Although the posts on socio-economics were supposed to be broad-sweep brushes rather than specific analyses of any one tradition, the discussion with Kupa Manduka (KM) veered into some specific issues regarding Islamic fundamentalism and Secularism. Particularlly, the posts were not meant to gloss over genuine issues that Islam has vis-a-vis spirituality in general and to Hindus in particular, over the centuries. I thought I should briefly consider these points, before moving on further:
1. On one hand, I hold that Islamic mysticism/spiritual traditions, broadly covered by the term 'tasawwuf' or 'Sufism' in orientalist/modern parlace, cannot definitely be dismissed as quaint and odd bearers of medieval superstitions. One cannot discount or diminish the really astonishing amount of Sufi material that has genuine mystical practices and contributions to human spirituality in general. It is also not a fringe movement at all, as it is widespread throughout the Islamic world, at one time or another. There are of course many odd Sufis around today who may be practising strange or superstitious practices - but then this can be said about many other spiritual schools in most religious traditions. More serious, in fact, on the other hand, is the undeniable historical phenoneon of the 'warrior-Sufi' who practices the 'outer Jehad' along with his 'inner Jehad' and the role of Sufi missionaries on the 'frontline' of Islamic expansionism. And yes, Sufism had to kowtow to, stay subservient to, and eventually even espouse the cause of rigid and violent Islamic clergy - this has been its greatest failure.
2. Does Islam provide an identity to its adherent that is stronger than what Hindusim or Christianity provides? I have always seriously doubted this. This is just something that undiscerning Hindus have made up. Hindus in fact never bother to ever question a Christian or Muslim what order, sect, branch or tradition they belong to. While they themselves blissfully identify with their caste, language, region, sect or tradition zealously, they assume that someone from another religion can exist happily wihtout such a background!! Islam has two major sects, many minor sects, and within each sect are mutiple numbers of sub-sects. Sunni Islam has four major 'madhabs', at least 4 known movements [in the subcontinent, the quarrelsome 'Deobandi' and the moderate 'Barelvi', the extreme Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafi), the more extreme Wahhabi], many Sufi orders (4 major just in the subcontinent); Shia Islam has many subsects including the majority Twelvers, the smaller numbers of Ismailis, the Zaidis, the Jafaris; then there are Islamic sects that are considered heretic by the others - Bahaii, Druze, Ahmadiyya; finally, any number of castes (ajlaf, ashraf, dalit), tribes (Gujjar, Jat etc and the Afghan, Baluch, Punjabi, Sindhi tribes), ethnicities/nationalities (Persian, Afghan, Mughal, Turk, Arab, Sindhi, Punjabi, Baluchi etc). Muslims cannot to this day agree on even simple questions such as what is considered halal and haram in Islam. The Sunni and Shia cannot agree on basic fundamental events in the life and times of the Prophet - indeed, they even use different Hadeeth collections! When the Wahhabi-allied rulers of the House of Saud captured power in the Arabian peninsula in the 1750's, they pillaged Shia holy cities such as Karbala and Najaf - why they went so far as to desecrate the graves of the Islamic Prophet, his family and companions themselves!! The very concept of God in Islam is still unclear to even erudite Islamic clerics, forget daily practices. Another thing that Muslims doggedely refuse to come to terms with is that, actually, the modern Quran, 'The Quran', is actually nothing but one recension - Uthmanic - among perhaps dozens in circulation in early years AH. How can such a desperately divided religion offer a monolithic 'identity'? All I can say is that some Muslim communities present themselves cockily to their Hindu neighbours.
3. Radicalism however, does seem to have a peculiar place within Islam, since perhaps its very founding. The Prophet's often violent struggle to establish his new religion amidst his Meccan paganist co-nationalists may provide the basis for this unusual zeal. This is why perhaps, there are always Islamic sects that claim to be the 'purest', and 'closest' to the ideals their Prophet upheld, depending upon who much they hate the 'polytheists' and the 'hypocrites'. But the greatest mistake to commit, would be to recognize such deviants to be the 'authentic' representatives of Islam, which is exactly what Hindus often do. No religion has just one predominant tradition - this is something they *must* come to recognize. take for example, Catholicism - the Pope is presented as if he is the sole Patriarch in the whole of Christendom - while actually, he is just one among the many Patriarchs around, including the number of Eastern Orthodox and Syriac ones. There are Muslim traditions that regard the Prophet's historic struggles in their historical context and draw inspiration only from his intent and not action and to this day, these form the majority of the adhrerents. Surveys have consistently shown that the Barelvis constitute the vast majority of subcontinental (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afghan) Muslisms. Yet, Hindus sat around in their pathetically ignorant bliss, even as Deobandis were violently ousting Barelvis and wresting control of Mosques and Madrassa throughout India in the whole 80's and 90's. Instead of marginalizing and de-recognizing Deobandi fanatics and fanatical insitutions such as the Darul Uloom Deoband in favour of Barelvis and Barelvi insitutions such as Jamiatur Raza, they just sit and complain that 'fanatics are taking over'. Fanatics do not take over, overnight. Nor can they be defeated overnight. The key to defetaing them, is to recognize that religious traditions die without patronage. Cut Saudi funds that are coverting all Mosques into Wahhabi ones and supporting Wahhabi missionary propaganda; Cut the sources of funding for Deobandi institutions and clerics; provide Barelvis patronage and more importantly protection to develop and propagate their ideas and ideals freely. Will Hindus ever do this?
4. Is modern Secularism just another euphemism for suppression of Hinduism? Secularism just refers to the separation of religion and the state. The state such maintain an agnostic stance towards any religion - this is the secularist ideal. How can this become a vulgar means to suppress Hinduism, when, fundamentally, Hinduism itself is built on this model? Historically, the Rajan never interfered with the Rishi - those two had their domains and supported and guided each other. Now secularism should not be confused or conflated with some particularly anti-Hindu notions of some western liberals or leftists, or some western academics who are basically white racist or cultural supremacists masquerading as Indologists. While dealing with such individuals and their formidable academic, social, cultural and political clout may be formidable and frustrating, there is nothing in modern Secularism which specifcially allows for such individuals to dominate. As I have pointed out, under the same secular British laws where Indian Hindus preferred a life of virtuous ignominy and self-denial, Sri Lankan Hindus have proudly built dozens of openly Hindu shrines and promoted thier cultural, religious and spiritual values unabashedly.
5. Can Islam overtake Hinduism as the subcontinent's majority religion simply by competitive population growth through inter-marriage? I strongly doubt this and find this highly improbable. On the other hand, actually, Muslim fertility rates too may be falling down under the impact of Secularization and modernization. While modernity may be or may have been a challenge to Hinduism, it is a death-knell to radical and fundamentalist Islam. Conversion is a double-edged sword, and where Muslim men may be marrying Hindu women, there are a number of cases where they are also converting to Hinduism or adopting more moderate Islamic traditions (recently the son of a famous Muslim classicial Hindustani musician adopted Hinduism creating a buzz in the Muslim community). Children of mixed marriages, do not always necessarily adopt Islam - the case of Shahid Kapoor, the son of Pankaj Kapoor and Neelima Azeem, is a professed Hindu and a vegetarian.
Negativity and pessimism are a characteristic of the Sangh-Parivar (Golwalkarite) stream of Hindu nationalism. Time they abandoned this morose and morbid weltanschauung and looked to the positivism of the other streams of Hindu nationalism - Vivekanandite, Aurobindonian, Savarkarite, Gandhian-Tagorean, Goel-Swarupite.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Socio-economics of religion - 2
Although the proponents of various religions would like us to believe otherwise, upon deep examination, we cannot but fail to acknowledge, that human spirituality is fundamentally the same. Every civilization has, in the end, sought 'the ground of all being' - brahman, the supreme absolute, indeed seems ultimately to be the quest of every religion around, including the Aztec and the Maya. We cannot but agree with Ramakrishna's observation in this regard. The only thing that differs, is the approach to this ground of being, which is shaped by the unique social and economic conditions of different polities - religion.
And although the Islamic religious zealots would like us to believe otherwise, Islam too fits into this same pattern. This religion too, seems the absolute immutable in its spirituality, the tasawwuf. Its practices draw from the harsh life of the desert, where it was shaped. The Islamic religion too broadly ebbs and rises in various moulds through time, depending on the socio-economics of Islamic polities. The religion itself was born under difficult circumstances where the traditional societies of the Arabian lands were under immense stress from the two powerful surrounding hegemonic states, Persia and Byzantine, both professing prophetic and assimilationist ideologies under the 'monotheism' of Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The only way for the pagan Arabs to preserve their identity, was to unite under their own brand of 'monotheism', and to face off the competition - thus was born the aggressive, expansive early Islam. However, as the religion stabilized over large parts of West Asia by the 10th century AD, this aggression briefly gave way to cultural maturity: this period was immensely fertile in terms of cultural exchange with neighbouring great civilizations, including Greece and India. But then again by about the 13th century, under the stress of counter-attacks by the Turkic peoples, the religion reverted back to its aggressive assimilative stance. The new races were converted, and their explosive energies diverted to the outside world. Thus was born the next aggressive cycle - this period lead to immense destruction to India and her culture. Later again, when large parts of Northern India were unified under stable Turkic (Mughal) rule, the next high-phase of Islamic cultural syncretism began, characterized by the era of Akbar. By late 18th century though, the Islamic dream in India was in tatters under the pressure of feisty Hindu counter-attacks: and subcontinental Islam has not yet un-mounted the aggressive stance since then. Facing the stark reality of loss of the traditional values in the face of the new wave of secularism that was spreading in India, ignited by contact with Europe, aggressive subcontinental Islam retreated into the garrison state of Pakistan. Now, the disparate and ill-constructed Pakistani society laid on week foundations and with no positive vision for a future except for aggressive Islamic expansionism back into India, seems to be consumed by an insatiable death-wish.
