India ,Black Money and Demonetisation

With the recent decision of the Prime Minister on 8th November to end the validity of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes, the debate over black money has come to the fore. In India, black money is just a parallel economy. Most of the people who buy car, land, flat, gold and other "luxuries", go through this route. In this country, the jobs in real estate sector are primarily because of black money. So interesting right !! A situation which is a severe problem is reason for employment for many. Am I praising black money? No, Not At All. What I mean is something really very different, and that is the reason for this long post.

The real estate sector is driven by black money and perhaps that is the reason that it is simply not affordable. For a good for nothing type of 2 BHK flats one has to shell out 30 lakhs in average cities or places which are really at the extreme of the big cities. In Mumbai and Delhi one has to shell out 1 crore for two 9X10 room 2 BHK flat. Its simply ridiculous. Coming back to employment, the situation is simply amusing. The labourers who work day and night don't even get what is called minimum wages. The engineers who work on these sites, they simply blame themselves for the choice they have made. The bonus and the hike they get in their salaries is as high as 10%, but what is actually 10%, its nothing but a mere Rs 3000 hike. But in the other room, a few people mint heavy profits. The margin at which a flat is sold depends on the agency which has built it. A bad agency sells at a margin as high as 50% and if its reputed one, then the margin is at-least 100%. All this happens because they know that their customer have money, black or white, it doesn't matter.

The situation for land deals is even worse. There are many small towns whose land price are higher than that of Metropolitan cities. The land in my hometown are costlier than Patna, which is supposed to be the capital city of the state I belong to. All these purchase are made through black money which subsequently changes to black economy. The root is so strong that black economy is present in almost every home which is in middle class onward. Hardly any retailer pays taxes, the extremely rich have their own means to siphon off the money so that they can avoid taxes, the rest comprise of the government employees and private sector employees. The government sector employees have their cuts. The only category which can claim itself to be better than the others is the office going middle class which works with private sector.

Although I don't praise the recent demonetisation by Mr. Prime Minister but I do support it. There is a huge difference between praising and supporting. When I say I praise it, I mean I am assuming that it is going to solve almost all of the problems, which in my views would be a foolish mistake. But when I say I support it, it means that I assume that it won't worsen the problem of black money but definitely it will control it to some extent. The question is : to what extent and at what cost? For the first part, for now I can only say that if this step is not going to be followed by a proper taxation, the all this will go in vain and I can also say that it will definitely bring down corruption. It can be noticed well in the crash in the price of flat and lands by almost 30-40% across this country. Deposits in banks have spurred to 11 lakh crore (estimated money was 15 lakh crore which was in form of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000) and it is already estimated that interest rates are going to go down. If interest rates are going to go down then it will be easier for the industry to take loan and repay them as the margin of profit in most of the businesses remain unaffected.

All easier said than done. The other point which I have not discussed is very important and crucial : "At what cost?". Definitely, the cost is heavy. The poor are the  one who have been hit the hardest. They stand in queue, they are not getting paid as their employer doesn't have money, still many of them don't have a bank account, they don't have any black money but are still being punished indirectly, they are losing jobs, they are not able to sell their goods because they can't accept credit cards and the list goes on and on. Certainly, the government should have bothered about them more but does Mr Modi had other option regarding demonetisation. I don't think so because if he could have announced it earlier, then this program would have turned out to be a gimmick, if he had announced it after making preparation then there are chances that the news would have leaked out. Either ways there were hardships which had to be faced.

In my opinion what the government should learn from this whole exercise is the presence of very poor logistics in our country as the number crunch in logistics has not only taken a toll on the bank employees but also the logistic employees who are working round the clock. The government should look towards this very very crucial factor.

Modi, Vajpayee and Kashmir

I am neither a Kashmiri expert nor have I visited Kashmir extensively, except for site visits at the Chenab Bridge in Jammu and the famous Vaishno Devi temple. However, I have an opinion on Kashmir that I think must be shared with my peers. It is worth noting that many so-called "Kashmiri experts" have never visited Kashmir themselves. I don't know what makes an expert, but I can proudly claim that I am a responsible citizen of this country, unlike many of my friends who neither earn good money nor understand their responsibilities. Setting criticism aside, let's focus on what I want to convey.

