2. INDIAN THALI: An Author and Two Books -2

2.  INDIAN THALI : 
An Author and Two Books -2
     

An Era of Darkness is Tharoor's latest book.

The other book I take up is one of his early ones, the twenty year old " INDIA: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond".
It deals with India at the time of the fiftieth year of Independence.


Cover from the HarperCollins edition, 1997. Shown here for educational purpose.







MIXED BAG

If the earlier book was objective and factual, this book combines history, personal anecdotes , subjective reflections, and personal prejudices. Naturally, it is like sand and sugar mixed.
Tharoor is unduly disturbed by some events (Ayodhya ). rightly indignant about others (Shah Banu, ban on Sa,man Rushdie's book), unreasonably antagonistic (Hindutva.)  .
 His judgement on Gandhi, Nehru, Indira and her family is fair and  historically correct. His treatment of other issues is  well-informed but coloured by his secularist prejudices (or pretensions) and out of date scholarship. And some plain muddle-headedness as in dealing with Antonia Maria, called Sonia Gandhi.

GLARING SLIPS

Can  Sonia  Be Indian, really?

Some of his slips are glaring. For instance, he reveals in the Preface to the 2007 edition his annoyance at the opposition in the country to  the idea of Sonia Gandhi's elevation as PM on the ground of her foreign origins. 
In this connection he says that some Indian nationalists convened Indian National Congress in 1885 and even chose  a Scotsman, Allan Octavian Hume as its president. Actually, it was Hume and his friends in the Theosophical movement who thought of the INC. It was not a political party at that time demanding freedom. 
Its aim was to obtain a greater share in the government for educated Indians, and to engage in some dialogue with the Raj. [Hush puppy syndrome ] The first meeting was convened with the approval of the Viceroy, Lord Dufferin. 

Tharoor also refers to Annie Besant. True, foreigners like Annie Besant and Sister Nivedita were accepted and revered by Indians because they genuinely loved and fought for India!

What did Sonia do for India?






 MARIA: HOW DO YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

The problem with Sonia is that she is an Italian national and citizen which is inalienable. She might have married an Indian and acquired Indian citizenship- that is by the way. But she is enjoying dual citizenship. She is not really or solely Indian by birth or citizenship. She is riding two horses.
 We Indians do not want a foreign citizen to become our PM.

Mother of Sri Aurobindo Ashram surrendered her French citizenship to become an Indian citizen. Has Sonia or her children done that? Have they at least surrendered their Italian passports?  If Tharoor does not understand this simple point, all his education is a waste.

HINDI, NATIONAL LANGUAGE ? NONSENSE

He  refers to the then PM Deve Gowda  delivering the Independence Day address in 1996 in Hindi  " India's national language". This is pure bull shit. Hindi never became the sole national language. If Deva Gowda made his address in Hindi, it was to keep his gaddi; it shows his lack of courage to address the nation in his mother tongue Kannada which is also a National language! This shows how south Indians have to succumb to Hindi imperialism.
 Independence has changed our masters, not really conferred freedom! 

" there is nothing on record to suggest that any provision has been made or order issued declaring Hindi as a national language of the country.”

 " in the constitution, Hindi was declared as an official language and not a national language."

This is from a judgement of Gujarat High Court in 2010.


 DO INDIANS LACK IDENTITY ?

Talking of an Indian identity, Tharoor says that "there has never been an archetypal Indian to stand alongside the archetypal Englishman or Frenchman."  If America is called a melting pot, he says India is a" thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls ".

This is an outrageous statement to make. It shows how completely alien to true Indian tradition Tharoor is.

The problem of identity is a modern one, created by foreigners and westernised Indian loonies.
Indian religion has no name. Foreigners called us Hindus, and our religion became Hinduism. 
Those who lived in India, Bharatvarsha, from Sethu to Himalayas are Indians.Does one assert one's identity in one's one home? This problem of identity vexes foreigners and foreignised Indians.

G.K.Chesterton once said that one is defined by one's critics. Your critics say something , so you have to define your position.
Likewise, nationalists have to react.

 The thali is not only the many bowls it contains. Even the thali contains the main dish which is rice or roti or puri, the other bowls only containing side dishes. So, the question is who is Indian in India?

This is what Hindu nationalism is trying to address. This is what the self-styled secularists pretend not to understand.

 Can someone who refuses to sing the national anthem or the national song or salute the national flag be considered Indian by any definition? Does someone who has his loyalties and sight fixed on a foreign land or foreign authority be considered Indian? Does anyone who does not respect its history and culture become an Indian?
 The so called Hindu nationalists do not say every one should embrace Hinduism ( as Muslims and Christians demand that everyone be converted to their faith) but that everyone should accept India as their motherland. 
Tharoor quotes Veer Savarkar  as describing a Hindu as one "who regards this land ...from the Indus to the seas as his fatherland as well as his Holyland." What is wrong with this?

