Unceremonious exits - Leftist media last days...

Sagarika Ghosh and Rajdeep resigned from CNN-IBN in July 2014, both went on to publish books.

Barkha Dutt left  NDTV January 2017, also published a book in 2016.

Karan Thapar left India Today Television in 2017, published a book this year.

Punya Prasoon Bajpai out of ABP this year, will he get into book writing cum BJP bashing business?

Whats common? Rant against Modi, un-viability of traditional TV NEWS business/not able to manage TRP/Profit, emergence of Social media, irrelevance of left/liberal narrative ??? 

Rome & Rebellions

For more than six centuries, Roman empire was able to crush all rebellions and maintained territorial integrity. Almost all rebellions met with same destiny- Defeat.

Though initially successful and  got a decisive victory against three Roman legions in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, Arminius was murdered by opponents within his own tribe.

Illyrian revolt was crushed after 4 years of blockade and counter-insurgency operations.

Boudica poisoned herself in England. Gildo committed suicide by hanging. Jacob and Simon were executed. Mariccus  thrown to the wild animals.

Most successful of them all, Viriatus even forced Romans to acknowledge his independence under a treaty, Romans ultimately got him assassinated. Romans understood te value of treachery rather than open confrontation to defeat rebels. Chinese had the same understanding regarding their barbarian opponents.

Gallic rebel Vercingetorix was imprisoned, publicly paraded in Caesar's triumph and executed after the triumph, probably by strangulation. 

Slave rebellion under Spartacus was successful in its first phase,  Crassus got Six thousand survivors of the revolt crucified, lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua.

Half a million Jews perished during Bar Kokhba revolt.

Rome always won. Entirely ruthless in achieving their objectives which was always to destroy enemy's ability to resist completely. To eliminate anyone who got into their way.

Buddhist Decline and Islamic Sword

Liberals love Buddhism, Ambedkar became one, its seen as a revolution that challenged Brahminic Hinduism, supposedly more egalitarian, emancipated Dalits (Not proven) etc etc. Why then was it displaced in Central Asia, Afghanistan & medieval India and who displaced them? 

An expanding Islam under Arab leadership drove Buddhism out of Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Let's take case of Nava Vihara- It was a Buddhist monastery near the ancient city of Balkh in northern Afghanistan. Arabs conquered it from Turkisahis around 663 AD. Most of the non-muslims accepted Dhimmi status while one Abbott converted to Islam. In 708 AD, Turkmen king Nazaktar Khan with his Tibetan allies expelled Arabs from Bactria and established a fanatic Buddhist rule there. Arabs wrested Bactria by 715 AD and inflicted heavy damage on Nava Vihara for their role in insurrection.

Mainland India: The main centres of Buddhism had remained in Magadha and Northwest India, were finally destroyed when the Muslims took power in last decade of 12th century, thus destroying great monastic universities in Bihar (Nalanda and Vikramasila) and Bengal.

Khotan continued as one of the centres of Buddhism in Chinese Turkestan till first decade of 11th century. Khotan and Kashgar were considered the gate for all Indian influences in Central Asia. Karakhanid Sultan Satuq Bughra Khan converted to Islam in 934 AD, thus started a long struggle between Islamic Kashgar and Buddhist Khotan. In 1006 AD,KaraKhanid ruler Yusuf Kadir Khan of Kashgar conquered Khotan, ending Khotan's existence as an independent Buddhist state.

Anti-Buddhist sentiment is well-captured in a Kashgari folk song-

....We came down on them like a flood, We went out among their cities, We tore down the idol-temples, We sat on the Buddha's head..

So Balkh, Khotan, Nalanda all lost to sword of Islam, never recovered. Now, why would Hindus be blamed for their destruction?

Today’s excerpt- The Command of the Ocean by N. A. M. Rodger

History of British navy that mastered the oceans, controlled global trade and became world ruler. On India (Comments in red are mine)-

.....The favourite hunting-ground of these Anglo-American pirates was the Indian Ocean, where trade was rich and European warships scarce. Basing themselves in Madagascar or other islands, they preyed especially on Indian ships. The ‘Great Mughul’ Aurangzeb, emperor of India, naturally complained to the English East India Company, which depended entirely on his licences to trade; while the VOC maliciously encouraged the Mughals to think that all pirates were English, and all Englishmen were pirates. In 1690 the company’s trade was stopped in retaliation for English piracy. In 1695 the pirate Henry Avery took the Great Mughal’s own ship the Ganj-i-Salwai, carrying pilgrims to Mecca, whom the pirates raped and killed. (Great Mughals had no naval deterrence, English were pirates operating in Indian ocean lured by the treasure fleets of the Indian Moghul rulers)

This time the company had to undertake to escort Mughal shipping to get its privileges restored. Then three East Indiamen mutinied and turned pirate, and in January 1698 Captain William Kidd took the Indian ship Quedah Merchant (whose cargo belonged partly to a Mughal minister) off Cochin. By 1701 the East India Company was on the verge of destruction, but at home the political tide was turning against the Whigs, and the activities of men like Kidd were becoming an embarrassment. Arrested on his return to New York, he was hanged in London in May 1701.

