal.

How dumb does one have to be to understand that the land is transferred to the Shrine Board which is an institution based in the state of J&K and created by the J&K government. The land is not transferred to the chairman or the CEO of the board per se.

Having touched upon the outlandish arguments of those who oppose the allotment of land, let us look at some facts and the real story:

It was during the first three years of the Mufti Mohammad Sayeed-Ghulam Nabi Azad coalition government that the original proposal of land transfer was initiated and cleared. It was under Mufti Sayeed's leadership that his forest minister Qazi Mohammad Afzal and law minister Muzzafar Hussain Baig originally cleared the proposal. It just so happened that due to red tape, the proposal was finally approved by the cabinet when Azad had taken over as chief minister during the second three-year part of the six-year term.

The same PDP led by Mufti Sayeed was originally okay with this proposal. But as soon as the PDP smelt that terrorist outfits like the Hizbul Mujahideen [Images] were not in favour of the allotment of land and realised that it could become a polarising issue to whip up sentiments to garner votes in the upcoming assembly election, it backtracked.

Since it is an election year, the National Conference and other smaller political parties would not let the PDP cash in on this opportunity alone. They jumped into the fray and whipped up sentiments by fooling the local Kashmiri Muslims. And that leaves the Congress. How could the Congress not try to cash in on this polarising issue in an election year?

Azad did not waste any time and revoked his cabinet's decision to appease the Kashmiri Muslim vote bank. He did not just stop there. In addition to revoking his own order, he also effectively disbanded the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. Now that is some level of appeasement! That is the real story behind the story.

It is an issue created by Mufti Sayeed to polarise the vote banks. It is his design of playing politics with the religious sentiments of lakhs of Hindus from all over the country.

Now that we know the real story behind the story, how about the Hindu pilgrims who want to visit the shrine and what about their fundamental rights to practice their religion with complete security, dignity and honour?

Isn't it a shame that Hindus living in India, where 80 per cent of population is Hindu, cannot freely visit the shrine and expect better facilities? It is only in India that the majority community has to make all the sacrifices in favour of minorities because our politicians believe in appeasing Muslims at the cost of Hindus.

National Conference leader Omar Abdullah on a television debate on this issue asked why there is a need for land and new facilities when the pilgrimage has been going on for many years.

Does Omar Abdullah mean to say that there is no need to improve the facilities provided during the treacherous pilgrimage? Is he implying that if the yatris were okay for so many hundred years, then why change and improve the facilities?

I have never heard him say such things with regards to the Haj pilgrimage. Every year Muslims from Kashmir and the rest of the country want better facilities and subsidies for Haj pilgrims. But when it comes to providing better facilities to Shri Amarnath pilgrims, it becomes a sore point for Kashmiri Muslims and their leaders.

Heavy rains, snowstorms, landslides and hostile environment took away 256 lives during the yatra in 1996. And Omar Abdullah has the audacity to promote the status quo!

Some of you might argue that it was not the valley's Muslims, but the political parties and terrorists who opposed the land transfer order and forced people to come out on the streets.

I can buy that argument, but that does not absolve the valley's people from their responsibility? They cannot always support these fundamentalist forces and then at the same time claim innocence.

They did the same in 1989 and in the early 1990s when they either stood as mute spectators or as vocal supporters while Kashmiri Hindus were ethnically cleansed. As a good citizen, it is incumbent upon them to raise their voice against these dreaded forces and stop this madness.

If they sincerely believe in peace, then they need to stand up and reject these terrorist outfits and their masters. Conversely, if they don't, then they are as much party to the madness as the principals and thus need to be held accountable.

Appeasement policies are never good for a nation, particularly for a nation like India that is so diverse in ethnicity and culture. Whether it is amending the Constitution during the Shah Bano case, releasing terrorists during the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping case, freeing dreaded terrorists during the IC-814 hijacking or continuing the temporary Constitutional provision of Article 370, all such policies will one day result in the nation's doom.

It is incumbent upon the leaders of the nation as well as the citizenry to be on guard and not allow such appeasement policies to take effect in a nation that is based on the concept of secularism, democracy and fairness to one and all.

Internal insecurity

Shekhar Gupta | Indian Express | 02 August 2008 

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/343687._.html

 For nearly five years now the world media had been celebrating India's rise. From the state of its stock market to its demographic advantage, from the strength and depth of its democracy to the vast reservoir of talent that flourished in its diversity, it was as if the world could see nothing wrong with India. There are now signs that some of that is changing.

And no, it is not just because of those thousand-rupee bundles displayed in the Lok Sabha. It is because of something much more serious, in fact a failure so serious it could, by itself, lose the UPA the next election. These four and half years are the worst in India's history of fighting terrorism. Surely somebody in the UPA will bring out statistics to show that overall deaths were more in some other regime's five years. But this is not just about numbers. It is a spectacular four and a half years of mayhem when not one terrorist has been caught, not one major case solved. Even by the modest standards that Shivraj Patil's home ministry may have set for itself, this is a spectacularly disastrous record.

The world press, if anything, has been late in catching this. Last week, Somini Sengupta of The New York Times quoted a stunning fact from a report of the Washington-based National Counter-Terrorism Centre. It said, between January 2004 and March 2007, India had lost 3,674 lives to terrorism, second only to Iraq. And we can't even claim that this is happening because some imperialist occupation army is running amok here. In fact that number, by now, must have crossed 5,000. If this notion spreads globally, it would do more to damage India's image as an oasis of democratic stability, pacifism and economic growth than any twists in its politics, or even a half-decade reform holiday.