However, the situation is not hopeless, if the 'Arab spring' is anything to go by. Contrary to currently popular or even fashionable notions, Islam, like any other religion, may be neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Human societies are seldom 'naturally' oriented to peace or war as a black-and-white rule. It is all about survival - societies will adapt any means that seems fit to ensure their survival and perpetuation. Until a generation ago, the Arab world was dismissed as being perennially caught up in medieval and fundamentalist ideologies. Those same Arab youths who until some years ago seemingly thought that militant Islam alone was the route to secure a future, are now seeking the democratic nirvana. What has made the difference? Perhaps the greatest difference to West Asia was done not by western 'experiments in democracy', but by the successful model demonstrated by Islamists in Turkey. Erdogan through his success has perhaps done to West Asia, what Bin Laden and Bush and Blair could not achieve - showing that democracy can work in bringing about positive change in Islamic societies too.
If societies can see that peaceful, pragmatic means are able to deliver prosperity, there is no reason why they should choose a death-wish to secure that for the next generation.
And although the Islamic religious zealots would like us to believe otherwise, Islam too fits into this same pattern. This religion too, seems the absolute immutable in its spirituality, the tasawwuf. Its practices draw from the harsh life of the desert, where it was shaped. The Islamic religion too broadly ebbs and rises in various moulds through time, depending on the socio-economics of Islamic polities. The religion itself was born under difficult circumstances where the traditional societies of the Arabian lands were under immense stress from the two powerful surrounding hegemonic states, Persia and Byzantine, both professing prophetic and assimilationist ideologies under the 'monotheism' of Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The only way for the pagan Arabs to preserve their identity, was to unite under their own brand of 'monotheism', and to face off the competition - thus was born the aggressive, expansive early Islam. However, as the religion stabilized over large parts of West Asia by the 10th century AD, this aggression briefly gave way to cultural maturity: this period was immensely fertile in terms of cultural exchange with neighbouring great civilizations, including Greece and India. But then again by about the 13th century, under the stress of counter-attacks by the Turkic peoples, the religion reverted back to its aggressive assimilative stance. The new races were converted, and their explosive energies diverted to the outside world. Thus was born the next aggressive cycle - this period lead to immense destruction to India and her culture. Later again, when large parts of Northern India were unified under stable Turkic (Mughal) rule, the next high-phase of Islamic cultural syncretism began, characterized by the era of Akbar. By late 18th century though, the Islamic dream in India was in tatters under the pressure of feisty Hindu counter-attacks: and subcontinental Islam has not yet un-mounted the aggressive stance since then. Facing the stark reality of loss of the traditional values in the face of the new wave of secularism that was spreading in India, ignited by contact with Europe, aggressive subcontinental Islam retreated into the garrison state of Pakistan. Now, the disparate and ill-constructed Pakistani society laid on week foundations and with no positive vision for a future except for aggressive Islamic expansionism back into India, seems to be consumed by an insatiable death-wish.
However, the situation is not hopeless, if the 'Arab spring' is anything to go by. Contrary to currently popular or even fashionable notions, Islam, like any other religion, may be neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Human societies are seldom 'naturally' oriented to peace or war as a black-and-white rule. It is all about survival - societies will adapt any means that seems fit to ensure their survival and perpetuation. Until a generation ago, the Arab world was dismissed as being perennially caught up in medieval and fundamentalist ideologies. Those same Arab youths who until some years ago seemingly thought that militant Islam alone was the route to secure a future, are now seeking the democratic nirvana. What has made the difference? Perhaps the greatest difference to West Asia was done not by western 'experiments in democracy', but by the successful model demonstrated by Islamists in Turkey. Erdogan through his success has perhaps done to West Asia, what Bin Laden and Bush and Blair could not achieve - showing that democracy can work in bringing about positive change in Islamic societies too.
If societies can see that peaceful, pragmatic means are able to deliver prosperity, there is no reason why they should choose a death-wish to secure that for the next generation.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Socio-economics of religion - 1
Although spirituality is universal, the particular approach taken to practice or attain it, which is what religion is, is quite heavily dependent on socio-economics of the polities where it develops. I feel, this is something not often considered, when people talk about various religions or even one particular religion, through time. Even the same religion, is often not the same through time, as socio-economics changes. Swami Vivekananda often emphasized this point, but at the time when I first read his thoughts, I did not realize its profundity.
Take, for example, Hinduism. In the high-tide of the Vedic age, the religion was earthy, heroic and very much 'this-worldly'. But by late Vedic period, as the immense diversity of the Indian subcontinent started to crack up the Vedic polity, other-worldly asceticism took roots. The socio-economics of the late Vedic period became dour and sensitive thinkers began to become totally disillusioned by the state of a society that they could not be part of did not have the power to change. Ascetic Upanishadic and Shramana doctrines were propounded. While world-affirming realism characterized the earlier religious outlook, world-weary idealism became the mainstay of the later religious outlook. When the Indian polity recovered later and large stable states were established by the early AD's, again this morbid asceticism was marvellously re-synthesised into the fabric of the society in the form of 'ashrama' dharmas. However again during the medieval period when the Indian society was under immense shock due to repeated disruption of the society by a multitude of often brutal attacks and invasions, religion became obsessed with the 'other-world'. The excessive dalliance with morbid things such as death, graveyards, sexual extremes, cannot but be understood, without reference to this context; the social fabric was under immense stress, and the whole social order was torn apart, leading to many broken individuals. Not much was left to live for, and hence the fascination with death and devastation.
This is similar with Christianity too. The religion began in a Jewish society that was under immense stress. Apocalyptical sects grew by the dozen at the time Christianity became popular. At the same time, the powerful Roman Empire that was bent on assimilation of conquered peoples meant that the old exclusivist Judaic ideal seemed impractical anymore. Thus the Christian idea of 'new Israel', and the 'new covenant', that would enable people of new backgrounds to be part of the Judaic world, under Christ, the new prophet. The death-wish of the orthodox Jews could become a new life, under the personality of the resurrected Christ. In the rest of the two millennia since, Christianity has vacillated in its emphasis on either the death of Christ or his resurrection, depending on whether it faced persecution or the opportunity for a 'new beginning'. Again, though originally Christianity was ascetic and other-worldly, the desire for the Roman Empire for a single unifying Imperial religion transformed Christianity into an aggressively power-seeking worldly religion. Socio-economics of pagan societies too, played an important role in their conversion to Christianity. Under immense stress due to aggressive Roman expansion and assimilation drive, and unable to connect to the older pagan religious ideals, ethnically diverse central Europe simply gave up the complex narratives of pagan religions for the simplistic Christian narrative. It also offered the prospect for unifying diverse tribes into new nation states – the energy of the family and the tribal loyalties of the pagan religions could now be transferred to the larger supra-tribe, the nation, which was reborn in a Christian mould.
Take, for example, Hinduism. In the high-tide of the Vedic age, the religion was earthy, heroic and very much 'this-worldly'. But by late Vedic period, as the immense diversity of the Indian subcontinent started to crack up the Vedic polity, other-worldly asceticism took roots. The socio-economics of the late Vedic period became dour and sensitive thinkers began to become totally disillusioned by the state of a society that they could not be part of did not have the power to change. Ascetic Upanishadic and Shramana doctrines were propounded. While world-affirming realism characterized the earlier religious outlook, world-weary idealism became the mainstay of the later religious outlook. When the Indian polity recovered later and large stable states were established by the early AD's, again this morbid asceticism was marvellously re-synthesised into the fabric of the society in the form of 'ashrama' dharmas. However again during the medieval period when the Indian society was under immense shock due to repeated disruption of the society by a multitude of often brutal attacks and invasions, religion became obsessed with the 'other-world'. The excessive dalliance with morbid things such as death, graveyards, sexual extremes, cannot but be understood, without reference to this context; the social fabric was under immense stress, and the whole social order was torn apart, leading to many broken individuals. Not much was left to live for, and hence the fascination with death and devastation.
This is similar with Christianity too. The religion began in a Jewish society that was under immense stress. Apocalyptical sects grew by the dozen at the time Christianity became popular. At the same time, the powerful Roman Empire that was bent on assimilation of conquered peoples meant that the old exclusivist Judaic ideal seemed impractical anymore. Thus the Christian idea of 'new Israel', and the 'new covenant', that would enable people of new backgrounds to be part of the Judaic world, under Christ, the new prophet. The death-wish of the orthodox Jews could become a new life, under the personality of the resurrected Christ. In the rest of the two millennia since, Christianity has vacillated in its emphasis on either the death of Christ or his resurrection, depending on whether it faced persecution or the opportunity for a 'new beginning'. Again, though originally Christianity was ascetic and other-worldly, the desire for the Roman Empire for a single unifying Imperial religion transformed Christianity into an aggressively power-seeking worldly religion. Socio-economics of pagan societies too, played an important role in their conversion to Christianity. Under immense stress due to aggressive Roman expansion and assimilation drive, and unable to connect to the older pagan religious ideals, ethnically diverse central Europe simply gave up the complex narratives of pagan religions for the simplistic Christian narrative. It also offered the prospect for unifying diverse tribes into new nation states – the energy of the family and the tribal loyalties of the pagan religions could now be transferred to the larger supra-tribe, the nation, which was reborn in a Christian mould.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Do habits lead to a certain lifestyle, or is it the other way around?
I have been wondering for some time on modern readings of injunctions of various ancient scriptures on how people of different natures must lead their lives.