The English domestic economy still depended overwhelmingly on agriculture and woollen cloth, but English (and now Scottish) merchants imported, and in large measure re-exported to Europe, greater and greater quantities of sugar and tobacco from the West Indian and American colonies, cotton from India and silk from China. These were long-distance ‘rich trades’, earning large profits but requiring large capital and advanced skills in banking, insurance and the management of shipping. (Yes, Navy & Financial markets are two innovation that we could have learnt from British, not Democracy/Secularism/Tea/Cricket as many fiberals peddle)

...To a greater and greater extent, Britain’s real wealth was generated, and seen to be generated, from a maritime system in which overseas trade created the income which paid for the Navy, merchant shipping trained the seamen which manned it, so that the Navy in turn could protect trade and the country. Much was still to be learned about how best to do both, but few informed observers in 1714 would have disputed Lord Haversham’s judgement that ‘Your trade is the mother and nurse of your seamen; your seamen are the life of your fleet; and your fleet is the security and protection of your trade: and both together are the wealth, strength, security and glory of Britain.’

...Sulphur was imported from Italy, while saltpetre, still scarce in the 1650s, was imported from India by the East India Company. (The British Empire owed much of its strength to ready supplies of saltpeter obtained from India, an important raw material for Gun Powder, this part have not got as much attention as cotton/Opium)

......When RearAdmiral Charles Watson arrived at Bombay in 1755 his first task was to second the East India Company’s own little navy, the ‘Bombay Marine’, in a campaign against Mahratta sea power on the Malabar Coast, where Angria (the Mahratta admiral) was a standing threat to coasting trade, and sometimes even to the big East Indiamen. The Company’s ships had already taken the Mahratta port of Severndroog in 1755; in February 1756 Watson and Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Clive launched an amphibious assault on Angria’s main base of Gheria. This succeeded, where all previous assaults had failed, because Watson had adequate charts, surveyed especially for the operation, which allowed him to work his big ships through the shoals and alongside Angria’s fortifications. (Angrias resisted British Navy from the time of Shivaji and were successful to some extent)

The only British dry dock overseas did not belong to the Navy (though warships freely used it), but to the East India Company at Bombay, where the tidal range was just sufficient to dock ships of the line. Opened in 1754, made double during the Seven Years’ War and triple in 1773, it was an essential support of British naval supremacy in the Indian Ocean. (We could not learn this from British..still struggling to build ships, Chinese are already here, anyway we learnt secular/liberal values)

The third was the hope of establishing bases useful in wartime, particularly those from which expeditions could be despatched to open up Spanish South America, whose unproductive wealth and neglected commercial opportunities were an article of faith among British policy-makers. In pursuit of one or more of these ideas, surveys of the Indian Ocean were set in motion which identified harbours of potential importance in Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago (midway between Mauritius and India), the Andaman Islands and Nancowry Island in the Nicobars (both on the windward side of the Bay of Bengal in winter-time).

..the great conquests of Marquis Wellesley (and his brother Sir Arthur Wellesley) as Governor-General of India from 1798 to 1805, which (at the cost of almost bankrupting the East India Company) had created a new British Indian empire and a British Indian army. By persuading their Indian troops that they might make sea voyages without losing caste, the British acquired in the East what they never had in Europe: a major field army available for overseas operations....

...Besides, Britain had acquired a new overseas empire, but not from its European enemies. It was in India that the conquests of Cornwallis and Wellesley carved out a new empire for the East India Company, which by 1818 had annual tax revenues of £18 million (one-third of Britain’s) and an army of 180,000 men. This empire was self-supporting, though its trade and connection with Britain of course depended entirely on command of the sea.

Lalu Prasad Yadav- Ruin of Bihar Economy

In 1980s, Bihar failed to grow fast enough to keep up with the rest of the country. Bihar’s recorded a growth rate of 2.3%, while India’s averaged 3.2% during 1980s. Then Lalu Yadav came to power in 1990 which coincided with the onset of the Economic liberalization. Bihar continued to decline, bottoming out at 32% in 2005. Since then, there has been a recovery, the recovery was coincided with onset of Chief Ministership of Nitish Kumar supported by BJP.

Bihar’s NDP per capita relative to India’s                                                                            

Economic Ruin of India by Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty

Average Annual Percentage Rates of Growth in Per Capita Income (1950-80)

Indian grew the lowest among all major Asian economies consistently for 30 years. Yes, we had wars, droughts and economic paralysis thanks to British rule. Then, same can be said about Japan, Korea and China who went through worst of World War 2, Korean War, or Nuclear holocaust in case of Japan. That's two generations wasted due to faulty economic policies.

Indian Critiques of Gandhi

I recently read Indian Critiques of Gandhi (State University of New York Press, 2003). I loved this book, especially the following chapters:

-Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Untouchability

-Sri Aurobindo’s Dismissal of Gandhi and His Nonviolence

-The Hindu Mahasabha and Gandhi

-Indian Muslim Critiques of Gandhi,

That said, here are some of my favorite quotes from the chapter- Indian Muslim Critiques of Gandhi by Roland E. Miller (Author of Mappila Muslims Of Kerala).