When Vajpayee took over as Prime Minister, he brought hope to the Kashmiris. How did he do it? Through dialogue. The Kargil War, parliament attack, plane hijacking, and many other terrorist attacks did not deter him from continuing dialogue with Kashmiris, including separatists and the Pakistani establishment. He knew that until then, Delhi viewed Kashmir and its people's response in black and white, whereas Kashmiris' favorite color was grey. He started the Lahore bus service, which made the Kashmiris cheer. Whenever there is any positive development between Pakistan and India, Kashmiris cheer because they know that their solution lies in peace between India and Pakistan. Vajpayee was a statesman; he continued dialogue with China in 1979 when the Janata government took over, despite the relationship being frozen since the India-China War in 1962. He also visited Pakistan at that time. Vajpayee was a visionary who knew that ego wouldn't take us anywhere. He tried to negotiate with Musharraf, a man who overthrew the elected government of Pakistan, planned an invasion of Indian territory in Kargil, and publicly said many nasty things about India. Still, Vajpayee continued dialogue with him because he knew he wasn't doing it for himself or Pakistan but for the people of Kashmir. Due to this strategy, he was respected in all quarters and was termed by his opposition in Parliament as "Ajatshatru," a man having no enemies. His strategy reduced the number of local militants, and Kashmiris welcomed him at marriage ceremonies—a significant honor, as Kashmiris do not invite "outsiders" to weddings unless they trust them. Vajpayee initiated dialogue with the slogan of "Kashmiriyat, Jamhooriyat, and Insaniyat." The word "Kashmiriyat" drew the attention of Kashmiris because a typical Kashmiri is a very complex character.

Modi, on the other hand, tried his best to follow in Vajpayee's footsteps, but his egoistic nature holds him back, leading to confusing signals about his Pakistan policy. Modi's rise to Prime Minister brought hope to Kashmir, as Kashmiris believed that the last BJP Prime Minister had provided a near-solution to the issue. It should be remembered that in 2014, Manmohan Singh admitted that between 2006 and 2007, Pakistan proposed settling the dispute by accepting the LOC (Line of Control) as the international border, but Manmohan Singh missed that opportunity, following the old Congress tradition of missing crucial moments. This near solution was definitely the result of Vajpayee's long pursuit. When Modi invited Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration ceremony, it was seen as a very positive development in the eyes of Kashmiris. They hoped for a second Vajpayee. However, when India canceled dialogues with Pakistan after the Pakistani High Commissioner met the separatist leader in Delhi, Kashmiris were infuriated. This practice had never been objected to in the past two decades, not even during Vajpayee's BJP government. More than that, India's retaliation in Pakistani style on the international platform worsened the situation. Even Vajpayee faced similar problems but dealt with them smartly, like going public with recorded tapes, putting Pakistan and its officials on the back foot internationally. It seems that Modi's team has failed to realize what Vajpayee did—that he was doing it for Kashmiris, not for himself.

Modi, despite his persona, has always been hindered by his ego. For example, he doesn't talk to journalists he dislikes or holds grudges against. He still acts like a BJP man, contrary to Vajpayee, who took charge as Prime Minister. The solution to Kashmir lies in dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. Terrorist attacks will happen more frequently if there is no dialogue, which itself proves that the Pakistani establishment is weaker when it comes to dialogue. They fear that their proxy war will be at a disadvantage. But Modi ignores this because of his ego. The provisions of AFSPA and Article 370 still continue. Modi has an edge to claim the title of a Prime Minister who removed AFSPA because, though Article 370 has some legal hitches, AFSPA can be removed by just an order. This time, with the number of militants not even above 100, AFSPA can be discontinued. Removing AFSPA does not mean removing the Army; it means making the Army accountable for its actions. The Army is never employed to make things peaceful; it is employed to bring a highly disturbed situation to a point where the Civil Administration can take over. There is a huge difference between the training of the Army and Civil Administration. The Army is trained to be result-oriented, whereas the Civil Administration is trained to be procedure-oriented. These two things are wide apart; for example, the Army does not bother about the steps involved in curbing a crime, but it cares whether the crime has been curbed. The Civil Administration, on the other hand, focuses on whether the steps have been followed.

Whatever Modi's intentions may be, it seems that the boldest leader of India today is on the back foot and not truly sincere in solving the Kashmir issue. This is evident from the fact that Modi is busy in UP, while Rajnath has taken over Kashmir. I believe that in Vajpayee's case, things would have been different.

Through the Window of Religions

The origin of religion remains shrouded in mystery, lost in the annals of time. While historical records trace the evolution of specific religions like Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism, the fundamental question of how religion itself began remains unanswered. The complexity of this inquiry is compounded by the fact that early religious practices, such as those in Hinduism and ancient Egypt, were heavily altered over time, with powerful individuals manipulating them to suit their needs.