Take, for example, the lifestyle a brahmin is supposed to follow. The ideal in this case, is a life of abnegation, with the guideline to give up most 'good things' of life, such as alcohol, meat and womanizing. The lifestyle of such a person must also involve ritual worship and extensive study. Now one could definitely not think much and just follow the 'rules' - but such a literalist view may never reveal what those injunctions are meant to be for.
On the other hand, if someone leads an intellectually oriented life, and that person wants to excel at such a life, it seems that they would naturally end up following a lifestyle in line with those ancient injunctions! Conduct, relation to ideals and reflection - these underlie the injunctions on everyday life (abnegation etc), worship and scriptural study. Even if someone indulges in the 'good things', if they are truly introspective, they will eventually understand that moderation alone will give a stable and happy life.
Thinking like this, it seems to me, that modern commentators (i.e. the generation of interpreters of our scriptures educated entirely in English/or other colonially imposed languages/media) often miss the whole point of ancient religious traditions. The aim of those injunctions was not to produce dour men with colourless lives - rather, those injunctions stemmed from observing the lives of successful people. So instead of focusing excessively and 'dos and don'ts' and 'virtue and sin', it would be better if commentators of religions instead spend time in understanding and expounding the lives that led to those injunctions. Basically, focus on 'living life' and not on suffocating life! Although, rather unfortunately, the goal of a vast majority of religious traditions has been world-transcendence and perhaps that's why these morbid 'dont-doisms' are around.
Take, for example, the lifestyle a brahmin is supposed to follow. The ideal in this case, is a life of abnegation, with the guideline to give up most 'good things' of life, such as alcohol, meat and womanizing. The lifestyle of such a person must also involve ritual worship and extensive study. Now one could definitely not think much and just follow the 'rules' - but such a literalist view may never reveal what those injunctions are meant to be for.
On the other hand, if someone leads an intellectually oriented life, and that person wants to excel at such a life, it seems that they would naturally end up following a lifestyle in line with those ancient injunctions! Conduct, relation to ideals and reflection - these underlie the injunctions on everyday life (abnegation etc), worship and scriptural study. Even if someone indulges in the 'good things', if they are truly introspective, they will eventually understand that moderation alone will give a stable and happy life.
Thinking like this, it seems to me, that modern commentators (i.e. the generation of interpreters of our scriptures educated entirely in English/or other colonially imposed languages/media) often miss the whole point of ancient religious traditions. The aim of those injunctions was not to produce dour men with colourless lives - rather, those injunctions stemmed from observing the lives of successful people. So instead of focusing excessively and 'dos and don'ts' and 'virtue and sin', it would be better if commentators of religions instead spend time in understanding and expounding the lives that led to those injunctions. Basically, focus on 'living life' and not on suffocating life! Although, rather unfortunately, the goal of a vast majority of religious traditions has been world-transcendence and perhaps that's why these morbid 'dont-doisms' are around.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Inspiration
One touching incident from the life of Sri Ramakrishna always inspires me, whenever I think about him. It is a lila that haunts and charms the hearts of devotees.
Manomohan had stopped visiting the Master at one time, as he felt neglected. He felt that the Master was not paying any attention to him. The Master became anxious about Manomohan's progress and sent word to him many times, but Manomohan, stung by what he felt was the Master's past indifference to him, did not respond. Now, why should such an accomplished sage as the Master be interested in the progress of an ordinary hosueholder devotee? But that was him. He had filled in himself, the love of the Supreme Mother for her children so much that he became that love. One morning when Manomohan went to bathe in the Ganga, suddenly he saw Balaram babu alighting from a boat. Manomohan hardly got over his surprise, when he saw the Master emerging behind him, smiling at him, half lost in Samadhi. Manomohan was overwhelmed by this gesture of the Master and realized how much love he had for his disciples and regretted his questioning of the Master's concern for his progress.
What a poignant incident! I can imagine the medly of emotions that must have swept Manomohan when he saw the Master emerge from the boat - joy, regret, anger... That the Master came all the way looking for him, must have deeply inspired him. Divine Love is uniquely inspirational.
Manomohan had stopped visiting the Master at one time, as he felt neglected. He felt that the Master was not paying any attention to him. The Master became anxious about Manomohan's progress and sent word to him many times, but Manomohan, stung by what he felt was the Master's past indifference to him, did not respond. Now, why should such an accomplished sage as the Master be interested in the progress of an ordinary hosueholder devotee? But that was him. He had filled in himself, the love of the Supreme Mother for her children so much that he became that love. One morning when Manomohan went to bathe in the Ganga, suddenly he saw Balaram babu alighting from a boat. Manomohan hardly got over his surprise, when he saw the Master emerging behind him, smiling at him, half lost in Samadhi. Manomohan was overwhelmed by this gesture of the Master and realized how much love he had for his disciples and regretted his questioning of the Master's concern for his progress.
What a poignant incident! I can imagine the medly of emotions that must have swept Manomohan when he saw the Master emerge from the boat - joy, regret, anger... That the Master came all the way looking for him, must have deeply inspired him. Divine Love is uniquely inspirational.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
A death so cruel...
I cannot still believe that the Pakistani columnist with Asia Times online, Syed Saleem Shehzad, has died. His body was reportedly recovered from a nalla last week, with signs of severe torture.
I have followed his articles with interest since over ten years ago when 'the war on terror' started. He was a daring journalist, travelling to remote corners of the tribal areas and meeting dangerous terrorists. Here is an Atimes trubutes page.
While I found that many times his interviews with thugs such as Ilyas Kashmiri seemed to end up as propaganda for such people, they also revealed many facts - I infact got to know Kashmiri and many such people from Shehzad's articled, and also interesting small bits of info which we do not get to read elsewhere.
He said in the past that he had received death threats from Pakistani intelligence agencies. Now people with different agendas have begun their smearing, that he may in fact have been killed by some of his terrorist contacts themselves. Some have suggested that both the ISI and the terrorists got together to bump him off.
An account of his death and several theories are discussed by Amir Mir here.
But the theory that he was killed by his terrorist sources, seems odd, considering that he was their trusted source; also, Ilyas Kashmiri is himself now reported to be dead in a drone attack yesterday.
That's an interesting coincidence, because a few years ago when Kashmiri was similarly rumoured to have been killed in a drone attack - it was Shehzad, who revealed this as false, through a kidnap-interview he wrote for AT.
I have followed his articles with interest since over ten years ago when 'the war on terror' started. He was a daring journalist, travelling to remote corners of the tribal areas and meeting dangerous terrorists. Here is an Atimes trubutes page.
While I found that many times his interviews with thugs such as Ilyas Kashmiri seemed to end up as propaganda for such people, they also revealed many facts - I infact got to know Kashmiri and many such people from Shehzad's articled, and also interesting small bits of info which we do not get to read elsewhere.
He said in the past that he had received death threats from Pakistani intelligence agencies. Now people with different agendas have begun their smearing, that he may in fact have been killed by some of his terrorist contacts themselves. Some have suggested that both the ISI and the terrorists got together to bump him off.
An account of his death and several theories are discussed by Amir Mir here.
But the theory that he was killed by his terrorist sources, seems odd, considering that he was their trusted source; also, Ilyas Kashmiri is himself now reported to be dead in a drone attack yesterday.
That's an interesting coincidence, because a few years ago when Kashmiri was similarly rumoured to have been killed in a drone attack - it was Shehzad, who revealed this as false, through a kidnap-interview he wrote for AT.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Spengler's latest
Asia Times Online's most interesting and at the same time, most controversial author, Spengler, has written something thought-provoking after quite some time now.
Among the things he discusses, he returns to a theme which is like a key motif of his writings:
Just what is paganism? It is the social order that underlies idolatry: the primacy of the animal ties of ancestry, in which the family is a small clan, the clan is a small tribe, and the tribe is a small nation. Pagans worship their own blood and soil at the altar of their nation. The attraction of self-worship is so strong that ancient Israel again and again fell back into pagan practices, while the self-styled "new Israel" of the Church was gutted in its home continent of Europe. America, a new people composed of people who abandoned ethnic allegiance, survived as the last home of Christianity in the industrial world.
There are some things I agree with and some I feel are baseless. Firstly, I can agree that attachment to clan and tribe at the expense of a wider nation, can definitely be called the starting point and anti-thesis to the Christian social agenda. In the historical sense, this was what was called 'paganism'. But this paganism has nothing to do with idolatry per se, because Christianity presents its own idolatry as well: Christ on the Crucifix, the Holy Virgin etc.It is just that while the pagan has idols which embody the psyche of his own limited clan or tribe, Christianity presents idols embodying the psyche of a vaster collection of mankind, encompassing nations. Basically, Christianity is only a vaster and radical paganism, where you exchange your limited clan,tribal, national loyalties, for a larger supra-national loyalty. Of course, it is a very lofty ideal, one that does offer the potential of uniting peoples, one which calls upon people to dissolve their narrow national psyches into a larger psyche.
Further, for reasons that could wholly be unintentional since Spengler's sole focus are the Abrahamic faiths, his discourse would make it seem that only Christianity and Judaism offer this possibility of a supra-national paganism or are even perfect in such an offer. On the contrary, in the East that we find this noble ideal, of the promise of clans, tribes, nations, merging their psyches into a vast supra-national psyche under the aegis of a Loving God or a Loving Principle, was not only offered, but developed with far less bloodshed and violence than the Judeo-Christian attempt. The Buddha was the first historical personage who offered this message and under his impulse, nations joined hands and melted into a community of monks and laypersons. The Orthodox Hindu reform movements that followed, developed this further under the head of different loving personifications of an almighty loving principle.