… Indian Muslim views of Gandhi were marked by a “stutter-step,” even a “flip-flop” quality, rather than by an even flow.

“I consider the satyagraha movement to be practically impossible and wholly unprofitable. . . . Except some isolated people, I consider Mussalmans generally absolutely unfit to act on the principles of satyagraha.” MukhtarAhmad Ansari

...P. C. Chaudhury summarizes Ansari’s influence in these words: “It was practically through Dr. Ansari and Hakim Ajmal Khan that Gandhiji could get into the inner enclave of the orthodox and cultured Muslims of Delhi, and through them of Northern India.

...Yet we know that Azad disagreed with Gandhi, most notably in the final acceptance of India’s division, a moment when Azad’s silence spoke louder than words.

....Azad did not accept Gandhi’s ahilsa as “an absolute value.” He held to the validity of defensive force and the idea of just war, and believed that the Prophet Muhammad provided the true example for the appropriate use of force.

…when I interviewed a revered leader of the Mappila intellectual renaissance and a former university vice chancellor he stated that there were three things that bothered Kerala Muslims about Gandhi: his stubbornness, his religious revivalism, and his virtual abandonment of the Mappilas.

Before coming to Calicut, in a speech at Shajahanpur on May 5, 1920, Shaukat Ali stated, “I tell you that to kill and to be killed in the way of God are both satyagraha. To lay down our lives in the way of God for righteousness and to destroy the life of the tyrant who stands in the way of righteousness, are both very great service to God. But we have promised to co-operate with Mr.Gandhi who is with us. . . . If this fails, the Mussalmans will decide what to do.”

Shivaji's Utsav by Rabindranath Tagore

Rabindranath composed the poem “Shivaji’s Utsav”, inspired by the Shivaji festival introduced by Balgangadhar Tilak in Bengal. In Shivaji’s Utsav, he glorified Shivaji’s aim and ideal as eternal truth of freedom and priceless heritage of India. 

Shivaji has been a favorite of Vishwaguru. In 1897, he wrote a poem “Pratinidhi” where he sand paean to the idealized form of kingship which was preached by saint Ramdas to his disciple Shivaji.

In the introduction to “Shivaji o Maratha jati” (1908) written by Sarat kumar Roy, Rabindranth wrote, “the whole Maharashtra was deeply plunged in intense religious fervor and Shivaji emerged out of that movement. For this reason while he was blessed by the united power of his nation, it becomes true in viceversa. If shivaji was a mere genius in robbery and used his powers  for his self-interest, it  could never unite the whole Maratha nation."

Following  are the excerpts from the poem Sivaji's Utsav:

In what far away century on what unmarked day

I no longer know today

Upon what mountain peak, in darkened forests,

Oh King Shivaji,

Did this thought light up your brow as a touch of lightning

As it came to thee –

“The scattered parts of this land with one religion

‘ Shall I bind for eternity.”

Bengal did not stir that day in the midst of a dream,

It had not received the word –

It did not answer thy call, nor heralded it

With the blowing of the sacred conch –

Instead it spread its shielding veil

Its robes of verdant green

Over the slumbering village folk at night

Gathering them to her breast.

Then one day from the fields of Mahrattha

Your thunderous flame

Painted the horizons all about with flames of violent change

Imbued with a great clarion call.

The crown upon the Mughal’s brow was shaken by storm

As is a ripening leaf –

Even that day Bengal did not hear that thunderous Marattha call

Nor heed the message within.

After that in the midst of turbulent darkness

The palace of Delhi was emptied –

In each of their great halls ravenous night

Began engulfing the brilliance of light.

The corpse craving vultures cackled in hideous tones

As the glory of the Mughals

Finally succumbed to the pyre- in handfuls of ashes

Are their remains retained.

That day in this Bengal by the side of the traders route

Upon silent steps

The merchants secretly smuggled in perfidy

The throne that had once housed kings.

And Bengal anointed that very same seat with the water of its own Ganges

In secretive silence –

The weighing scales that had once measured profit refashioned through that dark night

Till at dawn a sceptre was held in the hands of a new king.

Where were you that day, Oh thoughtful brave Mahrattha,

Why did we not hear thy name!

Where lay your saffron flag crushed to dust –

What a terrible end!

The foreigner tells your story laughing you off as a bandit king

Roaring with mirth at your fall –

Your devoted effort now seen as a thief’s fruitless quest,

This is how they know you today.

Silence your garrulous words, false account

Thou art filled with lies,

Your writ shall be erased by the truth the Creator scribes

That alone shall prevail.

For how will the truth that is for immortality bound

Be disguised by the avarice of your tongue?

The prayers that are true will never be stalled

In the three worlds this I know to be true.

Oh brave royal penitent, the greatness of thought

That you have left for fate to treasure

Not one grain of that will

Be lost to the undeserving.

The sacrifice you made at the altar of the goddess who guards our land

The truth that you strove for relentless,

Who would have thought that it will grace till the end of days

The coffers of this land of ours.