So far the UPA government has had one standard response: compare this with the record under the NDA: Kandahar hijack, Parliament attack, Akshardham. But there is a short use-by date on these arguments. You cannot take them into your next election campaign. Soon enough, the memory of those incidents would have faded, been replaced by new ones: Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Kabul, Mumbai trains, Samjhauta Express and so on. And then the unchecked Naxalite attacks.

Most amazing is the sense of cool with which this government, particularly its home ministry, has responded to these losses. While they can pretend that Naxalite strikes are some sinister happenings in places that are out of sight, out of mind, somebody — most likely the voter — will soon remind them that, while those managing internal security may not care for the lives of policemen in faraway states, never in the history of insurgencies have we suffered casualties like these. In fact, if you go over our five-decade history of insurgencies, the 38 lives lost in the Naxalite attack on the police boat were perhaps the second-largest loss of life by security forces in a day in internal security operations after only the army's casualties on the night of Operation Bluestar. It is rare for security forces to suffer double-digit casualties in insurgencies. Even during the Kargil conflict it was a rare day's fighting on which the army lost so many lives, against an entrenched foreign army. The two most striking things here have been the equanimity — frankly, cynical and sometimes sanctimonious indifference — with which this security establishment has treated it.

The talk of Naxalism in a week when two of our most important cities saw serial-bombings and a third had 23 unexploded bombs recovered, is not a digression. It underlines the unmoving, thick-skinned, incompetent and pusillanimous response to terror from this government. What is worse, it is even politically loaded. And while, ultimately, the UPA may be made to pay for it electorally, too many lives are being lost meanwhile, and too much damage is being done to India's image. The government cannot ride out an entire five years claiming that their predecessors' record was worse.

Soon enough people will also start reminding them that the NDA's six years coincided with a state of near-war with Pakistan, when ISI support to terror in India was unabashed and comprehensive and when an active proxy war was on in Kashmir. It is the four years of relative peace with Pakistan that make the UPA's failure even more striking.

Over the past year or so we have all got focussed on what we saw as the communalisation of our foreign policy: don't vote against Iran at the IAEA because our own Shias would get upset, don't sign the nuclear deal with Bush as that will irritate all our own Muslims, conduct your relations with Israel by stealth for the same reason, even stop the two missile development projects with them, no matter how badly your armies may need them. Last week we saw the prime minister fight back on this, and successfully too. But can he do the same with internal security?

The odds are steeper because that issue was communalised first. It began with the last election campaign and the composition of this alliance. There may have been a sound case against POTA because it was misused, but both in public discourse and political action its repeal was made to look like a favour to the Muslims. Then, the same "communalised" politics interfered in police investigations following the serial blasts in Mumbai trains and Hyderabad. Ask senior police officers there — even Congress chief ministers if they'd dare to speak the truth — and they will tell you how they pulled away in fright, under pressure from the Centre for targeting and upsetting Muslims (voters) in their investigations. This proceeded neatly alongside the utterly communalised discourse on the Afzal Guru hanging issue. Each time this government and its intellectual storm-troopers proffered the minority argument in support of this soft policy, it emboldened the terrorists. They figured they were dealing with a political leadership which had already committed a self-goal by equating counter-terror with Muslim alienation and which had, in the process, totally demoralised its intelligence agencies and police forces. And if it is not guilty of communalising our internal security policy, how does it explain sitting on special anti-terror laws in all BJP-run states when exactly similar ones have been passed for the Congress states? Now you can say special laws are good or bad, but they must be equally so for all citizens in all states. If these laws are good, or necessary, then citizens in BJP-run states have as much need — and right — to get their protection as those in the Congress states. Unless the message is: you want protection, you better vote for us. You vote for others, you are on your own.

It is not going to work. It is morally wrong and politically suicidal. Protecting the citizens' life is the first responsibility of any government. Surely no government can ensure no terror attack would ever happen. But it has to be seen to be trying, fighting, and being even-handed. This government fails on all three counts so far, no matter how nicely ironed its chief-spokesman's bandh-galas, how neatly combed his hair. If the prime minister does not fix this in time, his party will be asked really tough questions in the next election.

Definition of 'Star' - Where are we heading?

The body of Major Manish Pitambare, who was shot dead at Anantnag, was cremated with full military honours at Thane on Wednesday.

On Tuesday a news swept across all the news channels
'Sanjay Datt relieved by the court'.
'Sirf Munna Not a bhai'
'13 saal ka vanvaas khatam'
'Although found guilty for possession of armory, Sanjay can breath sigh of relief as all the TADA charges against him are withdrawn'
And then many experts like Salman Khan saying 'He is a good person. We knew he will come out clean'
Mr. Big B 'Datt family and our family have relations for years he's a good kid. He is like elder brother to abhishek'.
His sister priya Datt 'we can sleep well tonight…it's a great relief'

In other news, Parliament was mad at Indian team for performing bad; Greg chapel said something …..; Bomb scare in gorakhpoor express; and Shah Rukh Khan replaces Big B in KBC and Sonia asked PM to consider reducing petroleum prices (I wonder who's the PM, anyways that is not the topic so leave it…) But most of the emphasis was given on Sanjay Datt's "phoenix like" comeback from the ashes of terrorist charges.

Surfing through the channels, one news on BBC startled me, it read, Hisbul Mujahidin's Most wanted terrorist 'Sohel Faisal' killed in Anantnag, India. Indian Major leading the operation lost his life in the process. Four others are injured.

It was past midnight, I started visiting the Indian channels, the ones who are 'Sabse TEZ', but Sanjubaba was still ruling. They were telling how Sanjubaba pleaded to the court saying 'I am the sole bread earner for my family' 'I have a daughter who is studying in US who will look after her'. And then they showed how Sanjubaba was not wearing his lucky blue shirt while he was hearing the verdict. Also how he went to every temple and prayed for last some months. A suspect in Mumbai bomb blasts, convicted under armory act was being made into a hero.