The shift from local, tribal psyches emerging into supra-national psyches happened in such a smooth series of steps, that it never led to the kinds of pogroms and persecutions of pagans at the hands of Christians, that happened in Europe. The horrible massacres of pagans and desecrations of pagan shrines by Christian zealots that was witnessed in Europe, was because the shift from the tribal psyche to the supra-national psyche was enforced in swell-swoop, a radical conversion. No wonder then, they would revert back to their national psyches as Spengler bemoaned. Pysches of human societies cannot be changed overnight and this process was well-understood by the thinkers of the East. Those who accepted the Buddha and therefore rejected their tribal identities did not go about butchering their fellow kinsmen if they still were 'pagan'. Nor did the peoples who came together under different Bhakti saints and thus rejected narrow caste affiliations then go about killing their caste-sectarians after acquiring political power.
Among the things he discusses, he returns to a theme which is like a key motif of his writings:
Just what is paganism? It is the social order that underlies idolatry: the primacy of the animal ties of ancestry, in which the family is a small clan, the clan is a small tribe, and the tribe is a small nation. Pagans worship their own blood and soil at the altar of their nation. The attraction of self-worship is so strong that ancient Israel again and again fell back into pagan practices, while the self-styled "new Israel" of the Church was gutted in its home continent of Europe. America, a new people composed of people who abandoned ethnic allegiance, survived as the last home of Christianity in the industrial world.
There are some things I agree with and some I feel are baseless. Firstly, I can agree that attachment to clan and tribe at the expense of a wider nation, can definitely be called the starting point and anti-thesis to the Christian social agenda. In the historical sense, this was what was called 'paganism'. But this paganism has nothing to do with idolatry per se, because Christianity presents its own idolatry as well: Christ on the Crucifix, the Holy Virgin etc.It is just that while the pagan has idols which embody the psyche of his own limited clan or tribe, Christianity presents idols embodying the psyche of a vaster collection of mankind, encompassing nations. Basically, Christianity is only a vaster and radical paganism, where you exchange your limited clan,tribal, national loyalties, for a larger supra-national loyalty. Of course, it is a very lofty ideal, one that does offer the potential of uniting peoples, one which calls upon people to dissolve their narrow national psyches into a larger psyche.
Further, for reasons that could wholly be unintentional since Spengler's sole focus are the Abrahamic faiths, his discourse would make it seem that only Christianity and Judaism offer this possibility of a supra-national paganism or are even perfect in such an offer. On the contrary, in the East that we find this noble ideal, of the promise of clans, tribes, nations, merging their psyches into a vast supra-national psyche under the aegis of a Loving God or a Loving Principle, was not only offered, but developed with far less bloodshed and violence than the Judeo-Christian attempt. The Buddha was the first historical personage who offered this message and under his impulse, nations joined hands and melted into a community of monks and laypersons. The Orthodox Hindu reform movements that followed, developed this further under the head of different loving personifications of an almighty loving principle.
The shift from local, tribal psyches emerging into supra-national psyches happened in such a smooth series of steps, that it never led to the kinds of pogroms and persecutions of pagans at the hands of Christians, that happened in Europe. The horrible massacres of pagans and desecrations of pagan shrines by Christian zealots that was witnessed in Europe, was because the shift from the tribal psyche to the supra-national psyche was enforced in swell-swoop, a radical conversion. No wonder then, they would revert back to their national psyches as Spengler bemoaned. Pysches of human societies cannot be changed overnight and this process was well-understood by the thinkers of the East. Those who accepted the Buddha and therefore rejected their tribal identities did not go about butchering their fellow kinsmen if they still were 'pagan'. Nor did the peoples who came together under different Bhakti saints and thus rejected narrow caste affiliations then go about killing their caste-sectarians after acquiring political power.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Is Hinduism really that different?
These days I am beginning to wonder about the endless exoticization of Hinduism! From western academics, journalists and commentators to our own 'home grown' Hindu thinkers, intellectuals and Swamis, everyone presents Hinduism as an unspecifiable chaos, something that can only be explained in terms opposite to what is understood 'conventionally', as a religion.
We read, often, that Hinduism has no founder, has no single book of authority, has no single creed or conception about God, etc. Come on, now, how much of this actually true?
Orthodox Hinduism has always held the Vedas as the ultimate authority. Revealed texts, these constitute the 'Hindu book'. And for founders, how about those Seers - Rishis - to whom these books were revealed? Even the Old testament has dozens of prophets, that doesn't mean Christianity doesn't have a 'founder' ! But yeah, Hinduism being like a 'well-spring religion', unlike say Christianity, which uses the figure of Christ exclusively succeeding the heritage of the Old Testament, or Islam which chooses to focus on Muhammad, Hinduism uses multiple figures such as the various Avatars and later, the great Acharyas and saints and sages. It is a continuously evolving tradition, that's all.
Then, this much-repeated quaint idea that Hinduism alone is unique among world religions in having many different and even competing conceptions about God. What is a religion if it does not have such different conceptions! Anyone who even starts considering the idea of God, soon will realize that there is possibly no single way in which to humanly formulate the concept of a Supreme Being who is capable of intelligently causing this unbelievably vast and complex universe.
Christianity has dozens of sects and viewpoints. Is the Christian God triune, or is he Unitary? How does the person of Christ relate to the ineffable God? What is the relation of God to creation and time? The umbrella of Christianity houses a bewildering number of sects - Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglican, Lutherans, Mormons (and many more!) - that each has a competing answer to these questions.
This is true of Islam as well! How does prophet-hood relate to God? What is the source of guidance after Muhammad? What is the nature of God and can He (is it He or She or It?) be known? orthodox Sunnis of the four madhabs, Deobandis, Barelvis, Wahhabis, Twelver Shias, Ismailis, and a myriad different Sufi sects have each their own competing conceptions and ideas. Even Judaism has a multitude of sects that each have their own viewpoints on such fundamental questions. Yeah just that these so-called 'motheistic' religions, especially Islam, will seem to have lesser tolerance for doctrinal variance, but that is just due to prevalent dominance of certain sects, often achieved through violence, intimidation or economic pressure.
The illusion of a single unified doctrine in these religions, does not hold up on closer examination. Truth is, wherever man exercises his intellectual investigation freely, there are bound to be multiple viewpoints. I wish Hindus think for themselves and stop presenting their tradition as uniquely curious and outlandish than all the others out there.
We read, often, that Hinduism has no founder, has no single book of authority, has no single creed or conception about God, etc. Come on, now, how much of this actually true?
Orthodox Hinduism has always held the Vedas as the ultimate authority. Revealed texts, these constitute the 'Hindu book'. And for founders, how about those Seers - Rishis - to whom these books were revealed? Even the Old testament has dozens of prophets, that doesn't mean Christianity doesn't have a 'founder' ! But yeah, Hinduism being like a 'well-spring religion', unlike say Christianity, which uses the figure of Christ exclusively succeeding the heritage of the Old Testament, or Islam which chooses to focus on Muhammad, Hinduism uses multiple figures such as the various Avatars and later, the great Acharyas and saints and sages. It is a continuously evolving tradition, that's all.
Then, this much-repeated quaint idea that Hinduism alone is unique among world religions in having many different and even competing conceptions about God. What is a religion if it does not have such different conceptions! Anyone who even starts considering the idea of God, soon will realize that there is possibly no single way in which to humanly formulate the concept of a Supreme Being who is capable of intelligently causing this unbelievably vast and complex universe.
Christianity has dozens of sects and viewpoints. Is the Christian God triune, or is he Unitary? How does the person of Christ relate to the ineffable God? What is the relation of God to creation and time? The umbrella of Christianity houses a bewildering number of sects - Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglican, Lutherans, Mormons (and many more!) - that each has a competing answer to these questions.
This is true of Islam as well! How does prophet-hood relate to God? What is the source of guidance after Muhammad? What is the nature of God and can He (is it He or She or It?) be known? orthodox Sunnis of the four madhabs, Deobandis, Barelvis, Wahhabis, Twelver Shias, Ismailis, and a myriad different Sufi sects have each their own competing conceptions and ideas. Even Judaism has a multitude of sects that each have their own viewpoints on such fundamental questions. Yeah just that these so-called 'motheistic' religions, especially Islam, will seem to have lesser tolerance for doctrinal variance, but that is just due to prevalent dominance of certain sects, often achieved through violence, intimidation or economic pressure.
The illusion of a single unified doctrine in these religions, does not hold up on closer examination. Truth is, wherever man exercises his intellectual investigation freely, there are bound to be multiple viewpoints. I wish Hindus think for themselves and stop presenting their tradition as uniquely curious and outlandish than all the others out there.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
the castes as described by Arrian
Among the other curious things Arrian says in his Indica (as excerpted here), is this very interesting description of the castes as current then (or rather, as interpreted by Arrian from what was current then):
11. All the Indians have been divided into seven castes. Among them are the wise men, fewer in number than the others, but most esteemed in reputation and dignity. For no necessity is incumbent upon them to do any bodily labour; nor do they contribute anything to the commonwealth from the effects of their labour; nor in a word have they any compulsory duty except to offer sacrifices to the gods on behalf of the commonwealth of India. Whoever sacrifices in his private capacity has one of these wise men as a director of the sacrifice, since otherwise he does not offer acceptable sacrifice to the gods. These also are the only Indians skilled in divination; and it is not lawful for anyone to practise the art except for a man who is a wise man. They practise divination in regard to the seasons of the year, and if any calamity befalls the commonwealth. It is not their business to practise their art in regard to the private affairs of individuals, either because the art of divination does not extend to smaller matters, or because it is not worthy of them to labour about such things. Whoever has made three errors in his practise of divination receives no other punishment except that for the future he is compelled to be silent; and there is no one who can compel that man to speak, upon whom the judgment of silence has been passed. These wise men pass their lives naked; in the winter in the sun under the open sky, but in the summer, when the sun holds sway, they live in the meadows and in the marshes under great trees, the shadow of which Nearchus says extends 500 feet all round, and I0,000 men could be shaded under one tree. So large are these trees. They feed on the fruits of the seasons and the inner bark of trees, which is both pleasant and nutritious; not less so than dates.