For long did you remain unknown to the world, ascetic king of mine,

Among the peaks

Just as a stream breaks through the rocks to awaken with rain

In full spate,

You too emerged – to the surprise of the world who thought,

This pennant that

Hides the skies, what shape had it sought

Where was it secreted away for so long.

Strategic Depth

How to define Strategic depth- the space a combatant can exploit beyond its core territories or the internal distance within a state from the frontline to its centre of gravity or Heartland, its core population areas or important cities or industrial installations.

For Russia, Caspian Sea could be about strategic depth as its launched long-range Kalibr cruise missiles from the sea to targets in Syria (more than 1000 miles away).

After World war II, the Soviet Union created the strategic depth it needed to guard against a western invasion by occupying Poland and the Baltic states. Fast forward to 2017, Sweden and Finland are coming together to create their own strategic depth to counter Russia. The Swedish Air Force could allow Finland to use its bases in case Finland have to withdraw its forces in the face of an invasion by Russia. 

Iran and activities of its proxies is another case of cultivation of strategic depth. The Iranian regime sees Syria and Lebanon as its strategic depth. It is funding a plethora of paramilitary proxies, which have become the primary agents of regional instability in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Take Pakistan for example, well-known for its strategic depth play. For Pakistan, Afghanistan represents strategic depth against its enemy number one India. Pakistan thinks it must ensure a friendly government on its western border in the event of a military clash against India to gain space for retreat and reorganization. 

But Afghanistan has no such notion, to Quote former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, "India provides emotional strategic depth to the Afghan people".

In Africa Sudan and Eritrea are cases of strategic depth for Egypt. In the words of Ahmoud Diaa, national security counsellor (Egypt), "Sudan is an important country for Egypt and represents an important strategic depth for Egypt, and we are one nation". Eritrea is important player for security of the Red Sea.

Arab countries, historically a guarantor of strategic depth for Palestinian rejectionist forces while lack of strategic depth is a dominant narrative in Israel. 

Mr Ahmet Davutoglu in his book, “Strategic Depth”, advocates a new policy of rebuilding ties round the former Ottoman empire.

So Geography, no less than History, is equally important for prospects of viable peace.

Case of two Évolués

Wikipedia defines Évolué as a French label used during the colonial era to refer to a native African or Asian who had "evolved" by becoming Europeanised through education or assimilation and had accepted European values and patterns of behavior. Anglicized in case of Indians.

Patricia Crone in "The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran" talks about two Évolués- 1.Non-Arabs like Iranians or Berbers (conquered and ruled by Arabs in seventh and early eighth centuries) and 2. Indians (ruled by British, a proxy for Europeans). She raises  a pertinent question:

 "Why did the Arab and European expansions have such different effects on the conquered peoples? Both provoked nativist revolts, but the frequency seems to have been greater on the European than the Muslim side. Also both had to cope with angry évolués, but it was only on the European side that these évolués aimed at secession with reference to their own separate identity.

Non-Arab évolués accepted Islam and the political unity it had brought while évolués of the European empires accepted the secular culture brought by the Europeans, but not the political unity they had established. Why this difference?"

Firstly, Arabs propounded Imamate while Europeans offered Nation State. Nationalism links political organisation with people’s separate identities, emphasizing ethnic or racial differences. On the contrary, the Imamate links political organisation with shared convictions, emphasizing faith that transcends such distinctions, having supranational connotation. For example, Muslim rulers continued to get the certificate, banner and robe of honour from Caliphs which sanctified their rule over infidels unlike British who viewed Indian as a distinct nation; albeit an inferior one.

Secondly, unlike the converts to the secular culture of the Europeans the many who converted to Islam became members of the same political and moral community as the conquerors (ummah). A non-Arab Muslim was not just an évolué but also a citizen. Conversion admitted vanquished natives to the ranks of the imperial elite more or less at will. Say a convert could found a Islamic kingdom and get certificate from Caliph. Say a Bahmani Kingdom and or a Malik Kafur.

As the Author says- "Westernisation did not confer membership of the conquerors’ polity. Nehru may have been the last Englishman to rule India, as he told Galbraith with reference to his thoroughly English culture; but he ruled India precisely because he had participated in the eviction of the British, not because he had received British citizenship or appointment as viceroy of India from them. Westernisation never amounted to membership of the imperial elite."

Évolués like Nehru (or most of the Indian Middle class for that matter) did not belong anywhere; they were politically homeless. 

Graham Allison’s book, ‘Destined for War: Can American and China escape Thucydides’s Trap?

I have written my work, not as an essay to win the applause of the moment, but as a

possession for all time.

—Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

Here we are on top of the world. We have arrived at this peak to stay there forever. There

is, of course, this thing called history. But history is something unpleasant that happens to

other people.

—Arnold Toynbee

The book depicts whether war can be averted when an aggressive rising nation (China in 21st century) threatens a dominant power (USA). He studied 16 such cases, twelve of those rivalries ended in war and four did not. Both USA and China believe in their exceptionalism and are probably on a collision course for war. USA hegemony will be challenged by China, as the UK's was threatened by an emerging Germany. UK-Germany rivalry resulted in World war one. This is in contrast to USA-Soviet rivalry where war was averted before the Soviet Union collapsed.

