How Media killed Democracy

Indian media died long ago; it was just waiting for its burial, which happened recently. When I was in high school, I often observed how newsrooms focused on astrology, "Bhut-Pret," cricket, Bollywood birthdays, and marriages. There were hardly any shows on agriculture or a critical analysis of the state of various industrial sectors such as coal, railways, and steel. If these topics garnered any attention, it was only when something bad, like a scam, occurred, only to be forgotten after a week. Otherwise, no checks and balances were conducted by Indian media, which is said to be the fourth pillar of democracy.

As I moved from high school to college and then to my job, the situation went from bad to worse, reaching a point where it could not go further downhill. We hit rock bottom, and the final nail in the coffin was when the media started demonizing (not criticizing) people who questioned the government, popular opinions, and challenged narratives. This recent trend transformed journalism into political jingoism. More than 50% of today's debates are focused on criticizing Pakistan, as if it will help us achieve our economic and social goals, reverse the current economic slowdown, or solve the problems our manufacturers face from China and smaller countries like Bangladesh.

These newsrooms are now behaving like annual conferences where people meet, talk, have snacks, and then leave. I do not know where the fanfare for "Make in India" has gone when these newsrooms were chanting for it five years ago during a government-organized conference. Whether we have achieved the results or not, we do not know. I am certain that these newsrooms know the outcomes, which is why they avoid discussing them.

But the question is, what is keeping them away from a job that is so important to every Indian? The reason is simple: they joined this profession not for charity but for monetary gain, and they do not hide this fact as they profit from what they do. Instead of reporting the news, they are creating and selling it. Instead of analyzing the news based on social and economic parameters, they analyze it in terms of monetary gains from Television Rating Points (TRP), direct or indirect political funding, and corporate funding.

Is there any way out? The media has died and been buried already. With the current system, there seems to be no solution. I have no hope for the state of the media. My only hope lies in web channels that have spread their wings thanks to platforms like YouTube and Facebook. These websites have their own problems, and "Fake News" is one of them, but they provide a platform for these channels to operate with minimal infrastructure. With just a table, a laptop, and a camera, they can make reports and present them to the public with internet access. This politically illiterate public, which itself is the cause of many problems in this country, is at least able to make something out of nothing, even though they are not doing much.

Conclusion

I really do not have any hope for the survival of media on TV and in newspapers. Those who are trying to survive are just a limited edition, fighting for their existence. With a public that is completely politically illiterate and ignorant, it is best not to expect anything. This impotence only deserves the circus they call media.

Towards a World for Free

Humanity creates technology, and technology changes humanity. At some point, humanity chose a market-driven economy over a peaceful and calm life. There was nothing inherently wrong with that; humans were designed to survive. They had to survive the jungle, ferocious animals, changing nature, and their own emotions when someone precious to them died due to a lack of medicines. All these complications gave rise to agriculture, then the barter system, and eventually currency, leading humans to the world we see today—a world hardly liked by anyone.

This world is run by a handful of people, most of them rich and powerful businessmen. They have leaders in their pockets, and these leaders become Presidents of the United States or other significant political figures. These politicians send armies to capture new lands for the businessmen, and the poor soldiers follow orders, believing they are serving their country.

That's how the world runs. Everyone else is just an employee, earning a salary and shopping. They shop for many things, the most expensive being education and medicine. In the USA, doctors and scientists who try to develop cheaper medicines that could cure diseases like cancer are sidelined. The "Godfathers of Earth" hate them because curing a disease like cancer means people won't spend money on it again, resulting in a severe financial loss.

Technology, however, continues to drive itself and change how humanity thinks and functions. Today, it poses a serious threat to humanity. Technology has led to a disruption known as "Automation." This automation is so powerful that in India alone, it is estimated that 69% of people will lose their jobs. Automated machines are faster, cheaper, and more effective, making them preferable to human workers who demand high salaries and pose risks to the industry, especially those categorized as "hazardous."

Employers demand neat work and more output, but both cannot coexist if a human handles production. If a human works neatly, they take more time and precautions, producing less. If they produce more, they take fewer precautions, compromising their safety and increasing the chances of accidents. In case of an accident, the employer may face legal consequences. This is a big problem for employers, who want to mint money, increase output, and avoid jail. So, what do they do? They fire humans and employ 2-3 robots, automating their plants. One-time investment, and they are relaxed, paying EMIs instead of salaries.

Amidst all this, another creative disruption is going on, moving faster than we can estimate. Until now, we have been paying for the energy we need. What if this energy becomes free? Solar energy is now five times cheaper than other energy sources. In countries like Germany, people are about to get paid instead of being charged for using energy. Nobody is ready for that, but they will have to be someday. Organizations like Tesla are working towards a less complex world, adding new dimensions to the existing ones.

Towards a Free World

Why does a human earn? To build a house, to get an education, to receive medical care when needed, to travel, to invest, and most importantly, to eat. If energy is available for free, that’s a huge cost cut. If education becomes free, which it likely will someday, that’s another huge cost cut. Imagine a campus with good food production, ploughed by robots instead of humans. There would be no cost in producing food since everything required is manufactured on the same campus by robots. Robots, guided by humans, teach other humans, eliminating education costs. Fully automated constructors build houses, providing free housing for every family. These campuses can produce every raw material or get it from other interdependent campuses.

Three things remain: travel, investment, and medicine. But what if, instead of buying cars, people rent cars from services like Ola and Uber, which don't charge since the vehicles are automated and driverless? If cars can be made for free, there’s no cost to charge. With everything available for free, medicine would also be free. Doctors would be robots supervised by humans working for free, much like I am writing this blog for free.