Sure Sanjubaba has a daughter; sure Sanjubaba did not do any terrorist thing as in bombing some place or hijacking an airplane etc. Possessing an AK47 is considered too elementary in terrorist community and also one who possesses an AK47 has a right to possess a pistol so that again is not such a big crime; Sure Sanjubaba went to all the temples; Sure he did a lot of gandhigiri but then …, people, please read on.

Major Manish H Pitambare got the information from his sources about the terrorists' whereabouts. Wasting no time he attacked the camp, killed the Hisbul mujahidin's supremo and in the process lost his life, to the bullets fired from an AK47.

He has a wife and a daughter (just like Sanjubaba), age 18 months.

Major Manish never said 'I have a daughter …' before he took the decision to attack the terrorist hide out in the darkest of nights.
He never thought about having a family and he being the sole bread earner.

No news channel covered this since they were too busy hyping a former drug addict, an actor in real and reel life, a suspect who's linked to bomb blasts which killed hundreds. Their aim was to show how he defied the TADA charges and they were so successful that his conviction in possession of armory had no meaning. They also concluded that his parents in heaven must be happy and proud of him.

Parents of Major Pitambare are still on this earth and they have to live rest of their lives without their beloved son. His daughter won't ever see her papa again.

Definition of a Star has changed. It really has. So Sanjubaba always has a gun in every one of his movies then in real life if he has an AK47 then what's the big deal. We are used to see him with some ammunition without it he's just a 49yr old hero so he did it for us so that we feel normal;

Even if one of the bullets from one of such AK47's took a Real Star's life …….

but sir bole toh ….. tension nahi leneka. Aapun ko thoda bura laga. Apun pure din aapke baarein mein socha. Sach bataun kya aapun dukhi matlab ki senty ho gaya isliye ye likha.

Baaki Sanjubaba ... bole toh … congrats … aapko salmaan bhai ne kya certificate diya hai …ekdum raaapchik… kal jab unka case (haan woich hiran ki shikar wala) aaye toh aap bhi aisaich bolna unke baarein mein. Abhi aaj paper mein aaya ki woh parliament mein 'lagey raho munnabhai' dikhane wale ….us din dekhna bhai…… pure parliament mein sab saarein sansad honge. koi walk out nahi karega par bhai uska koi gurantee nahi hai kya pata …..agar hamare sansad indian cricket team ke selection pe lad padein?...... Kya bhaai point hain naa ? Are haan apun ko yaad aaya ….woh sansad pe hamla karnewala koi afzal tha ….use abhi fasi hui …ya nahi hui …..jaane do apun ko kya…… kuch log marein ….. sansad ko bachatein hue …but bhai unki daughters toh india mein hich sikhti hain naa aapke jaise amerika mein nahi toh tension nahi leneka………

Sorry major, wo kya hai naa logon ko shudh hindi samztich nahi aajkal bole toh logon ka hriday parivartan hone ke liye aisahich likhna padta hai. But major….. ab ye kaise hoga aaapun ko nahi pata log boley saala lagey raho dekhke puri janta ab change hoegi koi rastein mein nahi thukega ….. koi zhut nahi bolega koi kisi ko pareshaan nahi karega desh mein gandhigiri aayegi…. par major apun ko doubt hai….. pata hain kyon? rang de basanti aayi thi tab bhi log aisehich kuch toh bolein they…

Finally Sir, to my generation there is no greater hero than one who laid his life in the name of this great nation. Hence Sir, I salute you. You are the real Star,

Vande Mataram.

Ad icons as role models will dwarf the nation

Wednesday November 22 2006 00:00 IST 
 
S Gurumurthy

On the Children's Day at New Delhi, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh exhorted a gathering of destitute,

orphaned, abused and physically challenged children to
look up to Sachin Tendulkar and Sania Mirza as models.
The choice of a role model is a serious issue and
calls for comment. But here, even if one feels like

commenting on the Prime Minister, it is not a pleasant
task because it involves Tendulkar, the most admired
icon of the most popular game in India.

Nevertheless, a comment is needed, even if doing so
risks unpopularity, as when a Prime Minister makes the

choice, he sets the precedent for the nation.
Manmohan's choice has raised an important question:
Who should be the ideal role models for Indian
children? The issue here is not Tendulkar or Sania or
their undeniable popularity. The question simply is:

On what norms a nation chooses its role models?

Nations need heroes. A nation is lifted or dwarfed by
the heroes it is excited about. The enslaved India
looked up to heroes who ignited a movement to free

India from foreign domination. India was led by a Guru
Gobind Singh, Shivaji, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and
Gandhi to mention a few out of the hundreds of revered
heroes. They aroused India and India rose. But today

everyone is crying about the fall of free India. Has
that anything to do with free India's choice of
heroes? This is where the Prime Minister's choice
merits a comment. A caveat: The Prime Minister has
done nothing wrong. He has mentioned only the names

the media and the children will feel excited about.
But is that the basis for choosing heroes is precisely
the issue.

Sachin Tendulkar is a great cricketer and undeniably a
national idol. His talents have won him great

popularity among millions of cricket fans.
Undoubtedly, he is a compelling role model for
children aspiring to emerge as cricketers. His
popularity has made him an ad icon. And so is Sania
Mirza, a great tennis prospect of India.


Their popularity is reflected in their ad assignments.
That also measures their success. This is the
Tendulkar-Sania paradigm. But there is another
paradigm, the less-known Gopichand paradigm. He is as

good in achievement as a Tendulkar or Sania, but in a
less known game. Gopichand is a badminton player, who
has won global laurels for India. What then is the
difference between Tendulkar paradigm and Gopichand

paradigm? The difference is this.