The lack of accurate historical records contributes to this ambiguity. Early forms of religious beliefs, whether in Hinduism or elsewhere, were subject to distortion and transformation. Those in positions of strength altered these practices without witnesses, erasing crucial details from history. Their motivations may not align with contemporary ethical standards, but their actions achieved the intended result — the concealment of critical facts beyond their imagination.

Even as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Catholic Church shaped its version of Christianity, marked by discrimination against women and slaves. The truth about figures like Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus remains obscured. Depicting religious figures, considered blasphemous by some, further complicates the exploration, despite the absence of explicit prohibitions in certain religious texts.

The windows of religious exploration were often intentionally kept closed. Attempts to open them were met with ruthless suppression or cunning manipulations. For instance, the classification of classical divisions in Hinduism, like Nyaya, Samkhya, and Vaisheshika, was altered over time, causing confusion about their foundational principles.

Reflecting on these historical transformations prompts contemplation about the purpose of religion. Was it designed to serve humanity, or did it primarily benefit a select few? Islam's rapid spread in regions like the Middle East and Africa is linked to the oppression faced under Christian and Jewish rulers who claimed divine authority. The rise of Islam promised equality, yet internal power struggles eventually led to the schism between Shia and Sunni sects, resulting in centuries of bloodshed.

Centuries later, a European renaissance challenged religious dominance, sparking scientific advancements and enlightenment. The French Revolution, partly fueled by opposition to religious pressures, criminalized Christianity temporarily. Despite these upheavals, Europe's religious identity did not hinder its rise as a colonial power, exploiting other nations economically and religiously.

Colonial rule witnessed mass conversions to Christianity, often pitting one regional religion against another. The narrative of Shivaite Hinduism being connected to Christianity emerged, fostering division. This pattern repeated globally, with even Buddhism undergoing changes, such as the Hinayanas' transformation of Buddha into a deity.

In the 18th century, Islam saw the emergence of the Wahabi sect, associated with contemporary terrorism. This illustrates that the demonization of Islam is often due to specific sects rather than the Quran itself.

In conclusion, the opacity surrounding the origins of religion, coupled with deliberate distortions, raises concerns about its contemporary practice. While some find solace in religious practices, for others, it may be a wasted pursuit. The lack of transparency can be likened to a disease, particularly for those with the comfort of economic stability. As individuals grapple with the complexities of life, blaming external factors often becomes a coping mechanism, deflecting attention from personal responsibility.

What's Nationalism??

The Incident and a Brief History

With the recent incidents which sparked controversy and debate over what constitutes nationalism and what makes a man/woman patriotic, its very much important to understand and discuss several topics in parallel, though these incidents brought the same old concept at the forefront : Left vs Right. The students who sang the song of so called "dissent" were instead promoting there naive ideology of a "Free Kashmir" forgetting that even today, Kashmir needs India more than it needs those people who sing that song, the so called song of "Azadi".

The students who raised that obnoxious slogan were doing reverse of what is expected from a government institution. Instead of promoting the idea of assimilation, pacifism and providing the solution to integration, they were instead asking for disintegration. Disintegration on what basis, only they can answer. The most shocking was the defense of the few of teachers and students who, allegedly, were hiding them. The point is, this way (if teachers and students have done so) they were not doing what was being expected from them. Instead they choosed to divert the entire attention toward the arrest of JNUSU president who was for sure arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by BJP MP, which is in itself a political move rather than a move to restore the broil on campus. Also entire feedback was being provided by only ABVP. None of the member of AISA or DSU or any other political wing of students was providing any information regarding the details of the incident.

Like ABVP, AISA members were also busy in making fake video in order to prove that ABVP member had shouted "Pakistan Zindabad". Just after the video was released, the JNUSU vice president went on to claim about the intention of ABVP to malign the campus.
Why AISA, which has its political affiliation to CPI is so dominant in the campus? Why ABVP members say that they are being constantly warned and threatened by the teachers on the campus? Why is this that the present BJP government is in a rush to take on the academic campuses? These all incidents have one historical answer : Thanks to Prof Nurul Hasan. When he became Minister of Education, he played a deadly game to create his own nation, a nation where every intellectual and student becomes trained communist so that the purpose of Indira Gandhi is served very well. And I must say, he succeeded very well. This move of him, that is recruiting teachers of communist mindset, did so great harm that Right wing was completely eliminated from the intelligentsia and what remained of Right Wing was only RSS, an organisation which virtually promoted that India which was hated most by the constitution of India itself,i.e, a HINDU RASHTRA