 Today, this question of national identity is troubling every Western country where the Muslim refugees are flooding because Muslims have no notion of loyalty to any motherland or fatherland! This question is real, and cannot be brushed aside by secularist pretenders or preachers.

HINDU NATIONALISM

Why has there been a resurgence in Hindu nationalism or assertion of a Hindu identity?
 After the Mutiny in 1857, when Hindus and Mulsims joined together  as Indians, and fought them,the British govt deliberately created a divide between the two communities , setting the Muslims against the Hindus.
 Gandhi foolishly supported the Khilafat movement (which had nothing to do with India's independence) and thus strengthened the separatist Muslim identity.
 Govts after Independence catered to the Muslim identity to catch their votes. The term minority  used in the Constitution is applied  mainly to religious groups. Thus the Muslim identity as a separate group has been carefully preserved, nurtured and strengthened by the ruling clique.  The majority Hindus are discriminated against. All social legislation has been aimed at the Hindus.

But there has also been another phenomenon. All over the world  Wahhabism- the fundamental form of Islam has been on the rise since the 70s. This is promoted by the Saudi regime. They are up in arms against the Shias , and also against other forms of Sunni Islam. They are also against other religions. They are also against 'secular' regimes of the West. This has created a base for assertion of  identity in most countries. Hindus alone do not consciously assert their identity.  This is what the Hindutva movement seeks to address.This is a historical moment in the evolution of modern Indian republic. 
It is simply foolish for some writer to say that in  a country where 80% of the people are Hindus, there has not been  an archetypal Indian!. The problem is that the looney secularists do not want to admit the existence of the archetype because it is HINDU! 


Before Gandhi entered the scene, the country was reverberating with the cries of Bande Mataram, as at the time of the Bengal Partition in 1905. After Gandhi came, the slogan became Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai, Bharat Mata was forgotten. Then even Bharat  was cut. That is a tragedy. Nationalists will not tolerate further meddling with the national identity in the name of Gandhi or any ism.

 Time has come for Indians to be conscious of being Indians!

INDIA : SECULAR STATE OR SECULAR COUNTRY ?
Do Hindus have a country for them?

To call India a secular country makes Hindus Stateless persons. Hindus are deprived of their natural, historical motherland. 
Govt may be secular- in the sense of being neutral about all religions. But how can a country which is historical home to Hindus, constituting 80% of the population be secular? England is the home of Anglo-Saxons though its govt may be secular, ie not affiliated to any religion. In fact, the so called secular govt of India runs Hindu temples, but calls the country itself secular! 
The Hindutva idea covers all these aspects though its advocates do not articulate matters well.
 To say that there has been no archetypal Indian is a travesty of facts. This is the idea of those who say that India has never been a nation. India has been the land of Indians, the Hindus. The others have all come here as adventurers, conquerors, looters, traders,refugees, wanderers, etc. Hindus have accommodated all who chose to settle here. They are all Indians provided they accept India as their all, and not look beyond its borders for veneration or inspiration. Europe divided long ago on the question of loyalty to an extra-territorial Pope.

Time has come for Indians to assert their identity precisely because some so called west-oriented scholars question it or even deny it!

AYODHYA : LEFTIST LIES AND DAMNED LIES

Tharoor has three other aberrations. One is about Ayodhya. He cites some so called Hindu historians without naming them that Ram never existed as a historical person, that there is no historical evidence that the Babri Masjid existed on the exact spot of Ram's birth, etc. This is the height of idiocy and unhistorical arrogance.

 The vital question is not whether Ram existed, but whether belief in Ram existed! [Is it not so in respect of, say,  Jesus Christ , too? ]

Obviously, it has existed for at least 2000 years as evidenced by Valmiki's Ramayana and its versions in the regional languages including Tamil, references to Rama in more ancient sources, the Ramayana story in Buddhism, and in other countries! And its representations in arts, music, folk culture, etc.

 Besides,enough archaeological evidence has been unearthed about the existence of an ancient structure on the spot of the Babri structure and it was submitted to the court by ASI - Archaeological Survey of India.
 All those so called historians who disputed the facts were ill-informed, prejudiced leftists and their bluff was called in the Court proceedings. 
Mainstream newspapers like The Times of India or The Hindu
 [ which are committed to the leftist cause of the pseudo intellectuals and secularists] did not have the courage or honesty to report the full facts or court proceedings.
 Tharoor should simply look at the court proceedings before he talks on the subject.