Am I talking nonsense? Many readers might say "Yes." But I don’t feel bad because every creative disruption has faced rejection. Cars made horse-drawn carriages obsolete, TV displaced radio, and mobile phones replaced wired services. Every innovation has faced opposition. Even the Church couldn’t uphold its 1500-year-old geocentric theory against Copernicus, who correctly posited that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

For now, I can only say that I believe in the vision of a Free World, and I will continue to do so.

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.

The Grand Indian Marriages

Marriage in India is not practically a marriage, its a filtration process, a process which is in every religion and no one, I mean no one, whether love marriage or arrange marriage, is immune from it. The point is this, that marriage in India is not a personal concept at all, its a social concept.

"Look her, she got married at 23 itself !! Such a happy Lady.... Don't you think that you should too??"
"Look at him, he got married at 27 itself, just after he finished 1 year after an MBA. Don't you think you should too??"
"I am about to die, let you keep my last wish alive. I want to see my granddaughter/grandson married. I want to hold my Grand-Grandchild in my arms".... So lovely,, isn't it??

From the above para, as you can see, these are religion-less comments, in other words, universal and eternal..... 4 years of age gap is welcome since ideal age is 23 and 27. So nice... Dear Reader, you must understand that these standard ages had some social amendments. In earlier days it used to be 16 and 21, 5 years to 4 years.

Now we should look upon the filtration process. When it comes to water purification, generally there are three different methods : RO filters, Aqua-guard and Simple Candle Filters. One day, few men and women of some Indian society, combined them all in a step by step sequence. The RESULT : They got MILK from WATER !!! Waaaaaaawwwwww....

They used their head now, knocked it and knocked it many times. Then they came up with this idea : If water can produce milk then what men and women will produce if they are also subjected to similar process. One of them argued that they will produce Super Childs, his argument was a welcome. But then one intellectual argued : " Since water which is considered at par with milk, has produced actually milk, therefore, the men and women will actually produce GODS since Children are incarnation of Gods (if we subject them through this process)." Everybody was like : "Hmmmmm"

And hence began the quest of this process. What should be the process? The priests from every section like Hindu, Muslim, Christians, Sikhs etc. were appointed, Religious books were "bought" (and I think they must have been read too) and ideal and suitable places were identified. And the results were as follows :

Religion Filters (the numbers 1,2,3 etc. represents the sequence of filters to be used)

Christians : 1.Vatican Sect/ Orthodox Sect 3. Tribal/Non-Tribal
2. Roman Catholic/ Protestants

Muslims : 1. Muslim 3. Pathans/Qureshi etc.
2. Shia/Sunni

**Hindus thought that they are oldest, so they need a better filter, hence they came with six filters :
Hindus : 1. Hindu 2. Caste 3. Subcaste 4. Gotra 5. Kul-Devta (neglected nowadays) 6. Kundli (this is an adjustable filter)

Hmmmmmmmmmm............. Similar is the case of other religions, you can add in the comments. Well, in the end, I must admit, it was a significant achievement by our ancestors and marked a clear cut chapter in our Indian Heritage and Culture. We must carry onto these traditions and make sure that the Holy Soul of our ancestors are happy and enjoying their eternity......

Europe and Its Refugee Crisis

In this age of frequent Civil Wars, perhaps what world  had never witnessed so far, Europe is reaping its own harvest. Europe with the aid of its God Father (America) tried not only to revolutionise and change the discourse of Arab Nations by imposing Democracy but also it did not turn away from using violence through its creation called NATO. Europe thought that it will end what it use to call "crisis", the dictatorial crisis by a single blow, by promoting violence and using proxy groups for weakening the corresponding government. The Arab Spring got a humongous public support, many of the dictators gave up like that of Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt but the Syrian Government did not. Instead Syrian Government bombed the protesters and created a vacuum, a vacuum of trust among its own people. This vacuum created enough opportunities for radical groups to grow up. They got their support from few people who were among those hurt by the violent measures taken by the government to curb the so called Arab Spring. Among these groups who were dreaming of their reign, there was one group which was promising people of an Islamic State, a unified Islamic State which would be ruled by a Caliphate just like the olden days, those olden days in which Islam ruled, conquered, built mosques, eliminated everything and anything which was detached from Allah....

Many people misled by this notion, supported every bit of IS views. But who knew that IS was not Islam. It was Wahhabism, an extreme Sunni sect which wanted Sunni Islam built on the concept of Wahhabism and Deobandi. Wahhabism does not respect even the Sufi sect, they believe in either the submission or cutting-off any demonstrator who does not accept their choice. Later on IS started persecuting all of them who denied its Wahhabi stand and the Sunni notion. Different local groups such as the Kurdish groups, who were once declared terrorists working against state, suddenly gained support not only from the people but from government too. But it was already too late as America had delayed the calculations a lot. Six months after IS had started holding strong grounds, US President Barack Obama admitted that they had heavily under-estimated IS. IS now controls more than 50% of the Syrian territory and almost 500,000 people have lost their lives to this Civil War.

Europe : Double Trouble

Europe is losing money very fast. PIIGS have already gone bankrupt and they are withdrawing themselves from pumping money in any situation which does not mean business to it. And at this situation the refugees who number in millions, have arrived at its door seeking asylum, its right to live and avoid the conflict of which they are nothing more than just a victim. The refugees are finding it very hard to live with dignity that they even did not bother the lobbying by UK in 2014 to get away with Mare Nostrum. Mare Nostrum was a mission focused over saving refugees from drowning but UK wanted them to drown so that they should not take that journey. But the situation back at home were so dangerous for these refugees that they multiplied their attempts and risked their lives for reaching Europe which has a lesser stringent laws for Refugees and respects Human Rights more than any continent does, may be not by spirit but at-least by rules. Refugees were also encouraged by European public who welcomed them everywhere which is not only "Being Human" but also slapping its own government.

