Comments on ‘Breaking Free of Nehru’ at the ‘Shadow Warrior’ blog http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/

Note by Sanjeev: The owner of the blog put out a link to my book, but happily published a lot of abusive comments about me and my alleged views which came in response from a range of commentators to his link. He, however, did not publish my comment sent earlier today with considerable goodwill and effort, seeking to clarify the facts.  Instead, the owner of the blog has now said that “no more comments will be published on this topic, and in a couple of days i will delete this whole thread”.

 

Consequently, I have copied the entire blog post at Shadow Warrior so that it remains in the public record. I do not like my efforts at debate to be wasted (particularly given how painful typing is to me, with RSI).

 

The post by the owner of the above blog (Nizhal Yoddha), followed by the various published comments, including my first comment but also my second comment which was not published perhaps for fear that the truth may make the commentators change their mind! Don’t know what’s there to be afraid of the truth?

 

I remain open to further debate, but am I entitled to expect a bit more politeness, perhaps?

 

Sanjeev Sabhlok

26 December 2008

 

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Breaking Free of Nehru: Let’s Unleash India

dec 23rd, 2008

forwarded by a friend. i have no idea about the content. all i know about sanjeev is some comments he left about my writing somewhere -- but if says nehru needs to be discarded, along with nehruvian stalinism, i guess i would agree.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gopi

Breaking Free of Nehru: Let's Unleash India

by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Anthem, Rs 495

 

This book is written by somebody who has had an interesting career. He quit the IAS after 18 years, went off to do a PhD in economi cs in the US , and has since worked in the Australian public sector. In all this, however, his gaze never shifted from Evolving India. The book is a result of years of observation leading up to ideas and opinions, told in the compulsive style of the blogger that he is. Above all, Sabhlok does not feel that "writing a book will solve India 's problems

 

nizhal yoddha

11 comments:

Harish said...

sabhlok is a disgusting masochistic scumbag, a typical gutless "liberal" who only preaches to Hindus, here is his amazing take on who were responsible for partition:

"You and your predecessors CAUSED the partition of India by scaring Muslims. Many of your type resisted freedom. Your likes killed Gandhi. Now, please stop this mad propaganda designed to destroy India.

http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/communal/communal.html "

Thats right, Hindus caused parititon, it had nothing at all to do with the Islamic doctrine of eternal enemity between Momins and kaffirs.

People who criticize Nehru are dime a dozen, doesn't make them friends of Hindus, many of them like this sado masochist loser are rabid Hindu haters just as much as Nehru was if not worse.

12/23/2008 9:04 AM

Incognito said...

http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/communal/communal.html

Mr Sabhlok seems to have ideas similar to Teetsa and the like, though not to the extent of Amaresh!

 

12/23/2008 9:30 AM

Ashish said...

Agree with Harish and Incognito. SS has good ideas on 10% of things, and downright traitorous ideas on the 90%. Best left alone. He steadfastly calls Gandhi a saint. Refuses to see the naive side of Gandhi. Like Gandhi, SS has some food ideas, but most of his ideas are JNU/commie kind.

12/23/2008 2:57 PM

Sanjeev said...

Dear Friends

I chanced upon these rather interesting (!) comments which I am happy to explore in the interest of having truth emerge and be more widely known. The advantage of that internet is that there need not be any secrets and puzzles any longer. If you think you know something about me that you want to share with others, the advantage now is that I can also discuss directly with you and ensure that only the truth gets disseminated.

I'm also open to discussion and debate at my personal email: sabhlok AT yahoo DOT com, so don't hesitate to provide feedback! All I ask is that evidence be provided to buttress your arguments, and that we discuss matters cordially.

So may I ask first - has any of you read the book (that is not mandatory - since many people form opinions without reading the writer) If you haven’t is it even remotely possible that I may have something of sense to say which you are missing out by not reading the book and yet commenting on yet?

Second, where can you find any evidence of my being a communist? Just for my information.

Happy to debate here but preferably on the blog of the book at http://breakingfreeofnehru.blogspot.com/
where we can have a cordial debate.

In the meanwhile I urge you not to cast a stone at everyone you see or meet without understanding them and giving them an opportunity to respond.

I am convinced we have a common interest - the success of India. So let us discuss things in a cordial manner, and it is certain we will find many things to work together.

I look forward to a considered discussion and debate about my book/ issues I have raised anywhere in my public writings.