The ASI proceeded with its excavations and submitted its findings to the court in September 2003. Its report revealed the presence of a circular shrine, dateable to 7–10th century and a "massive structure", 50 metres by 30 metres, built in three structural phases during the 11–12th century.

In its 2010 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, the Allahabad High Court criticised the professionalism of the expert witnesses who had appeared on behalf of the pro-mosque parties. On Suraj Bhan, the court felt that he had made vague statements and had failed to provide a proper reason to challenge the conclusions of the ASI. It dismissed as baseless his technical observations on matters such as the use of lime mortar which had been established to have been in use in India from at least 600 BCE, well before the Sultanate period. The court noted that Bhan had a predetermined attitude against the ASI and believed that rather than being condemned, the Survey deserved commendation and appreciation.

[The above extract is taken from a Wikipedia article on Suraj Bhan, who appeared as a witness for the Masjid supporters and the Court dismissed his evidence.]

GUJARAT RIOTS-2002

Burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were burnt alive. Loss of Hindu lives means nothing to our secularists!

Then there is this canard about the Gujarat riots of 2002. Tharoor writes about "the retaliatory pogrom against Muslim civilians". There was an unpremeditated, unplanned reaction to the deliberate killing of Hindu pilgrims, by burning the railway compartment in which they were travelling, after locking the doors and exits. No self styled secularist talks of the violence done to unarmed, civilian Hindus who were returning from a pilgrimage!

 To talk of a "pogrom" is patent misuse of the word which does not have an agreed definition.
 The Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court has and  subsequent court proceedings have given a clear picture of what happened.
It is only self-serving leftist loony elements who talk of pogrom and all that. Their special ire was aimed at the then BJP Chief Minister Narendra Modi. He and his govt have been cleared of all charges of prejudice or inaction. Modi has gone on to become the PM. And the Muslims continue to live and prosper in Gujarat, as elsewhere.
In fact, riots have taken place in Gujarat since 1969 when Congress ruled the state. Riots have occurred in other states ruled by Congress and others. Here again the left-leaning newspapers like The Hindu or The Times of India did not report full or correct facts. Tharoor has to brush up his reading and widen his sources.

ARYAN INVASION? MIGHTY FABRICATION

Book cover shown here for educational purpose

Tharoor again shows his idiotic side when he talks of Aryan invasion. This Aryan invasion theory is now so thoroughly discredited, only an imbecile will take it as authority. 
Here too Tharoor should read unbiased up to date literature.
Here is a sample from an author from Delhi University, usually a leftist 'liberal' den:

” One of the most popular explanations of the decline of the Harappan civilization is one for which there is least evidence. The idea that the civilization was destroyed by Aryan invaders was first put forward by Ramprasad Chanda (1926)- he later changed his mind – and was elaborated on by Mortimer Wheeler (1947 )……..

Many scholars such as P.V.Kane (1955),George Dales (1964), and B.B.Lal (1997) have refuted the invasion theory….There is in fact no evidence of any kind of military assault or conflict at any Harappan site.The 37 groups of skeletal remains at Mojenjodaro do not belong to the same cultural phase and, therefore, cannot be connected to a single event…..

Moreover, K.A.R.Kennedy’s analysis (1997) of the skeletal remains does not show any discontinuity in the skeletal record in the north-west at this point of time., making it clear that there was no major influx of new settlers with a different physiognomy. The Harappan civilization was not destroyed by an Indo-Aryan invasion.”

[From: A History of Ancient and Medieval India by Upinder Singh,(Delhi University). page 179
Published by Pearson,(Dorling Kindersley India Pvt ltd, New Delhi. 4th Impression,2013.]

"ARYA" - CULTURAL, NOT RACIAL EXPRESSION

In the Indian tradition, the word "Arya" was used in a cultural and not racial sense. The Manu Smriti speaks of areas of the country such as Aryavarta, Brahmavarta etc as being the places inhabited by people with some special cultural habits and practices, never as racial centres .Ancient Tamil literature even speaks of Lord Shiva as Arya! Both Tamil and Arya ie Sanskrit are supposed to have originated from Shiva! Kali is spoken of as "Arye". In the Ramayana, Sita addresses Rama as "Aryaputra ". These are not racial expressions. It was only ignoramuses like  Max Muller and colonial interests who invested the word with racial connotations and spoke of an invasion, no one knows from where. It is high time  Tharoor brushed up on his  history and rid himself of such concocted nonsense as the Aryan invasion.

Tharoor's preface opens up a Pandora's Box. The rest of the book is not so bad. Tharoor does not write like some foreign observers do; he is an Indian and obviously his heart is here.  But he is under the influence of  old theories promoted by foreign vested interests.We may disagree with some of his views and interpretations, but we do not question his motive! These are areas where Tharoor has to update his information.