The mass killings, severe conflict, armed race, proxy wars and many other factors which led to mass exodus of the Syrians is such that One-Third of the Syrians are refugee in their own state and and another 4 million have fled their country. Most of them are educated, employable, in new age group which are perhaps the demand of the European State. But Europe is going bankrupt, it is not ready for this much of rehabilitation. A few countries such as Hungary has said that it won't accept any "Muslim" population despite this fact that even if Europe takes the entire population, the percentage of Muslim population with respect to total population residing in Europe will increase by hardly 1% and still it will be less than 5% of the total population. This same sick attitude of Europe has led to participation of around 4000 European Muslims out of nearly 35000 in IS. The isolation of its own people just because they belonged to some religion, gave a push to recruitment drive of these extreme religious outfits, and now Europe is repeating the same. 

Trouble or Opportunity

As mentioned earlier, the European population is an aging population. Europe needs educated youths. Also the vague argument over Muslim population does not stand any chance as the refugees once given an asylum, try very fast to engage within the country, open their own business as is evident in case of Syrian refugees who belong mostly to at-least an average family. They afforded $1000 per head to cross Europe. So if given chance, then they will contribute to Economy and perhaps return very soon of what is being invested on them right now. We have defaulters who have cheated for years, can't we give these refugees a chance to show them what is an observed fact. Also, since a war torn refugee is himself/herself a sufferer, so it is observed that most of the refugees try to live a very peaceful life in their new place. During this, they compromise a lot with their interest so that they do not disturb the natives and limit their own chance of a good life. More than that, these refugees had not created IS but it was created by the political and strategic vacuum which was created by US and its European Allies (who are refusing to accept them). Till now, despite this huge crisis, its the first option of US and its Allies is that the Syrian Government should step down first and then they will co-operate with the office of Syria over the issue of IS. Such a trash.....

Though Assad (Syrian Monarch) could not be given a clean chit but he is trying to make sure that IS is put on the back-foot despite this fact that his neighbours, like Saudi Arabia, are keen on destablising the Syrian Governmnt as its a Shia Government (and Saudi's are Sunni and so is IS). Saudi and its neighbouring countries such as Oman, UAE have accepted zero refugees (shamelessly) but Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt are taking care of 95% of the refugees. Europe should try to utilise these refugees on humanitarian ground as it needs them more than they do. Europe will starve for people if it does not accept youths at faster rate. This unfortunate moment has given them such opportunity, they should utilise it. Europe should stop singing the vague "Muslim" song and should understand that refugees tend to commit less crime than the natives as they have arrived in Europe not to loot but to find better opportunity. IS is not refugees' creation but of Europe itself !! 

Politicians of Today, Politicians of Yesterday !!

People argue that there has been a steep decline in the dignity of politics by the politicians and they are on completely different sides as compared to their predecessors who represented India during and just after the Indian Independence. In my view, its a bogus argument. Demoralisation or declination of an institution or a discipline does not occur overnight. In my view, the decline of the dignity of politicians, if not the politics, had been a major contention of doubt by "Pitahmas" of politics of every generation. Be it the representatives of Socialist party of 1922 in the ministries of later period or the Congress Party after the Government of India Act 1935, every time there was a sign of reluctance shown by the senior members in participation of elections and ministries crafted by the Britishers because they knew well that most of the humans, including those who are sage, often submits his/her principles to the virtue of "power". And unfortunately, it came out to be true. One of the prime reasons for the Congress to withdraw from the ministries was the increasing level of corruption among its ruling members. After the independence, in 1948 itself there was Jeep Scandal Case which was termed as the first major scandal case in independent India's history. Also, during the making of Constitution, people involved in the different Constitution making committees showed their genius character which they had imbibed, but the members who had been participating in the debate some times exposed their conservative views when it came to issues like National Language or the marriage at will or religious laws particularly the Sharia Laws. The members who had been making noise regarding the Sharia Laws were the previous members of Muslim League. In my view, the present so called "secular" leaders and the communal ones are no way less than any Muslim League members as they are ready to put wedges between the social fabric so that it could continue to strengthen their political base. 

Is there any Difference?

The history is repeating itself because the causes are the same and their is no change, perhaps, in the quality of factors which lead to this. Not to speak of the uneducated or illiterate people, even the educated class continues to behave as if they hold a fake certificate. The entire idea of democracy could be successful only if the people respect the meaning of individual's behavourial quality and not of individual's dynastic quality. Still today this practice prevails in the so called "Institutes of National Importance" like the NITs, IITs etc. where regionalism or the party representation has a lot to do with the college politics. And today with the availability of Social Media platforms, any leader escapes the media questions and answers those on his/her own terms by a tweet or a post. The only difference which makes the behaviour of politicians today and yesterday different is their approach towards media. The "Pitahmas"  used to be media friendly but the politicians today brand any media agency as an agent of the opposite party. In my opinion this is the only difference. The aggression among the politicians have become rampant and they don't want anybody to differ from their opinion. If anybody does, then he is a Pakistani, or an agent, or a Hindu terrorist. 