There are many plausible scenarios of how conflicts between these two superpowers could break out. Taiwan, North Korea. (Vietnam and India are regional conflicts,might not attract USA intervention).

Allison asks the most pertinent question, "Will the impending clash between these two great nations lead to war? Will Presidents Trump and Xi, or their successors, follow in the tragic footsteps of the leaders of Athens and Sparta or Britain and Germany? Or will they find a way to avoid war as effectively as Britain and the US did a century ago or the US and the Soviet Union did through four decades of Cold War?"

What is then the central idea expounded by Thucydides as mentioned by Allison- "when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash the rule, not the exception. It happened between Athens and Sparta in the fifth century BCE, between Germany and Britain a century ago, and almost led to war between the Soviet Union and the United States in the 1950s and 1960s."

Racial Sinicisation- Han Power and Racial and Ethnic Domination in China

“Unlike the exterminationist logics of Nazi Germany, the segregationist logics of South African apartheid and the expulsionist logics of racial palestinianisation, the logic of Chinese racial domination involves assimilation by coercion and is akin to post-racial positions in its denial of any shred of raciality.”

Ian Law in Red Racisms: Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts

China, like most other Communist regimes claimed to have ended racism by the mere fact of its triumph. Most of the communist governments denied any racism either towards outsiders or ethnic minorities within the country. Racism might not come as a surprise to someone who is familiar with the language of how minorities are treated in China. Few samples- , “modernising” minorities, “bringing “development”, ending “primitivism” and “feudal practices” or bringing “civilisation” like British did in India (we are grateful of course !!).

Ian Law has exposed this fallacy in his book "Red Racisms: Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts". Following are my favorites from the book-

..Racial sinicisation is primarily driven by the use of migration as a tool of domination, patriotic ‘re-education’ and the use of military power.

.....Sinicisation involves the aggressive, state-led, promotion of Han culture, language and identity, and the concomitant dissolving of the culture, language and identity of non-Han groups and the social disappearing of those groups into the mass of the Chinese nation.

......The civilising mission of Russia and the Soviet Union particularly in relation to territories in its Eastern borderlands parallels China’s civilising mission in its Western borderlands.

..In scores of official policies and regulations, there is an open attitude of superiority and paternalism, which is sometimes officially recognised as ‘Han chauvinism’ (dà Hànzúzhuyì ˇ ) but which masks a reality that exists in countries all over the world – racism.

...........The sino-centric view of a superior central state and associated civilisation and culture provided a hierarchial world view within which core concepts of racial difference led to a logic of incorporation and assimilation of those other ‘barbarian peoples’ on the part of the Chinese civilisation state.

..Chinese nationalism has been shaped by successive imperialist, Republican and Communist regimes and comprises a mixture of ethnic Han identity and a culturalist pride. 

...A Han Chinese nation came into being with the imperial unification of the Qin-Han period, and with the development of political centralisation and cultural standardisation, such as the decision to designate one national language to be used for all official purposes. Despite internal divisions, alien conquests, elite culturalism, peasant particularism and movements of peoples this nation evolved and defined itself in terms of a common myth of origin and descent, common lifestyles, rituals, a political elite and an imperial bureaucracy.

.....At the heart of China’s first twentieth-century revolution, the Xinhai Revolution in 1911/12, were ideologies of racial hierarchy, race war and the need for racial domination by the Han. Initial uncertainty over how to address the identities and demands of non-Han Chinese was resolved through the vision of post-imperial China as a ‘Republic of Five Nationalities’ (wuzú gònghé ˇ ).

Something recently published on mass internment camps, here.

1st amendment (India & USA)

On May 10, 1951: Jawaharlal Nehru scripted the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution (which was passed into law within a few weeks). It introduced many restrictions on our fundamental rights, also restricted freedom of expression.

In 1950, Crossroad, a pro-communist weekly journal in English,was banned by the Madras State for publishing critical views on Nehruvian policy. The publisher petitioned the Supreme Court, which led to the landmark judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950. This led Nehru administration make the Amendment to 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".

It states “interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” will be paramount and freedom of expression will not be unconditional.

This amendment set the precedent for amending the Constitution to overcome judicial judgments which purportedly impeded the fulfilment of the government’s responsibilities to particular policies and programmes. The amendment’s language gave it retrospective and prospective effect which feature was used by Indira Gandhi to render constitutional, the actions that had been both illegal and unconstitutional during emergency.

Now compare this to what happened in USA?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Now these are two different stories of  freedom of expression, not a difficult one to see which one follows liberalism to the core.

My Notebook (Aug-Sept)

Aug 1: 

Qarachil expedition- In 1333, Muhammad Bin Tughluq led the Qarachil expedition to the Kullu-Kangra region of modern-day Himachal Pradesh in India. Tughluq originally wanted to cross the Himalayas and invade China. He wanted to annex the kingdom to his empire and secure his northern frontier from Chinese ( Mongol ) incursions. He faced local resistance in Himachal. His army was not able to fight in the hills and was defeated by the Katoch clan of Kangra, nearly all his 10,000 soldiers perished and he was forced to retreat.