After these the second caste are the agriculturalists, who are the most numerous class of Indians. These have no martial weapons, nor do they care for deeds of war, but till the soil. They pay dues to the kings or to those cities which are independent. If any war happens to break out among the Indians with each other it is not lawful for them to touch the tillers of the soil, or to lay waste the country itself by destroying the crops. But while others are waging war against each other and slaying each other as they find the chance, they are ploughing in peace and quietness near them, or are gathering in the vintage, or are pruning their vines, or are reaping their crops.
The third caste of Indians are the shepherds and the cowherds, who dwell neither in cities nor in villages; but are nomads and live up and down the mountains. They pay a tax from their flocks and herds. These men also catch birds and hunt wild beasts throughout the land.
12. The fourth caste is that of the artisans and retail tradesmen. These men perform public duties at their own cost, and pay a tax upon their work, except those who make weapons of war. These receive pay from the commonwealth. In this caste are the shipwrights and sailors who sail up and down the rivers.
The fifth caste of the Indians consists of the warriors, who in number come next to the husbandmen and enjoy very great freedom and good cheer. These men practise nothing but warlike exercises. Others make the weapons for them, others provide them with horses; and others serve them in the camp, who groom the horses for them, keep their weapons bright, manage the elephants, keep the chariots in order, and drive the horses. They themselves fight, as long as it is necessary to wage war; but when there is peace, they live with good cheer; and they receive such high pay from the state that they can easily support others from it.
The sixth caste of Indians consists of men who are called overseers. These supervise what is done throughout the country and in the cities, and make reports to the king, where the Indians are ruled by a king, or to the magistrates where the people have a democratic government. It is unlawful for these men to make false reports; but no Indian has incurred the charge of falsehood.
The seventh caste consists of those who assist the king in deliberating on public affairs, or assist the officials in the cities which enjoy a democratic government. This class is small in number, but in wisdom and justice excels all the others. From them are chosen their rulers, governors of provinces, deputies, treasurers, generals, admirals, controllers of expenditure, and superintendents of agriculture.
It is not lawful for anyone to marry a woman from another caste; for example, for husbandmen to marry from the class of artisans or the reverse. It is not lawful for the same man to exercise two trades, or to exchange from one caste into another; for instance, he may not cease to be a shepherd and become a husbandman, or cease to be an artisan and become a shepherd. Only a man from any caste is allowed by them to become a wise man, because the duties of the wise men are not easy, but the most severely laborious of all.
this needs more careful thinking - what is this caste of wise men? Rishis, or the predecessors of the modern Sannyasis?
11. All the Indians have been divided into seven castes. Among them are the wise men, fewer in number than the others, but most esteemed in reputation and dignity. For no necessity is incumbent upon them to do any bodily labour; nor do they contribute anything to the commonwealth from the effects of their labour; nor in a word have they any compulsory duty except to offer sacrifices to the gods on behalf of the commonwealth of India. Whoever sacrifices in his private capacity has one of these wise men as a director of the sacrifice, since otherwise he does not offer acceptable sacrifice to the gods. These also are the only Indians skilled in divination; and it is not lawful for anyone to practise the art except for a man who is a wise man. They practise divination in regard to the seasons of the year, and if any calamity befalls the commonwealth. It is not their business to practise their art in regard to the private affairs of individuals, either because the art of divination does not extend to smaller matters, or because it is not worthy of them to labour about such things. Whoever has made three errors in his practise of divination receives no other punishment except that for the future he is compelled to be silent; and there is no one who can compel that man to speak, upon whom the judgment of silence has been passed. These wise men pass their lives naked; in the winter in the sun under the open sky, but in the summer, when the sun holds sway, they live in the meadows and in the marshes under great trees, the shadow of which Nearchus says extends 500 feet all round, and I0,000 men could be shaded under one tree. So large are these trees. They feed on the fruits of the seasons and the inner bark of trees, which is both pleasant and nutritious; not less so than dates.
After these the second caste are the agriculturalists, who are the most numerous class of Indians. These have no martial weapons, nor do they care for deeds of war, but till the soil. They pay dues to the kings or to those cities which are independent. If any war happens to break out among the Indians with each other it is not lawful for them to touch the tillers of the soil, or to lay waste the country itself by destroying the crops. But while others are waging war against each other and slaying each other as they find the chance, they are ploughing in peace and quietness near them, or are gathering in the vintage, or are pruning their vines, or are reaping their crops.
The third caste of Indians are the shepherds and the cowherds, who dwell neither in cities nor in villages; but are nomads and live up and down the mountains. They pay a tax from their flocks and herds. These men also catch birds and hunt wild beasts throughout the land.
12. The fourth caste is that of the artisans and retail tradesmen. These men perform public duties at their own cost, and pay a tax upon their work, except those who make weapons of war. These receive pay from the commonwealth. In this caste are the shipwrights and sailors who sail up and down the rivers.
The fifth caste of the Indians consists of the warriors, who in number come next to the husbandmen and enjoy very great freedom and good cheer. These men practise nothing but warlike exercises. Others make the weapons for them, others provide them with horses; and others serve them in the camp, who groom the horses for them, keep their weapons bright, manage the elephants, keep the chariots in order, and drive the horses. They themselves fight, as long as it is necessary to wage war; but when there is peace, they live with good cheer; and they receive such high pay from the state that they can easily support others from it.
The sixth caste of Indians consists of men who are called overseers. These supervise what is done throughout the country and in the cities, and make reports to the king, where the Indians are ruled by a king, or to the magistrates where the people have a democratic government. It is unlawful for these men to make false reports; but no Indian has incurred the charge of falsehood.
The seventh caste consists of those who assist the king in deliberating on public affairs, or assist the officials in the cities which enjoy a democratic government. This class is small in number, but in wisdom and justice excels all the others. From them are chosen their rulers, governors of provinces, deputies, treasurers, generals, admirals, controllers of expenditure, and superintendents of agriculture.
It is not lawful for anyone to marry a woman from another caste; for example, for husbandmen to marry from the class of artisans or the reverse. It is not lawful for the same man to exercise two trades, or to exchange from one caste into another; for instance, he may not cease to be a shepherd and become a husbandman, or cease to be an artisan and become a shepherd. Only a man from any caste is allowed by them to become a wise man, because the duties of the wise men are not easy, but the most severely laborious of all.
this needs more careful thinking - what is this caste of wise men? Rishis, or the predecessors of the modern Sannyasis?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Yuga Purana
One by one lot of myths regarding ancient India and Hinduism are falling off. One major one going around was that ancient Hindus did not have a sense of history.Well it all depends on what you look upon as 'history'. If its ok to accept the accounts of Greek historians, keeping reasonable protions of their descriptions and disregarding their fantastic stories and notions, it should be equally ok to accept the Puranas as history!
Recently a very ancient Purana has been traced and translated by Dr. James Mitchiner, the British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata.
Fascinating stuff - gicing first-hand accounts of the Indo-Greek and Saka invasions of India. wonder how much more of such material must be lying away as archival material in dusty libraries!
Recently a very ancient Purana has been traced and translated by Dr. James Mitchiner, the British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata.
Fascinating stuff - gicing first-hand accounts of the Indo-Greek and Saka invasions of India. wonder how much more of such material must be lying away as archival material in dusty libraries!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Benazir..
some v interesting stuff on Benazir and the Bhutto dynasty.
and I had heard about the beauty of Fatima Bhutto, but didnt know she was this strkingly beautiful!
and I had heard about the beauty of Fatima Bhutto, but didnt know she was this strkingly beautiful!
Friday, March 26, 2010
al-fajita
Osama's broadcasts are becoming funnier by the day and soon his al-Qaeda will be flattened out like a fajita.
first came his announcement earlier this year, claiming credit for the failed terror attempt by a Nigerian jehadi. Was this coming from the legendary Osama, who notoriously launched the incredibly well planned 9/11 attacks - pompously claiming a silly failed attempt by a lone disturbed student as a 'great' act of defiance?
and now, his declaration that he would kill any Americans he captures in retaliation of Khalid Shaikh Mehmood is killed, had me in splits. gotta be kidding or the dude must seriously be doing the weed that his Taliban friends famously cultivate if he thinks this is any threat?
gone are the days when the master of jehad used to would promise lightning attacks and threaten Americans with fear in their own homeland. he is so weakened now, all he can come up with, is 'I will kill those I take captives from my neighbourhood'. good fun. the Americans are feeling threatened. ROFL.
first came his announcement earlier this year, claiming credit for the failed terror attempt by a Nigerian jehadi. Was this coming from the legendary Osama, who notoriously launched the incredibly well planned 9/11 attacks - pompously claiming a silly failed attempt by a lone disturbed student as a 'great' act of defiance?
and now, his declaration that he would kill any Americans he captures in retaliation of Khalid Shaikh Mehmood is killed, had me in splits. gotta be kidding or the dude must seriously be doing the weed that his Taliban friends famously cultivate if he thinks this is any threat?
gone are the days when the master of jehad used to would promise lightning attacks and threaten Americans with fear in their own homeland. he is so weakened now, all he can come up with, is 'I will kill those I take captives from my neighbourhood'. good fun. the Americans are feeling threatened. ROFL.
decoding Pakistan and the US-Pak 'strategic dialogue'
For quite some time now, analysts the world over have been completely befuddled by Pakistan. What exactly was going on there? On one hand you have all evidence to show the Pakistani State's sponsorship, training and support to jehadi terrorist groups of all shades sunni. Top leaders of the Afghan Taliban and even Al Qaeda have been in safe houses in large Pakistani cities - Peshawar, then Quetta and recently, Karachi. On the other hand, some of these very terrorists attacked the Pakistani State and Army with animal ferocity - suicide attacks on training academies, lone convoys, serving officers, even the Army headquarters itself. The brutality of these attacks removed any doubt if these were just stage-managed, especially gruesome was the attack on worshippers mosque frequented by serving and retired Army officers. This led currency to the shaky idea that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism as asserted by the foreign minister, in response to Indian calls to prosecute LeT leaders behind the 26/11 attacks. What exactly was the true picture?