Gopichand refused to endorse cola ads when the cola
makers chased him with lucrative contracts. Reason: he
believed that colas harm children. He was a sports
idol, like Sachin Tendulkar, to admire, but more, an

ideal to follow. He is an ideal for the children for
he turned away a fortune for their cause. Gopichand is
thus an idol to admire and an ideal to follow.

In contrast, Tendulkar, a more popular idol, turned an

ad model to sell Pepsi to the children. While
Tendulkar has the right to do what he does, Gopichand
gave up that very right for a higher ideal. This
qualifies him and his like as an ideal role model.
Imagine the Prime Minister had mentioned Gopichand as

the ideal for the children!

This takes us to what should be the norm for choosing
ideal role models for our children and youth. The clue
lies in what kinds of role models have built this
nation. Look at whom Swami Vivekananda would hold out

as the ideals for our nation. He would declare a
Chatrapati Shivaji and a Guru Gobind Singh as role
models for Indian youth. He declared: ''O India!
Forget not the ideal of thy womanhood is Sita,
Savitri, Damayanti.'' A Mahatma Gandhi would commend

Rama as the ideal for young India to emulate. The
entire community of freedom fighters, whether it was a
Tilak or Gandhi, Rajaji or Nehruji looked to Swami
Vivekananda as inspiration for the freedom movement as

well as for their understanding of the identity of
modern India.

A Maharishi Aurobindo was a role model for millions
whose eyes were opened to the idea of India by his
nation-building writings. A Bhagat Singh and a

Chandrasekhar Azad inspired thousands of Indian youths
to plunge into the battle for national freedom.

A Mahatma Gandhi was the role model for millions and
millions of Indians, young and old. Yet he remains so

silently even today despite his name and legacy being
stolen by the Nehru clan by what in trade marks law is
known ''passing off''.

That's how great role models have shaped India during
freedom movement and a while even after freedom. But,

mere ad icons can never be ideal role models. Rarely
is a role model a star of today and even more rarely a
star of today is a role model. A nation that makes a
wrong choice of role models will dwarf its people. The

choice of ad icons as role models is sure to dwarf the
nation and its people.

A leaf from the Past - J.P and RSS

Excerpts from "Perversion of India's Political Parlance" | Sri Sitaram Goel | Voice of India, New Delhi

1) " It was the summer of 1959, I was working as the secretary of an organization of which the late Shri Jayaprakash Narayan (J.P.) was the President. One day an RSS leader walked into my office. I had known him for a number of years. After some small talk, he suggested that I should request J.P. to visit an RSS camp which was being held in New Delhi at that time. J.P also happened to be in town. I was diffident about the proposition. Having worked with J.P. for more than a year, I sensed his preferences and prejudices. But I said to the RSS leader that I would do my best."

2) " I broached the subject to J.P. next day as soon as I found him alone, which was a rare event. J.P. seemed to be stunned as if I had uttered an obscenity. There was an expression of disapproval on his face which made me too feel uncomfortable. He was a gentle person who seldom lost his temper. But now he seemed to be on the verge of exploding. The atmosphere became tense. For a few moments none of us could find words to break the spell of silence."

3) " At last J.P. controlled himself and said: ' Do you know what you are talking about, and to whom'? There was a touch of temper in his voice. By now I had managed to collect my wits to a certain extent. I said: ' I knew the proposition would be annoying to you. Even so, I took a chance.' He relaxed. I also heaved a sigh of relief. He said: ' You know that I have a certain standing in the country and a certain reputation in public life. You should not expect me to get mixed up with an organization which is known for its communal, reactionary, and revivalist character.' I said: ' It is precisely because of your standing in the country and your reputation in public life that I have conveyed their invitation to you'. He said: ' I do not understand. Could you make yourself a little more clear'? I explained: ' Your standing in the country is that of a man of reason, and your reputation rests upon the keenness of your moral sense. I am sure that you will live upto that standard in this instance as well.' He said: ' I try to do my best according to my understanding and strength of will. Tell me where and how I have failed.' This encouraged me and I said: ' You have been practicing untouchability towards a section of your own people. You have never met the RSS people face to face. You have never listened to their side of the story. Yet you have formed an unsavoury opinion about them. This does not sound reasonable to me, nor just.'

4) " He became thoughtful. I continued, ' Your status today is not that of a party politician seeking power, and fomenting partisan strife. You have been a father figure for the nation as a whole, almost the conscience keeper of our people. You raise your voice whenever you feel that an injustice has been done, or that justice is being denied. That is why people of all persuasions- Congressites, Socialists, Communists, Akalis, National Conference people and who not- come to you for consultation, for registering their complaints, for presenting their point of view, and for seeking your advice. You do not always agree with them. Yet you listen to them patiently, and give them your point of view. They do not always agree with your view of men and matters, nor always follow your advice. The point is that you are always accessible to them. You always go out and meet them whenever they invite you. It is only the RSS and allied people whom you avoid, so much so that one of their leaders could not come to you directly and had to convey an invitation through a small fry like myself. Tell me if this is not tantamount to practicing untouchability?'

5) " He closed his eyes and shook his head several times. He seemed to be engaged in some inner struggle. I pressed the point, ' I am not inviting you to get mixed up with the RSS. Nor is it their intention to spread some snare for you. What they expect from a man like you is that you should try to know them first-hand rather than through hearsay or gossip in a partisan press controlled almost entirely by people who are hostile to them. Maybe you find that you have been mistaken about them. Maybe they benefit from the advice you give them. But all this can happen only when you meet them, listen to what they have to say, tell them frankly what you feel about them, and thus open the door for a fruitful dialogue in days to come. In any case, heavens are not going to fall simply because you go and visit one of their camps. That is all I have to say. Rest is for you to decide.'