This aggression is because of two things : 

first, they are finding it very difficult to adjust with the changing generation; too much of media presence which even takes a dig when they play hide and seek while watching porn in the respective assemblies; presence of women in the nation and in every field which is shaking their feet and taking off their grounds. Such is the danger that they even make sexist remarks out of frustration in order to demean its importance. Second is the changing equation of the people itself. In the paragraph above, I have written about the bigot nature of people who till now used to vote on the basis of origin of the corresponding leader, but what could be witnessed now, and which is a good sign, that even in the state election of Bihar, "relative development" is going to be an issue and from a caste based politics it might change to party based politics. which though may not be good but certainly can be branded as an improvement in the present circumstances. Previously when Nitish Kumar's party came, it came on the agenda of development only. That election was a departure of Biharis from caste based politics. But the darker side is this that RJD loosed election not because of this departure but the critical role played by Ram Vilash Pasvan in wooing the Muslim votes away from him. Lalu had his share still less the Muslim votes. In other words that election may not be a complete departure but it was indeed a beginning and it won. 

Conclusion

People are still wandering and they will continue to wander and this wandering will strengthen the politicians to further deteriorate the standard of politics, one example is the recent stalemate of the Parliament which is not only stalling processes but in my terms, its about taking the country on back foot. The onus is on the people to distinguish between what they had contended for and what do they achieved as a result. The movement does not need a leader but individual leader who can guide themselves and not copy any one else.

   

Why Indian version of Secularism is the Best

The very basic definition of secularism is very simple to understand (though even more tough to implement in one's own life),i.e., unbiased orientation to any religion or some consider that secularism means any doctrine that rejects religion or religious considerations. But as we all know, legal processes have their own version in every aspect. There are two versions of secularism considered widely, one is the Indian Secularism and the other is Western Secularism. As per Indian Secularism, the state can interfere in religious sanctions, rules or anything else which it considers uncomfortable with respect to rights conferred on its citizens or residents by it which have evolved out of hundreds of debates, years of struggle for equal right towards its freedom from a foreign government or its peaceful era during a Mughal Empire which turned disastrous during Aurangzeb. Whereas the Western Secularism does not interfere with the definition of secularism at all. It has imbibed it as a principle definition, its definition strictly means that state has nothing to do with religious considerations.

The point is this that the two definitions are good on their own where Indian secularism, with respect to state, is not a hundred percent definition but the definition of Western Secularism could be said to be hundred percent in its character. But the point is this that India and West have one thing in common, they adhere to the Human Rights (HR) and HR should not be violated on any grounds. Now the point is this, that as per HR, Indian Parliament and Courts can direct anyone to put its religious sanction on back foot and must follow the state's decision  whereas with regard to West it becomes difficult. Due to this sometimes Western nations find it very difficult to accommodate its people from other nations to adjust in its environment whereas in India, its very clear, messing with state on the name of religion is not good for health though political sector may show sympathy (often).

This clear perception, in case of India, drives the third generation to normally a no confusion state but in case of West, it often goes out of order. This has resulted into participation by the third generation into terrorist organistaion such as IS etc. from the Western countries but from India, despite having larger share of population, there is very little participation.

**The Third Generation means the second successor of a migrant. So suppose a person moves to another country then his grandson/grand daughter belongs to third generation

Part of the problem also lies with the western society which generally does not digest easily any new comer and instead of considering her/him part of the family, considers her/him as a "resource sharer". One of the reason which may sound valid to those who are exposed to such situation is this that the westerners are finding it very difficult to cope up to the competition which they have never witnessed. And the version of their definition further reinforces that conclusion as they discriminate people on the basis of culture they pursue, and since state can absolutely not interfere with that culture (which is good but turns out to be bad), they brand those other people as "migrants". This results in this that despite living in the corresponding countries for may be more than half a century, these migrants though may not be officially a migrant any more, but psychologically they remain so. European countries are very different from USA, in my opinion the Europeans are still very conservative and orthodox kind of people. Even USA did not see such a huge participation in terrorist related organisation like ISIS by its citizen as the Europeans did. Things in America turned out bad only after the 9/11 attack.

Conclusion

Leave aside the communal organisations like RSS or All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen or Indian Christian Front, the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court of India could be regarded the best on their platforms as compared to any other in the world. We allow people not only to upkeep their religion (unlike French Court which does allow Christian nuns to wear veils but does not allow Muslim women to wear Burqa ) provided it does not violate any basic feature of our Constitution but we also do not allow any body to say anything derogatory against any religion like "Charlie Hebdo" in the name sake of so called "Freedom Of Speech". 

Thanks UPA for your 10 years.....

Jacques Yves once said, " The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its nets of wonder forever." Let me put a different perspective of it," The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its nets forever." The difference between these two lines is just the sentiment, the former is positive and the later could serve the purpose of both, negative and positive. A wise person will say, it will be often negative. Prabhakaran Paleri, the former Director General of Coast Guards said, one who masters the ocean, masters everything. He also suggests different methods of safeguarding its sea. The best he suggests is the inclusion of neighbours or friendly neighbours. It does not matter how strong one is, and how weak its neighbour are, but a friendly term between neighbours should be utmost priority and it should always be preferred to a very strong but very distant relative. Mutual relationship becomes too much wider when this relationship involves two regions or two countries. The greatest of the greatest empires like Mughal Empire, Mauryan Empire etc. had been built by getting into establishing marital relationship with the un-tamable neighbour, who despite were weak but strategically too important too fight with. Their cooperation was desired rather than a hardly 1-2 months of fight. The ruler who understood this, became "The Great".