Temples restored by Marathas that were destroyed during Islamic rule
-The Shri Mahalakshmi (AmbaBai) Temple @ Kolhapur
- Ballaleshwar Pali Temple (contains a bell that was brought back by Chimaji Appaafter his defeat of the Portuguese)

Aug 2:

Manikya dynasty of Tripura
 Dhanya Manikya was the best among Manikya kings. During his time, Muslims under Bengal sultan Hussain Shah invaded Tripura. He captured Chittagong from Muslims. To avenge this disgrace, Tripura was attacked by Muslims three times. First attack took place in 1513. These attacks resulted in a stalemate between both forces. 


Aug 3:

Mongol Code- 
Genghis Khan was a realist, he knew his rise to power had depended on the choices he had made in politics, in friendships, in strategy.

Divine protection, yes, but the Mongol god, external heaven, only helps those who help themselves 

Loyalty was the moral equivalent of gold, rare, hard-won, easily lost....

Aug 6:

Indian historical traditions
-Rajatarangini- Authored by Kalhana, its a historical chronicle of  kings of Kashmir
-Madala Panji- Temple chronicle of Lord Jagannath of Puri. It describes the historical events of Odisha related to Lord Jagannath or Jagannath Temple
-Buranjis- Historical chronicles of Ahom kings of Assam
-Rajmala- Chronicle of the Kings of Tripura

Aug 7:

Eastern Ganga (Odisha) empire's conflict with Bengal sultanate as chronicled in Sanskrit prose/poetry-

1. Ekavali was written by Vidyadhara of Orissa in the fourteenth century. He was the court poet of Langula Narasingha Deva I. Ekavali frequently speaks of king VIranarasimha as having humbled the pride of Hammira ( Muslim king or Emir)

2. Chandra kala Natika- Written by Viswanath Kaviraj, gives credit to Bhanudeva IV with the conquest of Gauda (Bengal). He had marched towards Bengal to save the Hindus from the control of Jalal-ud-dln Muhammad Shah.

My Notebook (October)

Oct 27: South Korea threw weight of state behind rapid Economic growth, channeling credit and subsidies to firms that were successful.North Korea outlawed private property and banned market. 

South Korean success and North Korean bankruptcy has lessons for India- 3 pillars of Economic success: Private property, unbiased system of law, robust public services


26 Oct: 1974 railway strike, a good book on this The Indian Railways Strike of 1974: A Study of Power and Organised Labour by Stephen Sherlock. This one is mostly ignored labour historians, it launched career of George Fernandes who, as the president of the All India Railwaymen's Federation (AIRF), was the main leader of the strike. This will always be remembered  for the brutal methods adopted by the government against the striking workers and their families. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi responded to the strike with tough measures. More than 30,0000 people, including Fernandes, were imprisoned.The army was called out in several places. The government’s ruthlessness paid off. The strike was broken within three weeks.

20 Oct: India has no national consciousness, took little notice of her foreign invaders?

19 Oct: War of Pushyamitra with greeks, often ignored, Pushyamitra drove Greeks out of Magadha, freed Saketa ( Areas around Ayodhya). In the Mālavikāgnimitram, Kālidāsa mentions Vasumitra  (Grandson of Pushyamitra Shunga) who defeated a cavalry squadron of the Yona (Indo-Greeks) on the banks of the Indus River.

13 Oct: Khiljis in Bengal, Muslim conquest of Bengal, disastrous kamrup (Assam) expedition of Bakhtyar Khilji scarcely 100 survived out of 10,000, he died a broken man in 1206 AD.. west-south Bengal remained a part of Ganga empire. By the time of Nasiruddin shah (1442-59), Bhagirathi river was the border of Bengal sultanate and Hindi Ganga empire.Mandaran remained the frontier fortress ans consequently prone to change hands. Ismail Ghazi recovered from local Gajapati commander.Alauddin Hussain Shah recoverd it again in 1509 AD. 

Bengal was conquered by Muslims in first decade of 13th century, yet Odia Gajapatis successfully blocked their expansion for more than three centuries by the time of recovery of Mandaran fort by Hussain Shah.

12 Oct: Jalakanteswarar Temple inside  Vellore fort, worship was banned after the fort fell to Muslims, The public then voluntarily shifted the idol to Sathuvachari for safe worship. After several futile attempts at reinstalling the idol at the original temple during the 20th century, a large group of  Hindu devotees brought the Linga in a closed lorry in March 1981, and re-installed it in its original shrine inside Sri Jalakanteswarar Temple.

Ariyanatha Mudaliar  reconstructed the Meenakshi Temple, destroyed by the Mohammedans in 1569. At the entrance of the Thousand Pillar Mandapam, we can still see the statue of Ariyanatha Mudaliar seated on a  horse-back. 

Ahmadis of Tipu

Following three letters were written by Tipu Sultan to his officers. He mentioned "Ahmadis" in all these letters. Now who were these Ahmadis?