6) " He opened his eyes, smiled somewhat sadly, and said, ' You have put me in a rather awkward position. But I see the point in what you have said. I cannot easily refute your accusation. I can really be held guilty of practicing untouchability.' I kept quie and waited for him to make up his mind. He did it in a moment, and said, ' Okay, you win. I am willing to visit the RSS camp. Make an appointment with them, and let me know. I hope tomorrow evening will suit them. Day after I am leaving Delhi .'

7) " Next day he spent nearly two hours in the RSS camp, witnessing their mass drill, moved by the songs of devotion to the motherland, meeting and talking to their leaders, asking all sorts of questions, and offering his own comments. Finally, he sat on a chair facing a group of about hundred RSS workers from several parts of the country. The workers sat on the ground in row after row, stood up one by one to introduce themselves to their honoured guest of the evening. Each one of them told his name without mentioning any surname indicative of caste or community, his educational qualifications, the province from which he came, and years he had spent as a Swayamsevaka . I Could see that J.P. was impressed. His face which had been grim so far softened suddenly, and visibly. Most of the Swayamsevakas held graduate and post-graduate degrees in arts, commerce, or science. All of them were between the ages of 20 and 35."

8) " At the end J.P. was requested to say a few words, and bless the quite confused, and did not know really what to say. I conveyed his feelings to the RSS leaders, who showed immediate understanding and did not press him anymore. As he was taking leave, J.P. looked at the Bhagwa Dhwaja, and observed, ' That I suppose is the Maratha Flag'. The RSS leader explained, ' The Marathas did not invent it. They borrowed it from an age-old national tradition. The saffron colour has always been the colour par-excellence of Indian spirituality as well as of Indian nationalism.' J.P. said, ' I do not know. I have not been a student of History. But that is what a well known historian told me.' The RSS leader smiled, and remained silent. The parting was rather warm on both sides."

9) " On our way back, J.P. muttered as if talking to himself, ' They have a lot of young and disciplined workers. The workers are also highly educated. I NEVER KNEW THAT. In our socialist movement, most of our workers are not even matriculates.' I kept quiet and waited for him to say something more. He made one more comment as we got out of the car at the end of our journey. He said, ' Sitaramji, I am grateful to you for helping me break down what looked like an insurmountable wall. But I am not at all satisfied that it is not an attempt to revive the Maratha Empire.'

10) " I could have asked him as to what was wrong with the Maratha Empire. I could also have told him that the Maratha Empire represented the triumph of a tough and long drawn struggle against Islamic Imperialism. But I was not prepared for some more frowns on his face. I had no status as a historian. Nor was my version of Indian History being taught in school and college text-books. J.P. was only repeating what most of our historians were saying from their august seats in universities and research institutes.

11) - - - --. " J.P. had at last visited an RSS camp. He had been positively impressed by the quality of workers whom the RSS had mobilized in service of the nation. And yet he had retained his earlier reservations about the RSS. He could not visualize that the RSS was not a miracle that materialized out of thin air. He could not see that there was something in a society and a culture and a historical tradition which had created such a splendid band of selfless workers without the benefit of any patronage from the powers that be, and in the face of much malicious propaganda in the national and the international media."

What would be the fate of the truth if a historian seeks advantages like a fiction author?

Dr S.L.Bhyrappa | 8 October 2006 | Vijaya Karnataka, Bangalore

[Editor's note: A statement by the Education Minister, Shri. ShankarMurthy that 'Tippusultan was anti Kannada' was the cause celebre for the ongoing debate which incidentally created an atmosphere for a healthydiscussion. A great thinker and also a well known novelist Dr. S.LBhyrappa has set the platform for the discussions in which notedliterary personalities, dramatists and hundreds of readers participatedenthusiastically. In the midst of the ongoing debate in the matter, Dr.Bhyrappa has written his second article enhancing the scope of the discussions and also throwing light on many confusing thoughts in thestate of the affairs. We hope this will make the discussions meaningfuland also encourage quest for truth.]

I am grateful to Shri. Girish Karnad, Sumatheendra Nadig, Dr. Chidananda Murthy, Dr. Suryanath Kamath, Dr. S. Shettar, Shathavadhani R. Ganeshand others who responded earnestly to my article under the title'Nationalism can never be strengthened by projecting historical lies'which appeared in Vijaya Karnataka dated 24th September 2006 and to all the readers who openly expressed their thoughts and to the Editor ofVijaya Karnataka for providing an opportunity for all, to have an opendiscussion. I am happy to note that Kannada readers are very alert.

To continue the discussions about Mohammed Bin Tugalak and Tippusultanwould be just an attempt to extract the relevant details. We have toanalyse the present political attitude in teaching history. Let me first present the nature of the prevailing political control with my ownexperience. During 1969-70, the Central Government under Smt. IndiraGandhi, with a mission to integrate the nation through education hadestablished a committee under the Chairmanship of G.Parthasarathy, adiplomat and was very close to Nehru-Gandhi family. At that time I was areader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and I was selected as one ofthe five members of the committee. In the first meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, the Chairman of the committee had explained the purposeof the committee in his diplomatic polite language: "it is our duty notto sow the seeds of thorns in the minds of the growing children which will shape up as barriers for the national integration. Such thorns aremostly seen in the history lessons. Even we can find them occasionallyin the language and social science lessons. We have to weed out suchthorns. We have to include only such thoughts which will inculcate the concept of national integration in the minds of the children. Thiscommittee has this great responsibility on it."

Other four members were nodding their heads respectfully. I said:

"Sir, I am not able to understand your words. Will you please explain with some illustrations?"