Aftermath of Incident

But what brought nationalism to the forefront of discussion on the news channel was when bunch of lawyers or incarnated Gundas beat up the journalists and manhandled the teachers in the courtroom. They were all shouting slogans of "Vande Matram" aggressively as if they have been awarded the contract of promoting Nationalism. The next day when one of the news anchor asked them justification for their action, she was asked shout "Vande Matram". Now the question arises : Is beating up the alleged "student" by the "lawyers" over the issue of slogans which were allegedly sedition can be branded nationalism? Is shouting "Vande Matram" and forcing people to do same "Nationalism" or patriotism? Is asking for the hanging or jail with severe punishment for the "student" charged for sedition nationalism?

All these questions have become so relevant today that they were never before, atleast after 1947. Now, the question is : What is Nationalism? What slogans can be regarded as the slogans of "dissent" from idea of Nationalism and what slogans can be regarded as slogans of "sedition"? The law and the constitution are very clear on this, they cast no confusion and leave no shade of doubt. They say that sedition are only those words or actions which incite or promote violence. The idea of India as a nation is well defined in the speech of "Objective" of Constitution by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru when Constituent Assembly was formed. Those were not the objectives written by Nehru but they were feedback by leader from every corner. The objectives was seen as disrespect by many Muslim leader because it had eliminated the inclusion of "Sharia Law", but that did not move away this nation. 

Later, after the constitution was give its final form by the Constituent Assembly, the Preamble defined the idea of India in its nine words. These nine words are in contrast to what has happened in JNU in the name of "free speech" and what has happened in Patiala Court in the name of "protecting" the sovereignty of Mother India. In JNU they were raising the pro-Afzal slogans, OK they can raise, but they were also raising slogans of "Bharat Ki Barbadi" which is definitely sedition. But, the point is this, that these were the slogans being raised not by fidayeens but by bunch of students who are driven by the idea of naive idealism, which can be treated by proper councilling. These slogans were being raised in solidarity (as per the pamphlets) with the people of Kashmir. This is not terrorism, this is confusion, confusion of what is dissent and what is sedition. Treating this with "danda" will only lead to further escalation of problem. Instead of arresting such people, its better to make them realise that they should be shameful for their act. Its these students who should take the call for regret and understand the depth of tolerance of this "Mother India".

As for the lawyers, they are not lawyers, they behaved like Gundas. Taking law into hand is not what is expected from a lawyer. They should be debarred from the council and made to work in "Vridhha Ashrams" so that they should realise what is expected from people residing in a democratic nation. Being a lawyer, they should enlighten the people and discourage them from taking law in their hands, instead they choosed the rverse. They justified the act and went on claiming that they were deeply hurt by the pain "inflicted upon Bharat Mata". But the point is, that everybody was deeply hurt but nobody had retorted to violence. Well I am pretty sure, that these goons are not the lawyers like Gandhi. How much honest they are only they know about that. Those claiming themselves to be the contractor of "deshbhakti" should check their collars, what they have done to this Mata. Crony Capitalism, massive corruption, riots, implication in FIRs and so on are the gifts of these contractors to their "only Bharat Mata".

Conclusion

In my opinion, Nationalism is another word for "Social Service". You not doing that, then please do not call yourelf to be nationalist. In that case you are just opportunist. In this story of JNU, those who raised slogans and those beat them or see nothing wrong in it, are nothing but just an opportunist to me. These JNU students were seeking some opportunity and these lawyers were busy seeking their opportunity, none was serving the purpose of "Bharat Mata". As per as the media is concerned, I have written a lot about them earlier, don't want to get my hands dirt again....