1. To Ghulam Ahmed, Kazy of Nugr

“Your letter has been received. You have written, that nine Frenchmen, together with their captain, had embraced the faith, and that the said captain humbly hoped to be honored with the command of a Ahmadi Risalas. It is known and our pleasure is, that ten rupees be given to each of them, and that they be all dispatched, under an escort a safeguard, to the Presence, where, on their arrival, the aforesaid captain shall receive the honor he solicits. Peremptory orders for the payment of the above stipends, and for furnishing the necessary escort, have been sent to the Kiladar of Nugr.”

2. To the Baxi of Gooty

“Directing him to chastise the turbulent or seditious wherever they raised the head of revolt ; and after making them prisoners, to place those under age or of tender years in the Ahmadi band, and to hang the remainder”

3. To Budruz Zuman Khan

“Your two letters, with the enclosed memorandums of the Nair captives, have been received. You did right in causing a hundred and thirty-five of them to be circumcised, and in putting eleven of the youngest of these into the Usud Ilyhe band [or class], and the remaining ninety-four into the Ahmadi troops”

The Ahmadis were a military corps, composed of the converts (whether forced or voluntary) to the Mohammedan religion. It was instituted by Tipu Sultan. Most of the members of Ahmadi contingent were hindus who were captured and forcibly converted during Tipu’s Malabar and Coorg raids. May be, he was inspired by Janissaries (elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's household troops & bodyguards, an elite corps of slaves made up of kidnapped young Christian boys who were forced to convert to Islam, and became famed for internal cohesion cemented by strict discipline and order).

Pakistan and its allies

Pakistan’s foreign policy has perennially sought that elusive alliance that would solve its key problems: building its economic and military potential and supporting it in its intractable conflict with India.

This premise has driven its alliance with USA. However, Pakistan has never been certain of American support and consequently has sought other allies with which Pakistan’s leaders ( military of course) feel an affinity—be it ideological or strategic—to diversify its sources of support. China has been a source of military assistance (has extended financial assistance with CPEC program), while Saudi Arabia is an ideological and economic collaborator. Between them, the two countries are seen as Pakistan’s friends of last resort.

In case of American retrenchment, Pakistan is likely to turn ever more to Saudi Arabia and China, even if this means providing military guarantees to Saudi Arabia and acting as China’s surrogate against India.

While neither Saudi Arabia nor China was able to prevent Pakistan’s breakup in 1971, the almost mythical faith in their friendship remains intact and will play a key role in framing Pakistan’s policies in the future.

Pakistan and USA

The two countries signed a mutual defense assistance agreement in 1954 and a bilateral executive agreement in 1959. Pakistan also entered into the U.S.-led military alliances known as Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), in 1954 and the U.K.-led alliance known as the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), in 1955.

For the vast majority of their bilateral history, Pakistan and the United States have differed on the nature of the threat that motivated their partnership: for Pakistan it was always India, for the United States it was initially Communism and later global terrorism.

The American reaction to the 1962 Sino-Indian war and the 1965 India-Pakistan war was seen by Pakistan as a betrayal by a close ally.

More recently, in 2005, when Pakistan was hit by an earthquake, and again in 2010, when massive floods engulfed central Pakistan, the United States was again the first to come in with aid but the Saudis gave far more. Pakistan’s leaders have always shied away from praising American support in the form of multilateral inputs, choosing instead to highlight only the bilateral assistance of the so-called dependable allies: Saudi Arabia and China.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has been presented to the Pakistani public as the ideal ideological ally of Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country that would stand by Pakistan in any conflict with India. Saudi Arabia’s assistance to Pakistan has never quite matched the Pakistani expectations despite the effusive rhetoric that Pakistan has long conferred to the kingdom. Like China, Saudi Arabia has periodically provided Pakistan with loans and short-term emergency aid.

Pakistan imports most of its oil from the Gulf and in periods when Pakistan has not been able to pay for this oil the Saudi Arabian government has given them oil at concessional rates or even waived the payment for a few years. For three years after the 1998 nuclear tests Pakistan did not have to pay for the oil that it was provided by Saudi Arabia (Kamal 2008). Pakistan’s economic dependence on the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, continued through the 1980s and into the twenty-first century (Add to this remittances from Pakistanis working in the Gulf).

The 1970s also saw the start of a worrying trend in Saudi-Pakistani relations: Saudi Arabia’s growing role in Pakistan’s domestic politics. Saudi Arabia and its fellow Gulf state the United Arab Emirates have often supported one or another political party in Pakistan, provided economic aid, or deferred loan payments or oil payments when their preferred party was in power and offered asylum to political leaders. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was hosted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after being toppled in a military coup in 1999.

Since the 1970s, Pakistan has sporadically offered military manpower to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies in return for financing Pakistani purchases of military equipment. The most recent instance is the induction of Pakistani volunteers into the military and police in Bahrain, where Saudi Arabia has sought to prop up the Sunni regime against Shia protesters since 2011. Such deployments confer to Pakistan the mantle of protector of the Muslim holy lands.