"Gazni Mohammed had looted Somnath Temple, Aurangzeb built the mosquesby demolishing the temples in Kashi and Mathura, he collected jizya - isit helpful to build a strong India under the present circumstances by conveying such useless facts, other than generating the hatred in theminds?"

"But are not they the historical truths?"

"Plenty of truths are there. To use these truths discriminately is thewisdom of the history"

The remaining four members simply nodded their heads by saying "yes,yes".

"You gave examples of Kashi and Mathura. Even today every year lakhs of people go to these places from all nooks and corners of the country aspilgrims. They can see very clearly the huge mosques built using thesame walls, pillars and columns of the demolished temples, they can also see a recently built cow shed like structure in a corner, behind themosque, representing their temple. All these pilgrims are distressed towitness such awful structures. They describe the plight of their temples to their relatives after they return home. Whether this can createnational integration? One can hide the history in the school texts. Butcan we hide such facts when these children go on excursions? Theresearchers have listed more than thirty thousand such ruined temples in India. Can we hide them all? . . . . ."

Mr. Parthasarthy interrupted me by asking "you are a professor ofPhilosphy. Please tell us what is the purpose of history?"

"No body can define the purpose of history. We do not know how the things shape up because of the development of science and technology inthe future. Some western thinkers might have called it the philosophy ofhistory. But such thoughts are futile. Our discussion here should be, what is the purpose of teaching history? History is seeking the truthabout our past events, learning about the ancient human lives bystudying the inscriptions, records, literary works, relics, artifactsetc. We should not commit the same blunders that our predecessors committed, we have to imbibe the noble qualities that they have adopted,historical truths help us to learn all these things.. . . ."

"Can we hurt the feelings of the minority? Can we divide the society? Can we sow the seeds of poison . . . ." he stopped me with these questions.

"Sir, the categorization on the lines of majority and minority woulditself result in the division of the society or that would be a strategyto divide the society. This idea of 'seeds of poison' is prejudiced. Why should the minority think that Gazni Mohammed, Aurangzeb are their ownpeople? Mughal kingdom was destroyed by the religious bigotry ofAurangzeb. Mughal kingdom was at its pinnacle because of Akbar's rulesfor religious harmony, can't we teach such lessons to the children without offending the historical truths? Before teaching the lessons tobe learnt from the history, should we not explain the historical truths?These ideals of hiding history are influenced by the politics. This trend will not last long. Whether they are minority or majority, if theeducation does not impart the intellectual power to face the truth andthe resultant emotional maturity then such education is meaningless andalso dangerous." I said.

Parthasarathy agreed. He appreciated my scholarship and ability tothink. During lunch break he called me separately, indicated hiscloseness to me by touching my shoulders, enquired about my native place. He asked me to write a Kannada word, and spoke two sentences inTamil thus emphasized the fact that we are from neighbouring states,speaking the sister languages. Afterwards he said with a winning smile, "your thoughts are correct academically. You write an article aboutthis. But when the government formulates a policy governing the entirenation, it has to combine the interests of all the people. Puritanprinciples do not serve any purpose."

Next day when we met, I struck to my stand strongly. I argued thathistory that is not based on truth is futile and dangerous too.Parthasarathy showed his irritation on his face. I did not budge. The morning session closed without arriving at any conclusion. Parthasarathydid not speak to me again. After a fortnight again we met. The committeewas re-structured, my name was not there, in my place a lecturer inhistory by name Arjun dev with leftist ideas was included in the committee. The revised text books of science and social studiespublished by NCERT and the new lessons that were introduced in thesetexts were written under his guidance. These are the books which wereprescribed as texts in the congress and communist ruled states or they guided the text book writers in these States.

(I am quoting this instance taken from my presidential speech at Alwas Nudisiri, second conference held on October 21,22,23-2005).

NCERT books for XI standard, Ancient India is written by a Marxist historian R.S. Sharma and Medieval India written by another Marxisthistorian Satish Chandra, when reviewed, one can observe that howmembers belonging to this group had a scheme to invade the minds ofgrowing children. According to them Ashoka preached to respect even(stress is mine) Brahmins by advocating the quality of tolerance. He hadbanned the ritual of sacrificing the animals and birds, performance of yagnas were stopped due to this ban, Brahmins lost their share ofdakshina (cash gifts) and their livelihood was affected. After Ashoka,Maurya kingdom was disintegrated and many parts of this kingdom cameunder the rule of Brahmins. How childish it is, to say that a highly influential religion, which had spread all over India and even crossedthe borders to reach foreign shores declined because of dissatisfiedBrahmins who were deprived of their dakshina (cash gifts). Muslimsdemolished the temples to loot the riches and wealth accumulated in these temples- this explanation softens their actions. In some othercontext they may even say the looting may be according to the laws ofShariat which again paints the events as insignificant.

Dr. Ambedkar in the section, the decline and fall of Buddhism (Writingsand Speeches volume III, Government of Maharashtra 1987 pp 229-38) afterexplaining the events like Muslim invaders destroying the universitiesof Nalanda, Vikramasheela, Jagaddala, Odanthapura etc., brutal killingsof the Buddhist monks, escape of Buddhist monks to Nepal, Tibet to savetheir lives says, "the roots of Buddhism were axed. Islam killed theBuddhism by killing priestly class of Buddhism. This the worstcatastrophe suffered by the Buddhism in India."

These Marxists who quote Dr. Ambedkar whenever it is convenient for them to denigrate Hinduism, ignore nicely these words'the decline of Buddhismin India is due to terrifying actions of Muslims'of Dr. Ambedkar, whofought against the caste system in Hinduism throughout his life and at the end embraced Buddhism; this may be it is one of the importantphilosophies of Indian Marxists. R.S. Sharma the author of NCERT textAncient India, New Delhi, 1992 p 112 writes, "Buddha viharas attractedTurkish invaders because of their wealth. They were the special greedy targets for the invaders. Turks killed many Buddhist monks. Despitethese killings, many monks escaped to Nepal and Tibet."