Now with the Pakistani delegation in the US for their new 'strategic dialogue', things are a bit clearer. Basically there seem to be two powerful jehadi strands in Pakistan - one that is at least ostensibly in control of the Pakistani military-intelligence, which kowtows to the interest of the Pakistani nationalist elite. The LeT, which carefully avoids attacks within Pakistan, is of this type. Though they too share the overall jehadi vision, they are ready to wait it out and achieve it step-by-step, under the master guidance and choreography provided by the Pakistani Army.
There is another more virulent, transnational and more openly pan-Islamic jehadi strain, basically al-Qaeda redux, which does not care for the blinkered approach of the Pakistani state - so this jehadi network does not care about Pakistani state's placation of US and Chinese interests: they want total jehad and all-at-once, whether against US or China (Turkestan) or India. They wouldn't think twice about even attacking a sports team if they deem that sport un-Islamic or just show what they are capable of. So obviously, this network had no hesitation in attacking the Pakistani Army with utmost brutality, as they perceived it to be doing more harm than good by cooperating with the US. They didn't buy the Army rhetoric that this was all short-term*. They were fueled by the rage in the aftermath of the attack on the Red Mosque. Their strength was increasing ominously when a new Taliban was formed from Pashtun elements in Pakistan and even some Punjabi jehadi groups and most probably, even some elements of the Army and intelligence joined them.
However, the Army seems to have stemmed the tide by skilfully using some Punjabi jehadi groups loyal to its distorted vision to beat back the other Al-Qaeda-inspired elements. The LeT, Ilyas Kashmiri and thus 26/11 were important aspects of this plan. the Pakistani Army allowed LeT to execute 26/11 so that they could gain prestige and thus cut into the sponsorship of pan-Islamic groups. It also allowed them to woo back Kashmiri and his 313 Brigade, which were showing signs of alienation from the Pakistani army, and moving to embrace the Qaeda version - which would have been dangerous to the army. 26/11 was sort of like a crooked jehadi enticement. There were extra goodies like stalling action on their western border complaining of Indian provocation on the eastern. Meanwhile, they got the US to drone-out the Pakistani Taliban and did some cleaning themselves by their offensiveness in Swat and Waziristan more recently. They anyway always had the Afghan Taliban firmly in their bear hug, never tolerating any deviation from the script they write for them.
India remained clueless while all this jehadi manoeuvring was going on. And result is that, the Army has rode back firmly in charge of Pakistan - the deal is that they will reign in the pan-Islamic transnational jehadis, the 'bad Taliban', while being allowed to retain their attack dogs, the vicious anti-India terror groups and the 'good Taliban'. America has bought this argument - after all, they need to cut loose and run as soon as possible before 2012 and that too, with a declaration of victory. The war-weary US and NATO generals would rather leave with an orchestrated victory than fight a never-ending war - especially when their hands have been tied silly into not attacking the terror sanctuaries and supply-chain in Pakistan.
So that is the planned end to the greatest hoax in modern history, the phony 'war on terror'. 9 years after invading Afghanistan on the pretext of defeating the Taliban, a clueless coalition will depart on the incredible premise that they have at least defeated the 'bad Taliban'. Afghanistan will be left to be ruled by a ragtag bunch of mujahedin, warlords and the 'good Taliban'. the Pakistani Army, which will facilitate all this, most likely by handing over the top leadership of Al-Qaeda to the US, will be entitled, as a reward, to both 'strategic depth' provided by their 'good Taliban' proxies and terrorist groups like LeT and HuJI, which 'are anyway just India-centric'. the Taliban who became 'bad' by associating with al-Qaeda and other pan-Islamic groups, will be declared 'good' after 9 years of hopelessly fighting them just because they will ostensibly sever ties with the transnational jehadi networks. Any Taliban who resist will end up in Guantanamo, anyway; or end up dead in drone attacks.
so this is the tightrope that Kayani hopes to walk and this is what he is out to sell in the US. This is what the 'strategic dialogue' is all about. The only spoiler is that, the transnational jehadi networks and their sympathisers in the Army and ISI may not take all this lying down and may fight back, plunging Pakistan into a civil war. Besides, their own carefully trained attack dogs may turn rogue. But with persistent support from US, NATO nations and China, this choreographed vision may come true - a newly Talibanized Afghanistan, an emboldened Army firmly in control in Pakistan. India must prepare for this eventuality by re-initiating dialogue with Iran and Russia on one hand, and the Northern alliance and secular and progressive Pashtun leaders on the other.
*I mean, who would buy it any way other than the completely stupid groups or those that are biding their time, given that the generals were making a killing out of their yankee appeasement! Billions of dollars have been poured into the pockets of these generals.
Now with the Pakistani delegation in the US for their new 'strategic dialogue', things are a bit clearer. Basically there seem to be two powerful jehadi strands in Pakistan - one that is at least ostensibly in control of the Pakistani military-intelligence, which kowtows to the interest of the Pakistani nationalist elite. The LeT, which carefully avoids attacks within Pakistan, is of this type. Though they too share the overall jehadi vision, they are ready to wait it out and achieve it step-by-step, under the master guidance and choreography provided by the Pakistani Army.
There is another more virulent, transnational and more openly pan-Islamic jehadi strain, basically al-Qaeda redux, which does not care for the blinkered approach of the Pakistani state - so this jehadi network does not care about Pakistani state's placation of US and Chinese interests: they want total jehad and all-at-once, whether against US or China (Turkestan) or India. They wouldn't think twice about even attacking a sports team if they deem that sport un-Islamic or just show what they are capable of. So obviously, this network had no hesitation in attacking the Pakistani Army with utmost brutality, as they perceived it to be doing more harm than good by cooperating with the US. They didn't buy the Army rhetoric that this was all short-term*. They were fueled by the rage in the aftermath of the attack on the Red Mosque. Their strength was increasing ominously when a new Taliban was formed from Pashtun elements in Pakistan and even some Punjabi jehadi groups and most probably, even some elements of the Army and intelligence joined them.
However, the Army seems to have stemmed the tide by skilfully using some Punjabi jehadi groups loyal to its distorted vision to beat back the other Al-Qaeda-inspired elements. The LeT, Ilyas Kashmiri and thus 26/11 were important aspects of this plan. the Pakistani Army allowed LeT to execute 26/11 so that they could gain prestige and thus cut into the sponsorship of pan-Islamic groups. It also allowed them to woo back Kashmiri and his 313 Brigade, which were showing signs of alienation from the Pakistani army, and moving to embrace the Qaeda version - which would have been dangerous to the army. 26/11 was sort of like a crooked jehadi enticement. There were extra goodies like stalling action on their western border complaining of Indian provocation on the eastern. Meanwhile, they got the US to drone-out the Pakistani Taliban and did some cleaning themselves by their offensiveness in Swat and Waziristan more recently. They anyway always had the Afghan Taliban firmly in their bear hug, never tolerating any deviation from the script they write for them.
India remained clueless while all this jehadi manoeuvring was going on. And result is that, the Army has rode back firmly in charge of Pakistan - the deal is that they will reign in the pan-Islamic transnational jehadis, the 'bad Taliban', while being allowed to retain their attack dogs, the vicious anti-India terror groups and the 'good Taliban'. America has bought this argument - after all, they need to cut loose and run as soon as possible before 2012 and that too, with a declaration of victory. The war-weary US and NATO generals would rather leave with an orchestrated victory than fight a never-ending war - especially when their hands have been tied silly into not attacking the terror sanctuaries and supply-chain in Pakistan.
So that is the planned end to the greatest hoax in modern history, the phony 'war on terror'. 9 years after invading Afghanistan on the pretext of defeating the Taliban, a clueless coalition will depart on the incredible premise that they have at least defeated the 'bad Taliban'. Afghanistan will be left to be ruled by a ragtag bunch of mujahedin, warlords and the 'good Taliban'. the Pakistani Army, which will facilitate all this, most likely by handing over the top leadership of Al-Qaeda to the US, will be entitled, as a reward, to both 'strategic depth' provided by their 'good Taliban' proxies and terrorist groups like LeT and HuJI, which 'are anyway just India-centric'. the Taliban who became 'bad' by associating with al-Qaeda and other pan-Islamic groups, will be declared 'good' after 9 years of hopelessly fighting them just because they will ostensibly sever ties with the transnational jehadi networks. Any Taliban who resist will end up in Guantanamo, anyway; or end up dead in drone attacks.
so this is the tightrope that Kayani hopes to walk and this is what he is out to sell in the US. This is what the 'strategic dialogue' is all about. The only spoiler is that, the transnational jehadi networks and their sympathisers in the Army and ISI may not take all this lying down and may fight back, plunging Pakistan into a civil war. Besides, their own carefully trained attack dogs may turn rogue. But with persistent support from US, NATO nations and China, this choreographed vision may come true - a newly Talibanized Afghanistan, an emboldened Army firmly in control in Pakistan. India must prepare for this eventuality by re-initiating dialogue with Iran and Russia on one hand, and the Northern alliance and secular and progressive Pashtun leaders on the other.