The UPA Saga

Unfortunately, the above events were not in the analysis of the UPA 1 or 2. The leadership had the time to visit US 8 times in 10 years but not once to visit "small" neighbours particularly those who were at the sea. Every time some pre-occupation, economical or political, stopped them doing so. They remained looking at sea, thinking and staring at it. Even those which had been visited earlier remained neglected due to the pre-occupation. Name the countries and we find only denials in terms of our commitments towards them :
Nepal was not visited once; Bangladesh remained at backfoot (he visited it only once); No Sri Lanka; poor handling of sensitivity in Maldives; Afghan President moves closer to those who were never on Afghani agenda and our country did nothing; Myanmar set ups it camps on our soil; What to say about Thailand, Vietnam etc. Of all the countries which Mr. Manmohan Singh visited, most of the time he visited to attend some summit, its hard to say that he had any specific bilateral agenda on his mind when dealing with these countries.
To add to our misery, China was working very craftily and hawkishly, while we were busy in persuading the West which was declining; we utterly neglected Asia which was rising. And what did we do with our pro-West policy is that we witnessed the lowest ebb ever with America in the end because of a lady who was not so decent (the Khobragode incident). After all this preferential treatment, an ebb!!! So, in other words, we did hardly anything with regard to foreign policy. The worst was this, that in all this we also loosed to some extent the Russians who found us too close with the West and with the rising China, Russians started looking at them. We failed to secure our seas while we were getting roped in by "String of Pearls". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean))

Our "Iron Fist Policy", which was supposed to be a counter of the Chinese string, was pushed even to further backfoot when Iran detained our oil ship.Though its true that many social initiatives like Adhar Card etc. were taken by the government but the fact of the matter is that Central Govt. is not all about distributing rations, states can handle that if directed properly, the very purpose of making a country strong from "National Security" point of view lies solely with the Central Govt. Since we badly loosed our Sea during that period, I have not an inch of doubt while saying this that we failed in it. The complaints registered by our neighbours could not be neglected and their closening ties with China cannot be declared as selfish. If we cannot ensure them that we do stand with them, how the hell they will not start removing their dependencies from us. Every countries foreign policy enshrines only one aspect : Its security with respect to its economy and defence (in particular). Every time we cannot get away through by sending the notes of "Panchsheel". If we have to achieve something then we have to transform our dialogues into action. Those actions include making our relationship with the neighbours strong in terms of both aspects. When they will see us wandering and submitting to the powers they do not want to do so, how would they submit our confidence on us??

Doing Agriculture......

Just think about a farmer who has got a lot of potatoes in his yard in one season and in the next season he struggles hard to get even half of them due to any one of the calamity out of so many he fears off. A farmer's yard is exactly like Indian Stock Market, its less dependent on itself but more on anything which is external (like the FII's in exchange market). He has small landholding, less irrigation facility, less than 1% of storage facility, less markets and more hoarderswith jaundiced eyes who are one of his peers, reluctant authority, delays and a whole lot of lacunae in delivery of subsidies, leakages in social packages running at around 40-50% (its not leakage but perhaps drainage), high inflation in retail sector, ever increasing fees of private facilities and a gradual decline of public facilities and blah.....blah.....blah......
Thanks
So many problems and so many proposed solutions; government is aware of problems and that's why it comes up with schemes such as insurance of crops, increasing MSPs, and numerous other facilities, even many times relieving them of debt. But all this seems not to be working as it should have been. Many of the farmers have become bonded labours and to add to their apathy, as per 2011 census, urban population has added more number of people than rural population, which means mass migration!! Last year government got almost more than Rs 50,000 crore of product rotten due to lack of storage facility. The farmers were helpless because they often don't afford to produce crop in their yard, how could they afford to protect them!!! Protecting them is much heavier and taxing then producing them. Their small landholdings multiply their vulnerability as more than 87% of farmers have less than 47% of landholdings!! How can they afford a go-down which require a huge investment and also when they don't have that much to store about. Also when the literacy is less, shifting the mode of agriculture becomes quite difficult for the concerned party as they will trust less any new method.

Where to hit the Nail 

Its a question which even a farmer who sows the land, has no idea about. Where the basic problem lies, whether it is small landholding, or lack of technology, or poor allotment of government aid or something else. One thing is sure that there is no such problem which could be treated as a Magna Carta. Inaccuracies during more than 60 years of post-independence have left this sector in a complete mess. The blunder was committed by Nehru (though he was a visionary leader) and planning commission when it was decided to make a drastic shift in the 5 year plans. First Five year Plan focused on agriculture and was based on Harrod-Domar Model. It was a successful plan as per the planning commission itself. But the Second Five Year Plan gave priority to industry like public sector and perhaps, directly and indirectly discouraged agriculture. This plan was termed as moderately successful by the planning commission itself. We woke up to the demands of agriculture when our days in international market and politics turned very bad. The then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri did a lot to what should have been done 8-9 years ago.

Anyways, there is nothing one can get from mongering over past, but definitely we can learn from it. What we can learn from past is what many of us still neglect. After independence, India was suffering and had depleted foreign reserves and very less food to offer to its residents, it was importing heavily from developed countries such as USA. But, wait, What!!! USA; its a industrialised country, how come that we being an agrarian nation whose more than 80% of population being involved in agricultural activity at that time, was importing from a country which was industrialised?? If anybody asks me, I think its where we have to hit the nail. Any country which can't feed its people can't pace up with the global world. If it dreams of industrialisation at the coat of agriculture, then it has to witness what France witnessed in 1790s.... The French Revolution. India, hopefully knew this and that's why it focused on agriculture heavily after 1964-65. In just 5-10 years it became self-sufficient even though its industries continued to suffer despite adequate funding. 