Here the clever Marxists have hidden the fact that Muslims destroyedthese religious places as dictated by Shariat by calling Muslims of Turkey with a tribal name Turkish. At the same time they write thatBuddhism declined during Ashoka's reign because of Brahmins who weredeprived of their dakshina (monetary gifts). One should appreciate theircleverness to hide a truth by creating an untruth.

The English scholars who started writing Indian history on the lines ofEuropean history have introduced us to a good method. They had a cunningidea behind their scholarship. First they established that Indianculture is Vedic culture. The creators of this culture are Aryans whowere outsiders. They established themselves by destroying the localcivilization. All the invaders who came later were outsiders. Muslims came. After them we (English) came. Therefore if we are not natives ofthis country, you are also not natives of this land. Englishstrengthened this argument in the universities, media and also in theminds of the English educated people. Rigveda the so called religious text of Aryans was written when they were outside India. That means thebasic religion of Indians was originated from a foreign land. Thisargument severed the spiritual relationship between India and Indians.English educated Indians were struggling with this alien feeling forabout 100 years. This argument sowed and enraged the feelings of hatredand racial hostility between Aryans who were outsiders and theDravidians the natives of this land. It is easy to create the feelingsof hatred and hostility. But the people who know the human psychologycan understand that it is very difficult to come out of such feelingseven after knowing that the reasons quoted in support of these arguments were proved wrong. Although the research conducted in the later periodsdiscovered many facts which were against the theory that Aryans wereoutsiders, nobody has written a complete history of India from theIndian point of view. Under such circumstances, freedom fighter,follower of Gandhi, famous advocate, the member of Constitution DraftingCommittee, a great scholar, founder of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,Kanhiahlal Munshi had planned to write a complete Indian history. He invited an eminent scholar and researcher

R.C. Majumdar to be the editor of this book. Both of them entered into acontract. As per the terms of the contract Munshi should supply all theequipment and finance that is required by Majumdar. But he should neverinterfere in the matters of choosing the historians to write varioussections, and also in the ensuing discussions. Munshi was committed tothis agreement. Majumdar was able to produce and publish 11 volumes of a complete, objective and scholarly book, 'THE HISTORY AND THE CULTURE OFTHE INDIAN PEOPLE' with the cooperation of the scholars specialized inwriting various sections. In the last 15 years nobody has written a book like this singly or jointly. I had read all these volumes long back. Ifone refers the sections of this book to know about any period or thesubject one will find the resource material of all the research happened so far in the matter. The recent research findings should only be addedin the recent editions of this book. I have kept all the 11 volumes inmy collection.

National Book Trust had proposed to translate all these volumes in all the Indian languages. The proposal was sent to ICHR (Indian Council forHistorical Research) because this is a history book. ICHR constituted acommittee comprising of S.Gopal, Tapan Roy Choudhary, Satish Chandra,Romilla Thapar to review this book. In the meantime ICHR was under the full control of Marxists. All these people were strict Marxists. As thepecked this committee had recommended that 'these volumes from BharatiyaVidya Bhavan are not suitable for translation and hence the proposal should be rejected', with this recommendation the proposal died anatural death. Further the committee suggested alternative books for thetranslation into Indian languages. All these books were written byeither these members of the committee or by their other Marxist comrades. Their list included five books of ICHR president R.S. Sharma,3 books of S. Gopal (the son of scholar philosopher S. Radhakrishnan), 3books of Romilla Thapar, 2 books of Bipin Chandra, 2 books of IrfanHabib, 2 books of his father Mohammed Habib, one book of Satish Chandra,books of E.M.S. Namboodri, the senior leader of Communist Party of Indiaand the book of British Rajni Pamdatta (who was controlling Indian communists during the decade of 1940s). But there was not even a singlebook of Lokamanya Tilak, Jadunath Sarkar or R.C. Majumdar!

(One has to refer Arun Shourie's EMINENT HISTORIANS: Their Technology,Their Lime, Their Fraud, ASA 1998 for this information). Various groups hate Arun Shourie for various reasons. Shourie is special, in the sensethat he will investigate thoroughly until he reaches the roots of anysubject which he intends to write. In the book Eminent Historians, Sri Shourie has investigated about these writers and has unearthed thedetails of who had recommended the books for translation and who hasreceived what remuneration how much fees and in what form .)

The influence of Gandhian thoughts had declined in the Congress Party in the last days of Gandhiji. Nehru never followed Gandhian thoughts. Though he had great admiration for the democracy of England, in his heart he had love for the communism of Russia. After he came to power he gradually sidelined other congress leaders. The death of Patel was a boon to him. Rajendra Prasad as a President was only a formal head. Rajaji, Krupalani though they formed their own parties, were not influential enough. Nehru was not innocent though he was under the control of a radical communist like Krishna Menon. He was well known in the international circles because he was one of the leading figures who followed the global non-alignment policy but yet he was disliked by western countries like America as the non alignment policy had the strong support of communist Russia. As a result India suffered a loss. India's loss was not Nehru's loss. He was so much devoted and had a strong faith in communism that his government and the entire Indian Media was chanting the mantra, Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai as a daily ritual till China forcibly kicked us out of our own land. In the meantime communists (Marxists) had occupied the Indian intellectual world. Nehru had a scheme to divide Hindus and to please the Muslims for his political survival. Nehru adopted the same strategy that British used to continue their regime in this country. Secularism means a word of contempt used to address only Hindus. Secularism means our duty towards Muslims and Christians. Nehru spread the message that minority will never be secular. M.C. (Mohammed Karim) Chagla in his autobiography, 'Roses in December' writes, he was born and brought up in Mumbai. He was a lawyer in the same city, earned a great name as an honest person. Later he retired as the Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court. He wanted to contest for Loksabha. He wrote a letter to Nehru asking for a ticket for one of the constituencies of Mumbai. He was given a ticket for Aurangabad constituency through a letter from Congress high command. He had written a letter in reply to the high command letter, "I was born and I grew up in Mumbai, I am familiar with the people of Mumbai by serving them. Why did you give me ticket for the unfamiliar Aurangabad ?" Nehru's high command answer for this letter was, "Aurangabad is a Muslim majority constituency. You are also a Muslim. So you can contest from that constituency."