*I mean, who would buy it any way other than the completely stupid groups or those that are biding their time, given that the generals were making a killing out of their yankee appeasement! Billions of dollars have been poured into the pockets of these generals.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
well let them leave soon!
recently Asia Time's M.K.Bhadrakumar has been writing some very insightful pieces. In this column he seems to confirm my hunch for some time now, ever since the Headley 'deal' drama started unfolding, that at some level the US knew of 26/11 attacks and allowed them to happen, just to placate Pakistan:
...The speculation gaining respectability in Delhi is that Washington knew in advance about the Mumbai attack and deliberately chose not to pass on details to Delhi.
Indeed, Washington knew of Headley's repeated missions to India from 2006 but did not share the information with the Indians. Headley, in fact, visited Mumbai once even after the city was attacked. ...
For once, I agree with his analysis, that all this linked to US eagerness to depart from Afghanistan as soon as possible:
..The US's obsession is to somehow end the fighting in Afghanistan before the US presidential election campaign commences in 2012. The extent to which the US is beholden to the Pakistani military today is apparent from the about-turn lately by even a self-styled "agnostic" like the AfPak special representative, Richard Holbrooke, about the Pakistani military leadership's commitment to the fight against terrorism. ...
But, unlike some Indians who want the Americans to stay and 'finish' the fight before leaving, I believe its actually good that they left as soon as possible. All they have managed to do in their last 8 years in Afghanistan, is bring back Taliban to a power of strength. I feel, actually, this was their plan throughout. All that fight against the Taliban etc was mere drama - why would they have tolerated the airlifting of almost entire top Taliban ranks to Pakistan in the beginning of the war and the cross-border sanctuaries for Taliban militia to regroup there later on otherwise? Why would they have created a distraction by unnecessarily invading Iraq otherwise? Sad as it seems to say, the US is run by military-industrial criminal mafia. The entire 'war on terror' was a drama, a charade enacted with the help of pliant states like Pakistan, just so that their war machine was kept oiled and the attention of the US public was diverted from the serious (economic and otherwise) problems back home.
So I say, forget all that naive optimism, let these useless guys leave the region as soon as they can. the US has not won a single war after the 2nd world war - it lost disastrously in Vietnam and now going to, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the biggest supporter of regimes with abysmal human rights record the world over and the biggest perpetrators of crimes across the world. How can someone in their right mind expect this inefficient bunch to 'finish the terrorists' in Afghanistan? In contrast, India's military-intelligence has proved far more efficient and resilient. We have fought off any number of deadly insurgencies and terrorist uprisings in India. Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Mizoram, Nagaland Assam..the list of provinces where the fires of separatism have been doused is endless. The Indian state has great persuasive power and it has incredible soft power. Close to 2 decades after kickstarting the insurgency in Kashmir through its proxies and waves after waves of jehadi terror later, Pakistan is nowhere close to a mass rebellion in Kashmir. And in Afghanistan itself, the anti-Taliban war in 2001 was won largely on the strength of the Northern Alliance footsoldiers - another example of resilient and shrewd Indian foreign policy initiative. Don't forget Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc.
So, I say, let them leave. We'll then finish the job!
...The speculation gaining respectability in Delhi is that Washington knew in advance about the Mumbai attack and deliberately chose not to pass on details to Delhi.
Indeed, Washington knew of Headley's repeated missions to India from 2006 but did not share the information with the Indians. Headley, in fact, visited Mumbai once even after the city was attacked. ...
For once, I agree with his analysis, that all this linked to US eagerness to depart from Afghanistan as soon as possible:
..The US's obsession is to somehow end the fighting in Afghanistan before the US presidential election campaign commences in 2012. The extent to which the US is beholden to the Pakistani military today is apparent from the about-turn lately by even a self-styled "agnostic" like the AfPak special representative, Richard Holbrooke, about the Pakistani military leadership's commitment to the fight against terrorism. ...
But, unlike some Indians who want the Americans to stay and 'finish' the fight before leaving, I believe its actually good that they left as soon as possible. All they have managed to do in their last 8 years in Afghanistan, is bring back Taliban to a power of strength. I feel, actually, this was their plan throughout. All that fight against the Taliban etc was mere drama - why would they have tolerated the airlifting of almost entire top Taliban ranks to Pakistan in the beginning of the war and the cross-border sanctuaries for Taliban militia to regroup there later on otherwise? Why would they have created a distraction by unnecessarily invading Iraq otherwise? Sad as it seems to say, the US is run by military-industrial criminal mafia. The entire 'war on terror' was a drama, a charade enacted with the help of pliant states like Pakistan, just so that their war machine was kept oiled and the attention of the US public was diverted from the serious (economic and otherwise) problems back home.
So I say, forget all that naive optimism, let these useless guys leave the region as soon as they can. the US has not won a single war after the 2nd world war - it lost disastrously in Vietnam and now going to, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the biggest supporter of regimes with abysmal human rights record the world over and the biggest perpetrators of crimes across the world. How can someone in their right mind expect this inefficient bunch to 'finish the terrorists' in Afghanistan? In contrast, India's military-intelligence has proved far more efficient and resilient. We have fought off any number of deadly insurgencies and terrorist uprisings in India. Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Mizoram, Nagaland Assam..the list of provinces where the fires of separatism have been doused is endless. The Indian state has great persuasive power and it has incredible soft power. Close to 2 decades after kickstarting the insurgency in Kashmir through its proxies and waves after waves of jehadi terror later, Pakistan is nowhere close to a mass rebellion in Kashmir. And in Afghanistan itself, the anti-Taliban war in 2001 was won largely on the strength of the Northern Alliance footsoldiers - another example of resilient and shrewd Indian foreign policy initiative. Don't forget Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc.
So, I say, let them leave. We'll then finish the job!
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Biddu!
I can so identify with Biddu's thoughts here: Looking back at the foot-tapping Aap Jaisa Koi
Felt transported to the time many summers ago when I first interacted with 2nd generation Indian immgirants in the UK:
...I got back into the routine of my life -- one eye on my music and the other on helping my wife bring up our two kids. Perhaps it was tradition and my cultural inheritance speaking to me through the deepest stratum of my subconscious, but I wanted to be a hands-on father. I was beginning to see the break-up and desecration of the family unit in the West and, more pertinently, in the UK.
Vast numbers of old people lived in isolation, detached from the umbilical chord of their children's touch and concern. It was a time of Thatcher's Britain and though she took us out of the economic quicksand we had sunk into, and felled the power of the unions like a dragon-slayer, she had also taught us to worship at the temple of materialism and that greed was god and no price was too high to pay for it. We were turning into an 'I, me, my' society. I was a part of that society and yet I wanted to be apart from it. Easier said than done, I'm afraid...
Felt transported to the time many summers ago when I first interacted with 2nd generation Indian immgirants in the UK:
...I got back into the routine of my life -- one eye on my music and the other on helping my wife bring up our two kids. Perhaps it was tradition and my cultural inheritance speaking to me through the deepest stratum of my subconscious, but I wanted to be a hands-on father. I was beginning to see the break-up and desecration of the family unit in the West and, more pertinently, in the UK.
Vast numbers of old people lived in isolation, detached from the umbilical chord of their children's touch and concern. It was a time of Thatcher's Britain and though she took us out of the economic quicksand we had sunk into, and felled the power of the unions like a dragon-slayer, she had also taught us to worship at the temple of materialism and that greed was god and no price was too high to pay for it. We were turning into an 'I, me, my' society. I was a part of that society and yet I wanted to be apart from it. Easier said than done, I'm afraid...
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
the Saudi connection
B Raman gives facts on that previous post:
Jehadi terrorism in India - the Saudi Connection
excerpts:
...Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been following a dual policy on terrorism. It has taken ruthless action against Al Qaeda elements posing a threat to its internal security. At the same time, it has avoided taking action against Wahabi organizations which have been supporting terrorism in other countries. Many of the so-called charity organizations, which have been funding terrorist organizations in other countries including India and Bangladesh, are of Saudi origin. Despite international pressure on Saudi Arabia to act against such charity organizations and stop the flow of funds to global jihadi terrorism, the action taken by the Saudi authorities has been unsatisfactory
It would be futile to expect that Saudi Arabia could be of assistance to India in dealing with jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan or Bangladesh. There has been a long history of links between jihadi terrorist elements in India and Saudi Arabia ever since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December,1992. In December 1993, coinciding with the first anniversary of the demolition of the masjid , there was a number of explosions in different railway trains in North India. The interrogation of one of the suspects arrested during the investigation revealed that the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) had organised them...
Jehadi terrorism in India - the Saudi Connection
excerpts:
...Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been following a dual policy on terrorism. It has taken ruthless action against Al Qaeda elements posing a threat to its internal security. At the same time, it has avoided taking action against Wahabi organizations which have been supporting terrorism in other countries. Many of the so-called charity organizations, which have been funding terrorist organizations in other countries including India and Bangladesh, are of Saudi origin. Despite international pressure on Saudi Arabia to act against such charity organizations and stop the flow of funds to global jihadi terrorism, the action taken by the Saudi authorities has been unsatisfactory
It would be futile to expect that Saudi Arabia could be of assistance to India in dealing with jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan or Bangladesh. There has been a long history of links between jihadi terrorist elements in India and Saudi Arabia ever since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December,1992. In December 1993, coinciding with the first anniversary of the demolition of the masjid , there was a number of explosions in different railway trains in North India. The interrogation of one of the suspects arrested during the investigation revealed that the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) had organised them...