The Saudi-Pakistan defense cooperation originated with a 1976 bilateral agreement that provided for an exchange of defense technical knowledge. By the mid-1980s, approximately 50,000 Pakistani military personnel were serving abroad, with the largest commitment (about 20,000 persons) to Saudi Arabia. Pakistani pilots routinely participated in air defense operations in Saudi Arabia. The Gulf Arab countries prefer foreign fighters from non-Arab countries as it ensures that the foreigners will not be involved in domestic politics. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, in return for $1 billion in aid, Pakistan stationed around 10,000 Pakistani troops in Saudi Arabia.

In early 2014 there was a discussion between the two governments about Pakistan providing trained military personnel to man Saudi Arabia’s security forces and also talks about creating a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) military force to counter Iran.

Given Pakistan’s lack of funds and the opacity of the financing arrangements for its nuclear program, it is widely believed that Saudi Arabia provided some of the funding that enabled Pakistan to become the world’s first Muslim country to build and test nuclear weapons.

Pakistan has also welcomed donations from wealthy individuals and charities from Saudi Arabia to found and support Wahabbi madrassas and universities in Pakistan. Such institutions have proliferated since the mid- 1970s and became major recruiting centers for jihadis in the 1980s.

China

Pakistani officials and even media accounts portray China as the ideal strategic ally: a country that is strong enough to provide Pakistan economic and military support whenever the Americans stopped or reduced aid but also one that has an antagonistic relationship with India. Pakistan was China’s bridge to the Muslim world in more ways than one. China has a large Muslim minority in its western region and having a friendly Muslim neighbor next door was seen as strategically and diplomatically useful. Friendship with Pakistan helped China build trade and diplomatic ties with the Muslim Middle East and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was the via media for China’s ties with Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries, with economic (energy) and defense (military and nuclear) components.

Right from the start, Chinese investment in the military arena focused on ensuring a captive market for selling its equipment, gaining access to Western technology and equipment from Pakistan, and in later years sharing nuclear and missile technology with Pakistan.

The Pakistani military prefers more sophisticated American weapons, preferably provided on concessional terms. But the American habit of rationing spare parts in case Pakistan enters wars that the United States does not like, as well as the imposition of periodic American sanctions, have caused Pakistan to seek a more reliable source of armaments. Since the 1960s, China has been that source. By 1982 Chinese weapons systems formed the backbone of the Pakistani military arsenal, composing 75 percent of the tank force and 65 percent of the air force (Vertzberger 1983). Between 2008 and 2012, Pakistan was the main purchaser of Chinese weapons, buying 55 percent of Chinese weapons exports (Lipin 2013).

In June 1978, China and Pakistan opened the all-weather Karakoram Highway, the highest paved road in the world at an elevation of 15,000 feet. Attitudes toward the highway demonstrate how each side viewed the relationship: for Pakistan, the road demonstrated China’s commitment and friendship. For China, the highway was a land route through which it could gain access to Central Asia as well as to the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Pakistan viewed itself as being indispensable for China; China viewed Pakistan as a part (but only a part) of securing its energy sources and markets.

Sino-Pakistani cooperation in the nuclear field can be traced back to the 1980s. As early as 1983, American intelligence agencies reported that the Chinese transferred a complete nuclear weapon design to Pakistan, along with enough weapons-grade uranium for two potential nuclear weapons. In 1986, China and Pakistan concluded a comprehensive nuclear cooperation agreement. Later that year, Chinese scientists began ‘‘assisting’’ their Pakistani counterparts with the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium. Analysts believe that, since 1986, ‘‘China has supplied Pakistan with a wide variety of nuclear products and services, ranging from uranium enrichment technology to reactors.’’ There are also reports that China ‘‘involved’’ Pakistani scientists in a nuclear test at its Lop Nur (Xinjiang) test site in 1989.

For Pakistan, the key indicator of true friendship is a country’s view of India and of the Kashmir conflict. China used anti-India rhetoric during Pakistan’s wars with India in 1965 and 1971.

Three years later, during the 1999 Kargil conflict, China once again demonstrated that it had no intention of entering into an India-Pakistan conflict. Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif had flown to the United States to seek American support but President Bill Clinton had asked him to ‘‘respect the sanctity of the Line of Control’’ and withdraw his troops. Hoping for Chinese support, Sharif flew to Beijing, where he received a similar message. These messages delivered by the Chinese, however, have not had the intended impact: Pakistan’s leaders still have faith that China will stand by them in any conflict with India.

As part of Chinese investment in Pakistani infrastructure projects, in 2002 China promised to help in the construction of the Gwadar seaport. For Pakistan, Gwadar was important for both strategic and economic reasons: the port’s development would make Pakistan the gateway to shipping routes for both western China and the Central Asian republics. Pakistan also sought ‘‘strategic depth’’ in Gwadar: Karachi, Pakistan’s other main port and naval headquarters, was located too close to the Indian coast. Gwadar has both strategic and economic benefits for China as well. Gwadar is closer to western China than the ports on China’s eastern coast and is located nearer the Persian Gulf, through which most of China’s oil tankers travel. From the strategic point of view, the Chinese navy’s desire for ‘‘blue-water navy’’ status demands a presence in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.