I was a boy when India got independence and also during the elections conducted later on. But I knew very well even as a boy, which caste is strong in which constituency and was familiar with the discussions held to select the candidates belonging to the same caste to contest from that constituency.

Indira Gandhi had one and only aim of retaining the power, so she needed the support of communists to crush the Jansangh and the old guards of Congress like Morarji Desai, Nijalingappa, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Kamraj and others. Communists knew pretty well that they cannot occupy the seat of power directly, so they devised a plan so that at least their theories would capture the seat of power. Therefore Indira Gandhi helped them to enter and occupy the posts in the universities, media, ICHR, NCERT etc. Communist Russia also pressurized to tread this path. Nehru and his daughter had become so close to Russia that they were not in a position to oppose her strongly. Communists somehow learnt the tactics from the dictatorial administration models of Russia and China to take the reins in their hands completely after occupying the vital places in the intellectual life of the country. However the lifeline of UPA government of Sonia Gandhi is in the hands of communists.

Media pretended silence when leftists occupied the education and history commissions, the departments of history, social science, literature and other subjects of the universities in our country. Leftists raised their voices when Murali Manohar Joshi from NDA government tried to bring the changes like Indianising the education, directing to mention the contributions of the ancient India to science while teaching science, advising to begin the day in the schools with Saraswathi Vandana. Even media projected them as great calamities. Congress members and the proponents of equality started a movement because they could visualize the rising storms in the country due to these changes. Nobody from these groups is objecting when Arjun Singh from the present UPA government is resurrecting the leftist agenda in its extreme form. Media, specially the English media, in fact is encouraging this trend.

The only aim of Congress is to retain the power and it lacks the original thinking. It is sleeping blissfully in the thought of borrowing it from the communists. But it is following the liberal policies, thinking that the economic polices of the previous government had damaged the economy. Communists have accepted these policies in their hearts and are unable to come out of the clutches of Marxism, the very basis of their identity.

The methods adopted by the leftists to spread their roots is not different from the bane of caste politics in India. They systematically execute the tasks of appointing people who are loyal to their theories in the universities, presenting their own theories through newspapers, television and other media, getting appreciative criticisms for the books written by their favourite writers, devising plans to banish the writers from the opposite group, spreading their messages by organizing the seminars frequently to attract the growing minds, getting awards and titles for their own men from the government. They have started a system of literary criticism for evaluating the books in the light of the standards defined in their theories. They think that they have reduced to the dust the traditional concepts of criticism like pure literature, aesthetics, imagery, context etc.

Even the truth in case of communists would be the stand taken by their party, similarly other values like art, morals etc. I need not explain these things to the people who have read the books written about these topics published by the communist Russia and sold at cheaper rates in India and in other countries.

I am always interested in the sociology, psychology history and other branches of humanities. I have studied all these subjects to some extent. Philosophy is my professional subject. Soundarya Meemse is my research field. But I am interested in the literature, I started writing novels. Truth and beauty, specially the relationship between the truth and the literature is haunting my mind. How much liberty an author has while creating the historical characters which are clearly defined by the inscriptions, records, relics, excavations and other evidences? I am haunted by this query- what is the nature of this liberty? The statements made by the author of 'The Real Tipu'(Kannada translation "Tipu - nija swaroopa" by Pradhan Gurudatta, Sahithi Sindhu Prakashana, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore 1) H.D. Sharma in his preface in the matter has stimulated my thoughts. "Tipusultan has recently leaped from the history books on to the small screen. This has created a special interest about him and his period. This has raised a serious debate. Because many people - specially the people from Kerala - feel that Tipu was not like he was shown in the TV serial. (The serial is based on the novel 'The Sword of Tipusultan' by Bhagwan S. Gidwani is full of lies and has twisted the facts.) TV serial has contributed the untruths in its own way. This raging debate motivated me to make a detailed study about Tipu. When I learnt the facts I was shocked." (This is the English translation of Pradhan Gurudat's Kannada translation quoted by Mr. Bhyrappa in the article.)

Of course, one should not think about the Indian, specially the bollywood people who are experts in selling their thrilling, colourful entertainments. Even the people who write ballads are from the village fairs and dramas. But why people who write serious literature create thrilling, entertaining scenes of different type? Why do not they be loyal to the historical facts? Why do not they release themselves from the clutches of the historians of their ideology and try to interpret the historical evidences thinking independently? The historian S. Shettar (ICHR president) who supported Girish Karnad says, "Girish Karnad while writing a drama on Tippusultan, was searching for his good qualities only with the purpose of writing a drama. Dramatists and historians and creative writers will have their own ideals." (Vijaya Karnataka, 27th September, 2006). In this context, what is the difference between ideology and ideals? An author can escape under the cover of an advantage of an idea. If a historian attempts to use such advantages what would be the fate of the truth? Marxist historians cannot understand this question, even after explaining the subtleties of the question. Of course we cannot comment about the authors who are under their control.