Monday, March 01, 2010
bully, bully, your friend is pinching me
Either our leaders smoke some very strong stuff, or they are completely dumb and stupid, or they just make dumb and stupid statements for the consumption of our gullible public.
What on earth is Pradhan Mantri ji trying to achieve by things like this?
Persuade Pakistan to stop terrorism, PM urges Saudi Arabia
Isn't it common knowledge that the chief patron of the Pakistani state is Saudi? That Saudi material and other sponsorship of corrosive Wahhabi ideology is the chief culprit behind the ultra-radicalization of a whole generation of Muslims worldwide? That Saudi intelligence played a key role in the creation of the Taliban and they were the only country besides Pakistan to recognize the Islamic Emirate under Mullah Omar?
Funny thing is the Saudi regime has one of the worst records in the world, suppressing human rights, dissent, minorities and women. While our media went to town highlighting the atrocities committed by the Taliban 'Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice', they conveniently hide the fact that the Talib's inspiration was the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
And India should offer them a cloak of respectability by endorsing their good offices? Of course cannot expect much from a government which had the head of such a state invited as guest of honour at our cherished R Day parade some time back. Its comical then that they had the South Korean Prez over this time around when they should have rather invited Kim Jong-ill, going by their record.
Or it could just be that the US has managed to charm our leaders to such an extent that they now behave as clowns of their circus, entertaining whoever the US wishes India to entertain and wherever. A visit to Turkey must be up next.
What on earth is Pradhan Mantri ji trying to achieve by things like this?
Persuade Pakistan to stop terrorism, PM urges Saudi Arabia
Isn't it common knowledge that the chief patron of the Pakistani state is Saudi? That Saudi material and other sponsorship of corrosive Wahhabi ideology is the chief culprit behind the ultra-radicalization of a whole generation of Muslims worldwide? That Saudi intelligence played a key role in the creation of the Taliban and they were the only country besides Pakistan to recognize the Islamic Emirate under Mullah Omar?
Funny thing is the Saudi regime has one of the worst records in the world, suppressing human rights, dissent, minorities and women. While our media went to town highlighting the atrocities committed by the Taliban 'Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice', they conveniently hide the fact that the Talib's inspiration was the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
And India should offer them a cloak of respectability by endorsing their good offices? Of course cannot expect much from a government which had the head of such a state invited as guest of honour at our cherished R Day parade some time back. Its comical then that they had the South Korean Prez over this time around when they should have rather invited Kim Jong-ill, going by their record.
Or it could just be that the US has managed to charm our leaders to such an extent that they now behave as clowns of their circus, entertaining whoever the US wishes India to entertain and wherever. A visit to Turkey must be up next.
Kabul attack motives
after my previous post, I came across Sri Gaurav's post on the previous Pune attack.
If the motive was to disrupt the Indo-Pak talks as Gaurav has surmised, then this links it to the Kabul attack too as B Raman has suggested.Gaurav wondered whether the US had manouvered these talks backstage so that Pakistan was going to give some concession to India.
Asia Times Online's Syed Saleem Shehzad, usually with quite strong sources, suggests, this could be Pakistan handing over Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi to India! Now that would be something, if it happened.
If the motive was to disrupt the Indo-Pak talks as Gaurav has surmised, then this links it to the Kabul attack too as B Raman has suggested.Gaurav wondered whether the US had manouvered these talks backstage so that Pakistan was going to give some concession to India.
Asia Times Online's Syed Saleem Shehzad, usually with quite strong sources, suggests, this could be Pakistan handing over Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi to India! Now that would be something, if it happened.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Kabul Attack
The attack on hotels in Kabul targeting Indians is another in the series of desperate acts by jehadi networks in Pakistan. But I don't think they are doing this to 'scare' Indians away from Afghanistan, or simply to provoke India so it complicates matters for Pakistan, as Stratfor has apparently thought up:
Kabul attack might be to 'provoke' India
I think the aim is to somehow have India to get involved militarily in Afghanistan. That will give the aQ's more India-focussed arms just the trigger they need to initiate the 'ghazwa-e-Hind' terror mayhem in India which Ilyas Kashmiri talked about in his very strange interview to Saleem Shehzad of Asia Times Online:
Al-Qaeda's guerilla chief lays out strategy
aQ (and the jehadi network leading all the way into Pakistan Army, 'rogue' or not, its your call) perhaps believe that a spectacular series of attacks that would leave India humiliated would polarize Pakistanis in their favour and lead them to their long term goal of capturing power there. But they need a trigger - they are not able to justify all-India attacks solely on the basis of Kashmir.
India must tread carefully - we should not give them any such chance at a time when we are not at all confident we have plugged all our internal security loopholes and nor do we have much covert action capability:
Hit but stealthiliy
At best we have to increase physical security to the staffers of India's humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, wherever they stay, within the embassies or otherwise. And request the Afghan Govt to punish the culprits as much as possible.
Kabul attack might be to 'provoke' India
I think the aim is to somehow have India to get involved militarily in Afghanistan. That will give the aQ's more India-focussed arms just the trigger they need to initiate the 'ghazwa-e-Hind' terror mayhem in India which Ilyas Kashmiri talked about in his very strange interview to Saleem Shehzad of Asia Times Online:
Al-Qaeda's guerilla chief lays out strategy
aQ (and the jehadi network leading all the way into Pakistan Army, 'rogue' or not, its your call) perhaps believe that a spectacular series of attacks that would leave India humiliated would polarize Pakistanis in their favour and lead them to their long term goal of capturing power there. But they need a trigger - they are not able to justify all-India attacks solely on the basis of Kashmir.
India must tread carefully - we should not give them any such chance at a time when we are not at all confident we have plugged all our internal security loopholes and nor do we have much covert action capability:
Hit but stealthiliy
At best we have to increase physical security to the staffers of India's humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, wherever they stay, within the embassies or otherwise. And request the Afghan Govt to punish the culprits as much as possible.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Inspector Karamchand: Prologue
A new thriller series
Prologue
No. This is not the comeback series of Pankaj Kapoor after his long break from TV, though for sure he is contemplating one. This is also not the launch of his son Shahid Kapur into the high world of the telly. His career is doing too good for that, now that he is finally over his addiction to the social networking site, bebo.com.
This is the story of a patriotic jasoos from our much maligned IB, a rare babu who's trying desperately, to help our countrymen from yet another terrorist attack. Now, because he was so Deolesque in his patriotism, in typical filmi style, he was shifted out of a secret branch of IB that thought it was safe from the hands of netalog. Well netalog ke haath bahut lambe hote hain. That was something Karamchand learned the hard way, as he rued the day he had a heated discussion with a pulisman investigating the latest terrorist attack in Mumbai. Apparently, the Chief Minister, who was afraid hs bhaanje and saale would all be caught napping after gourging on samose if the attack was investigated well, had ordered his corrupt puliswaale to come up with some ingenious plan. So the commissioner of pulis secretly commissioned a wellknown fiction writer to author ten 1000 page dossiers on the involvement of 'elements' in Pakistan in the dastardly act and sent them off to the Home Ministry to buy time.
Anyhow, here he was, posted in a new IB cell that was serving the purposes of democracy well. They have hit upon a brilliant plan to nab the terrorists who keep commiting murder in India. They will wait until the next attack, so they can follow the trails. Meanwhile they keep him busy typing away hundreds of 'analysis' notes on what the son of politicians of opposition parties were upto, for the ruling party president to review in her weekly meetings. But our hero is also up to some plan. He secretly manged to slip his 3G compatible Nokia E71 into the lid of his box size 1995model nokia phone. Now every few hours a day, he secretly surfs the net looking for leads on the next possible attack. How good is the team he secretly put in place just for this eventuality? Can he prevent the next big attack without the compromised IB moles stopping him in his tracks?...
Inspector Karamchand will follow after a few days when I take a break from not working.
Prologue
No. This is not the comeback series of Pankaj Kapoor after his long break from TV, though for sure he is contemplating one. This is also not the launch of his son Shahid Kapur into the high world of the telly. His career is doing too good for that, now that he is finally over his addiction to the social networking site, bebo.com.
This is the story of a patriotic jasoos from our much maligned IB, a rare babu who's trying desperately, to help our countrymen from yet another terrorist attack. Now, because he was so Deolesque in his patriotism, in typical filmi style, he was shifted out of a secret branch of IB that thought it was safe from the hands of netalog. Well netalog ke haath bahut lambe hote hain. That was something Karamchand learned the hard way, as he rued the day he had a heated discussion with a pulisman investigating the latest terrorist attack in Mumbai. Apparently, the Chief Minister, who was afraid hs bhaanje and saale would all be caught napping after gourging on samose if the attack was investigated well, had ordered his corrupt puliswaale to come up with some ingenious plan. So the commissioner of pulis secretly commissioned a wellknown fiction writer to author ten 1000 page dossiers on the involvement of 'elements' in Pakistan in the dastardly act and sent them off to the Home Ministry to buy time.
Anyhow, here he was, posted in a new IB cell that was serving the purposes of democracy well. They have hit upon a brilliant plan to nab the terrorists who keep commiting murder in India. They will wait until the next attack, so they can follow the trails. Meanwhile they keep him busy typing away hundreds of 'analysis' notes on what the son of politicians of opposition parties were upto, for the ruling party president to review in her weekly meetings. But our hero is also up to some plan. He secretly manged to slip his 3G compatible Nokia E71 into the lid of his box size 1995model nokia phone. Now every few hours a day, he secretly surfs the net looking for leads on the next possible attack. How good is the team he secretly put in place just for this eventuality? Can he prevent the next big attack without the compromised IB moles stopping him in his tracks?...
Inspector Karamchand will follow after a few days when I take a break from not working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)