Agriculture is like women in the society; no society can grow if its women are in miserable condition no matter what-so-ever money it posses. Public spending has always a huge outcome, every one rupee invested in agriculture has an outcome of additional one rupee as an investment by private farmer which is what money circulation is all about, and this all comes at a cost of very less NPAs (Non Performing Assets; a term from which banks are marred today). The point here is this that we should not demonise one for the other. We need both,i.e., agriculture and manufacturing, but one should not come at the cost of other. To explain the point further let us go back once more to the Five Year Plans : The contribution of central government in the plan outlay dropped from Rs 63 per hectare during Fifth Five Year Plan to Rs 18 per hectare in the Seventh Five Year Plan,i.e., in just 17 years the share dropped exponentially. The 1 rupee investment in public sector capital formation helps to improve GDP by Rs 6. An expansion of net sown area by 1 hectare increases the farm output by Rs 25000. A 1% addition to trade in favour of agriculture leads to increase in farm output by Rs 120 crore. In addition the economic security to the uncountable mass would be another additional achievement.

Unless and until India becomes atleast the second most producing country, as per my view, we cannot expect the apathy to get over. The mass migration to mega-cities is adding to accommodation problems, law and order problems, mass scale of corruption, fraudulent activities by the agents and insecurity among the local residents as they see their security dwindle. On this whole name the murky political games are played and everybody blames every other body. Some ask for introduction of visas for the "immigrants" and some go and beat the already heavily debted body who with a penny a day, tries to keep the faith of his family alive.

Technological aspects are the other one to take care of. They are very important though the first challenge they face is that of small landholdings. Still we have many methods which can be run on small landholdings such as the combined irrigation by drip irrigation method. This method could be easily applied to all the lands put together and the water could be circulated from already stored water of previous years. So a combination of rain harvesting and drip irrigation can do a lot and help a lot the farmers to adopt and be self-dependent. Methods like these which focus not on productivity but on efficient use can help the farmers to a great deal. The technological institutions and research centres meant for this activity can help to a great deal.

Engaging Youths

One other method which can help phenomenally is the involvement of youth. The youths in India today unlike of earlier days, are very much attached to virtual world. They need some reality to be shown. While holding a smartphone in their hand and blaming all the bureaucrats and politician for the problems in their country, they all hail a life full of fantasies. Many of them try to Amercanise themselves though they miserably fail in that. Americans are way ahead than Indians, unfortynately, in patriotism(according to forbes rankingof patriotism). What they do not recognise is that Americanisation also lies in the community work which is compulsory for many of the Americans either in college or in schools. These youths are very talented but very lazy. Once pushed into the work then they can create miracles. These youths could be utilised in making farmers aware of the latest technologies, reading and choosing to their local needs, reading signal and interpret them correctly when they get something from that of satellites, educating farmers children for free, organising debates and involving women through micro agriculture and many more. All this could be done through making it as a part of academics during year-breaks and semester breaks which run for around 3-4 months in a year. 

This all will make them more responsible, less market driven and more interest driven, it will provide them variety of platform like to work with banks, NGOs, government authorities, etc. This all will definitely pay in the long run.

Conclusion

Agriculture is a basic necessity of the society, compromising with that is like compromising with one's basic necessity. The apathy needs to be addressed. For this, additional schemes are not needed, perhaps expansion of the schemes are required so that we can get what we lack. This should not come with compromising the manufacturing or the other sector but there should be proper proportional distribution. The "Make in India" should bother about inclusion of agricultural industries and investment too. For it will also give better return and more inclusive growth.

The Incoming Indian Civil War.....

In Macbeth (written by Shakespeare), the Three Witches exclaim that ,"Fair is foul and Foul is fair" !!

It means, What is Fair today is Foul tomorrow. This entire blog, in other words, is derived from this line. The Europe and Russia of today are a result of very painful yesterday. The French Revolution, the English Civil War, and perhaps the most painful war of Germany which wiped out One-Third of the population had exactly the same consequences. The Feudal system of Europe which was considered as "Fair" before the revolution(s) was thrown away and considered "Foul" just after the revolution(s). Perhaps the Arab Spring was less painful as compared to that churn. I am not justifying the massive bloodshed in Europe but the purpose. The purpose was to get away with the Feudal World and establish a world which imbibed equality for all. A country should not identify its citizen as rich and poor but as its citizen. The point is this, that if one has to move from one system to the other completely different system than one has to "dismantle" the present system because its of no use and perhaps it would "eat up" the resources and "consume" the future.

(The reason for failure of Arab Spring was very simple, it was not people's struggle but it was a vested "Foreign Policy". Had it been a struggle by people of Arab, it would not have faded like that. It certainly had reached a conclusion, peace would have restored. But it didn't, so lets keep that aside because its completely different, I don't see it as a revolution or a "spring" at all )

The Indian Saga

India today is neither Feudal nor Modern Industrial Society like the most of the Western countries are. It is in a transition zone, and any transition zone is always very turbulent and very disturbed. The Middle class of India is divided as Upper and Lower which previously was not. In India, caste system was considered "Fair" up-til decades earlier in the whole nation, but thanks to growing awareness and the "Love-Marriages" (LOL!!) that casteism is being considered as "Foul" in few sectors, very few sectors. Bribes have reduced in government offices but still they are nowhere near the expected reductions. The working hours in the Government offices have increased, the UT of Delhi won the election on issue of corruption only and so did the Nation in recent Lok-Sabha elections, youths are complaining about their rights, the idea of NOTA was established, RTI came along and so many things. All this occurred in a span of hardly 10 years which were in the decoration wing for decades. A churn is quite visible. 