Whats the problem of Muslims

Around 650 A.D. Prophet Muhammad went on for establishing a religion which he thought would be peaceful and liberate people from the torture of Jewish and Christian Empires, which on the name of religion, used to project King as the ultimate messenger of God. The Kings were generally barbaric and segregated from the emotions of their own subjects. The people were frustrated, angry and hopeless. After the death of Christ, Church had unleashed mayhem on its own people. Females were butchered to death and the Kings later on, in the name of God , stole away the dignity of their own people. It is during these times that Middle East was in chaos and future seemed bleak. Prophet Muhammad was born but was orphaned very soon. He later on went on to establish his religion after revealing that he has been visited by Gabriel. In order to preach his religion, he made agreements from the neighbouring nations like Syria which was a Christian Empire then. But agreements were broken by these egoistic Kings, which led to War and eventual defeat of this barbarian Kings. People, who were frustrated saw hope in Muhammad. Muhammad's teachings enlightened them and again enforced their belief in God, for a very simple reason that, Muhammad said that he is the last prophet of God and "God is one". He always insisted that he is here to spread the message of God like "the other Prophets" have done, for example, Jesus. For Prophet, Christianity was not a different religion but another refined format of Christianity which had been highly compromised after the death of Jesus and hence it needed transformation. For Prophet, reformation was "Islam". It was not a different religion. He didn't kill those who refused to accept Islam but he killed those who rejected, resisted and betrayed Islam. All those Kingdoms who had betrayed the concept of "Children of Israel" were executed. The beginning was not good but the results were better than the past.

Present Day

So why has such a powerful religion which once liberated the people from torture, made them to rule over entire world has now become the reason for debate that why not to eliminate Islam? Why the people in West have got so much issues with this religion that they refuse to accept the children dying on their shore? Why a student from this sect is looked upon with suspicion? Why they are accused of creating ruckus in every country they live in

If one asks me this question, I simply have one line answer : " Its because nowhere they are in majority and wherever they are in majority, their policy is decided by Government which does not belong to their country". After the death of Muhammad, one unfortunate incident occurred which was not that unfortunate till then but it later, after 1000 of years, is making them to pay the actual price. After death of Muhammad, Islam was guided by three Caliphs which one big community of Islam denied to accept. This community later came to be known as "Shia" and their half brothers were those who believed these Caliphs and came to be known as Sunnis. Later on, states in Middle East were formed on this basis. So wherever, Shia were in majority, Sunni were in minority and vice versa. 

This one difference, made them so vulnerable to external interference, that after the fall of Ottoman Empire, the Islamic countries became mere puppets at the hands of Western Powers. Never ever the game of Christianity vs Sunni vs Shia was played because issue was not religion but the issue was OIL. Most of the fortune 500 companies belong to this sector and their revenue is so high that they can en-gulp 9-10 companies which offer similar salaries to their employees. What it meant that if one had control over Oil, then one had control over the economy of this WHOLE WORLD.

Gautam Buddha once said :

There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.   

And then began the game, game of proxy wars, game of money because it was very important particularly when most of the colonies were now self ruled state. Saudi Arabia was created in 1932. Up-till late 1950s these countries were doing good. There was human rights, girls were free in main cities and towns, they had their say. In Western World, the problem with this religion were racial but not "ideological". Being a Muslim was not an issue but being Asian, being poor, being African was.

When the authorities of these nations nationalised oil in their nation, the Western eyebrows were raised. Coup were orchestrated against the elected government of nations like that of Iran and the situation got even worse after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The region went into tormoil as Saudi was busy in projecting itself as the sole "contractor of Islam" and was always being encouraged by US and Europe. Saudis had no issue until then with the Iranians but from the late 1970s, the tensions flared because the Westerners didn't let loose any single moment to brew up the fire. They encouraged the fire with their proxy setups. West was engaged in continuous proxies at that time. They had failed to learn lessons from the Vietnam War and the irony was this that they still continued to call themselves as the masters and the most powerful.

The worst happened when Westerners trained some fighters to harm USSR interests. It is here that the table were turned against the Westerners and later on against the whole Muslim World. The fighters whom they had trained, later on wore the mask of "Zihad" and butchered  Westerners themselves. The unfortunate incident of 9/11/2001 in which thousands of US people died (innocent because they had not voted their government for their death), turned the table against Muslims. After that series of terrorist attacks started and the religion which had once aspired to bring peace on to the region, brought havoc instead. The war mongers used Holy Quran and the idea of Wahabbism to unleash Zihad against their own people. The rest was done by US and NATO when they entered soils of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

I am not talking much about India because the conflict among Muslims and Hindus in India is more about the vague idea of what we call as freedom from "British Empire". The Britishers ruled this nation for 150 years because of only one fact : Tipu loosed to Britishers. Tipu was a Muslim who was denied aid from the neighbouring Maratha Kingdoms. That virus still infects us. Its more than 200 years since that incident.

Conclusion

Prophet never unleashed Zihad against own people because by the time Prophet had died, there were no cars and there was no US, Saudi or Iran.