Still the problems are enormous. In large parts of India, even today casteism is widely practiced and appreciated which the educated youths are quite uncomfortable with. Still nearly 45% of the children are malnourished despite the GDP growth each and every year. The reason for this is quite simple, the GDP growth is being minted in few pockets only and its not reaching where it should have been. 20 crore of Indians sleep every night with an empty belly. While all this is going on people in order to claim their Fan-ship comment something bizarre like,"Kutte ki tarah Soyega to Kutte ki tarah hin marega"(One of the Salman Khan Supporter). This statement reminds me of an incident which happened before French Revolution : a child dies while sleeping on the road when a Chariot runs over him. The man sitting in the lavish Chariot throws a golden penny towards the crying mother as a "compensation". Incidents like this are occurring all over the nation, poor are crying for their food and politicians are patting back of one another for giving them "Fundamental Rights". Perhaps there is an immediate need of Second Bill of Rights like what was offered by President Rossevelt to the poor of America. Because he was a noble and knew that America can't afford any revolution by its people because of namby wars of Europe.

The frustration among the poors which resulted in phenomenal election results of the recent years, if not studied properly will definitely result into a violent revolution. Maoism and Naxalism is an example. The Naxalites of Jharkhand raised guns against the government and went for self-rule because nobody came for them. Their homes were uprooted because of the regular military exercises and they were paid a compensation of 50 paise which was amended in 1992 and was raised to....... guess what ??? It was raised to Rs 1.50. Yes you read it correct, One and a half rupees.

Why a Civil War 

The reason why I say a civil war, because till now a very small section was fighting. But through the spread of internet when people have got to know the lives of other countries and the present "online" kind of youths who want everything as quickly as possible, the churn of change has become even more aggressive. If the wishes of youths are not satisfied then they take no time in going against the entire system, be it case of Nirbhaya or the Honour Killing or the quashing of section 66A or 377 or net neutrality or the Khap Panchayats or the change academic systems or AIB roast and so on. There are so many debates which have sparked this nation and they could be easily found on the internet and they are very sensitive like the legalisation of Marijuana, porn websites, legalisation of prostitution and many more. 

Till now everywhere the rape victims were considered as victims, but due to recent incidents when everybody has become aware of his/her rights, even a damn statement by a lawyer whom nobody knew until the unfortunate incident, sparks the nation. People have started shaming the rapists and consoling the "victim", atleast in a few sectors. And all this happened in a matter of 2-3 years, thats it.... Girls are sharing videos of their abusers online while they were abused, this shows how fast this transition was, 2 years earlier they were ashamed of telling their parents and 2 years later they are beating it all over the nation. A video by a woman who recorded her abuser on a plane is a perfect example while she repeatedly calls him a "Budhha". The best is this that people including the celebrities shared that post.

Today if a singer like Honey Singh does a rap in which he exclaims a girl as "inferior" than he is countered with another rap in which he is branded a "buffoon". Who used to do that except the journalists......

But one thing still haunts me and leads me to the conclusion of the Civil War which may not be an armed Civil War spread across nation like it was in case of Europe and Russia, but it could be limited to some areas and perhaps could teach a very brilliant lesson to established Nexus between politicians and others. That one thing is the rising and digitising Poor class. The poors till now are unaware of social theories, they don't know that natural resources are for everybody and if one has a lot of money does not mean that he/she can go on exploiting that to any extent. They do not know that India has adopted a "Socialist" economy in its Preamble and not a "Capitalist" one. Once this goes into their head that a Socialist Economy means their is a ceiling over the amount of resources one can enjoy, they will revolt, definitely they will. A few things are there which can trigger this. In Maharashtra people are denied water but just by the side of it lies a big hotel and group of villas. Leave villas, even the hotel has personal swimming pool in its every damn room. When asked to the poor to comment about that, they said its because they have money, I am just wondering of that day when they will come to know what actually means by a Socialist Society, the Europeans came to know about it and they did it.

A poor living by the side of Ambani's big house thinks that he has it because he maintains a good account, but once he will come to know that he has it because Ambanis did not give it to them, then the result would be unfortunate........ 

Note : For the last paragraph one should read the 1-5 Five year Plans along with Trickle Down Theory as was proposed by the Planning Commission and which is also being advocated by governments of today. If this is missing then the last part may sound confusing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

The Debate over Charlie Hebdo !!

With the rise of radical forces like ISIS and its deep impact over many of the 3rd Generation youth in Europe (1st Generation being migrated to Europe from countries of West Asia, Pakistan etc.) is a matter of great concern. The main reason being attributed for easy attention of these youths is their "identity crisis". Many of them get allured by these radical forces because of this weakness. Most of them cannot accept this fact that they belong to that nation of which they hold the citizenship as their parents can't "pretend" that well, and more than that they cannot return to the nation from where their 1st Generation migrated.
The impact of "Identity Crisis" is so strong that many of them don't know how to offer alms to their Allah, including those who join organisations such as IS which leaves them isolated from others, even from their parents. This drawback is used by these militant organisations to allure them in order to "guide" them. They brainwash them, promise them as their cicerones, use their isolated life as a vulnerable spot, and provide them for their "purpose", because its a "purpose" for which any human lives.

Role of Western Media
In this abhorrent situation, the role of Western Media becomes critical. They are expected to interosculate the already asphyxiating 3rd generation with the existing culture. But the contrary is happening. They have used their space in criticising both, these militant outfits and the disciple of Prophet Mohammed by using their so called "Freedom of Speech and Expression". What happened to Charlie Hebdo was tragic, disgraceful, shameful, cowardice and unexpected but the way Charlie Hebdo used its space for crticising the practitioner of Muhammad, is also a matter of concern.

The story projects itself back to 2006 when Charlie Hebdo published cartoons under title "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"). The cartoons were not only provocative but disgraceful too. Even in response, French President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could inflame passions. But they didn't stop it here, they even went on printing nude Prophet asking his follower that whether he likes his a** or not!!! This picture I won't put on the blog but the other I can..... Please have a look at this

This picture says  “Yes to wearing the burqa…in the ass.”

Now, if this is what meant by Freedom of Speech and Expression then perhaps I will be the last one to endorse it!! The U.S. White House stated "a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this." However, the newspaper's editor defended publication of the cartoons, saying, "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation." Alas!!! they understood Prophet as there Private Property, compared it with day to day political, socio-economical aspects. Damn it!!

A Need to Re-look

Though the punishment should not be this big and it must be with law and not with any "contractor" of any religion, but in my view there is an urgent need to have a re-look by the Western Media on its strategies. They need to carry their activities assiduously, without cornering anyone. With this attitude they are only helping these militant outfits to find their prey easily. Hate endorses chauvinism, and a devout does not like to agree a single percent contrary to its God. Anyone cannot treat anyone's belief the way he/she beliefs or practices it. Charlie Hebdo may criticise Obama, print his nude cartoons or anyone's else. But when it comes to religion, then it should understand that things are anti-utopian with its generation already suffering from identity crisis. Instead of printing those cartoons, had it focused its attention on this generation and issues being suffered by this category, things might would have been different. They should not expect exoneration when they do this. They should expect crticism though not bullet. And criticism may come in many way. 

But I will never call this a practice of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Instead its a misuse of that.

The Term Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutava !!

The entire story started with foreigners and it seems that they themselves have become the matter of an "end" to it. What do I mean by an end is the end of "foreign culture" and restoration of the "Hindu Culture". Let me peep a bit into the past before I start my "Blah Blah Blah", as they (so called the real Hindus) say it.

The term Hindu was derived from Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was a historical name of the river Indus. This name was given, as produced, by the Persians to the people living by the side of this river. So, in other words, Hindu is more a geographical word and has nothing to do with religion. Only with the passage of time it got itself transitioned to a completely different purpose. Perhaps, before "Hindu" became a religion of India, what was religion of India is itself debatable. From 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C. it was Rig Vedic age and from 1000 B.C. to 600 B.C. it was later Vedic Age. The term Hindu evolved only after 12th Century A.D. if we follow texts and not rhetoric.

Hinduism and Hindutva

Next is Hinduism. If we follow our own Constitution, then Hinduism is collectively used for the religions that got evolved in India (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism). But the parody is this that Hinduism is completely different perception today even though legally its projected as a cluster of religions. This by many is seen as a part of creation of utopian society. For me and for any other democrat, Hinduism is a way of life which has evolved in thousands of year, learning from mistakes and boasting on its dominant past which is being rubbed by its so called advocates. These advocates relate Hinduism to Nationalism, and everything else as "Invasion".

Hindutva was coined by V.D. Savarkar in 1923 pamphlet "Hindutva: Who is Hindu?" It was one of the first set of movements that advocated Hindu Nationalism. According to Britannica Encyclopedia, "Hindutva is an ideology that sought to define Indian culture in Hindu Values". This definition is upto many extent correct because by these Hindu Nationalist, everything else than "Hindu" is not a part of Indian Culture. For e.g. they will never count the Mughal arts as Indian because they were not Hindus. 

V.D. Savarkar said that Hindutva is in itself the glorious history, the period of which no member in his own cadre has been able to define. Everything before Afghan invasion is accounted for the Hindutva history though most of the places of Harappan civilisation and Indus civilisation find its place in Modern Pakistan. They forget or perhaps ignore the concept of diverse and flourishing culture over here because it does not suite their interest.

Culture and Heritage

It is worth mentioning the difference between culture and heritage over here. Heritage is a part of culture, culture which one has acquired from his/her forefathers and Culture is Heritage along with the changes which one will adapt with his/her own generation and the generation about to come. For e.g. the Internet culture which we are living in is not our Heritage.
Now what does it imply is that we should respect our forefathers and in order to do it most respectfully and effectively, we need to obey and respect their Heritage and ours too. But the fact of the matter is, that in order to protect our Heritage, we should not become over-sensitive and emotional which may lead to the erosion of others Heritage. The word "threat" is used to describe the foreign influence on ours by these extremists. Alas they forget the difference between the two that culture evolves greatly with time, only Heritage remains constant. Heritage changes very slowly.

So whenever these outfits claim that they want to protect Indian Culture, then they put themselves behind the backdrop as they are speaking about Heritage and not Culture. Its just beyond the capabilities of these outfits to understand the richness of Heritage and the balance of Culture which exists in our nation. Off-course I do agree that some correction is needed when the youths give more weightage to Halloween and less to Indianisation (respecting Indian culture and its Heritage), but that does not mean that things need to be taken this way.

Conclusion

Hindu is not a religion which just imbibes the traditions which were developed in Modern India, perhaps much of it what we know was practiced and written in many parts of present Pakistan. The migrants called Aryan can not claim that what only they did and practiced is "Hindu", they should keep well in mind that as the evidence suggests, they themselves belonged to Central Asia. So what they are telling as purely Indian is itself a mix of Central Asia and the then India. If they are ready to engulf this fact then what stops them from accepting the influence of other foreign culture on this rich diversity. Is it about dominance only? Because facts present contrary, one needs to analyse these terms separately and with completely different perception.

For me Hindu is a geographical name of people, Hinduism a way of life and Hindutva a political statement, a political gimmick which has exactly the same corrosive power which the Verna system (four fold caste system) in Later Vedic Age had. That system not only introduced inequality among different sects but gender in the same sect too. I fear the same may not happen in case of "Hindu, Hindusim and Hindutva", till now the events have only endorsed this fear. Let us hope not it escalate further.