Regards
Sanjeev

12/23/2008 9:20 PM

Harish said...

I have not read your so called book, i don't need to when I want to know your views on social issues, you advertise what they are by your writings on your own site which I quoted.

Ashish i doubt was talking about your ideas about the economy, but was talking about the Hindu-Muslim issues where your views are quite in line with JNU commie kind of revisonism (like shamelessly blaming BJP or Hindu Mahasabha for partition which is patently false and absurd beyond belief).

You claimed that Muslims were "scared" by Hindutva crowd into accepting partition, if that is so then why were Muslim luminaries like the founders of Muslim league clearly propounding the two nation theory years before Hindu Mahasabha was even founded, go read what Sir Syed said about this issue decades before partition, and then talk.

Forget about all that, the Quran itself preaches separation from non Muslims, here is what it says:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm

And yet you want us to believe that they were "scared" into endorsing partition when infact their religion preaches separation from non Muslims.

Do you also expect us to believe that evil Hindu fascists are responsible for Muslim ghettos in UK, poor performance in education, rioting (all covered up under the euphenism of "Asian") whereas the Hindus and Sikhs there don't seem to have these problems.

12/24/2008 11:08 AM

smokeyright said...

Dear Sanjeev,
That article on "false hinduism" is work of delusion. I am sure your aspersion at "Bigoted Hindus" who promoted BJP are stones, contaminated with deadly poison - just as the Macaulayite did to us through out. In name of true hindus, Hindus eulogized for their ability to misinterpret themselves and slander themselves ! This is destructive.


It just just anoys some to find the pampered giants who quest to find the "true" hinduism but are ignorant and insensitive babies in understanding murderous political movements of 20th century.

->The muslim separation has been more widespread as an imperial doctrine, it has been present where our devil ancestors were not present or our evil ancestors were simply massacred by invading muslims. It is childing and demagogy to blame the hindu ancestors for "scaring" muslims . Thank you.

->It is similar just as marxisim grows even without the exploition by devil hindus. Bangaladesh is not a country of riches, neither the anglicized bengalis were exactly repressed.


There is not the slightest religious basis for BJP to go about "righting" the 'wrongs' of history.

There is. Your concern is not religion. Thats why you couldn't see the absurdity of Macaulayite history.

This argument that one must look into Africa if not to Germany for history is an argument fed to the class of brown sahebs - who were created by british to look down upon Bharat. There is a different story, sometimes muddied...It will raise its head when the pampered giants have exhausted all their theories.

So you are not a Hindu ( according to your blog), but you would advise on who is a true hindu and how the ones disproved by you are fascists !! Is that imperialism - influence of english education ?

You read Geeta ( your blog) - But you would deny the ones and their story who lived by it !!! Thank you for your enlightenment .

There is a story beyond the ones your privileged IAS life knew. It has been extinguished, it may fire up again when imperialist Jehadis ruling from their fortress...Or It may bid adieu to the world, However I am convinced there is a story that you guys have trampled upon. Now, enjoy and have biriyani, please.


From where did you get that fascist argument ? Check in this life, what the imperial left meant when the hurled that argument towards the hindu story ( through BJP) ...This is in context of history. You will be misleading yourself, if you go towards Gandhi and humanity.

12/24/2008 8:41 PM

Arvind said...

SS, your idiotic views on Kashmir are consistent with the views of Communists. Here is proof of your stupidity - you believe that Kashmir should have the right to secede. Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong in putting down the secession of the south? Don't evade this question, but answer it. It is important.

If your answer is that Lincoln was wrong, then you are a racist who supports White supremacy and hence suffer from inferiority complex. If your answer is that Lincoln was correct, then it shows that you have a low self-esteem and suffer from inferiority complex as you apply principles only for the White-skinned man but not Indians.

Your view on partition shows you are stupid. You are a clueless bureaucrat who has no idea of Muslims and Islam. Your ignorance is very clear because anyone even with average intelligence will tell you that Islam is a violent ideology.

12/24/2008 9:04 PM

smokeyright said...

Sanjeev Says :


(A) Religion is not my sphere of action. Politics and the real world, is.


It was easy to guess after I read that vile hindus vs the true one article. It was probably mentioned [ unless edited later] about Sanjeev in my previous post, when pointing to the great vacuum of historical idiocy between Germany and Africa. If BJP govt tampered the macaulayite colonial history that fed so many intellectuals, Sanjeev argued then why not they go instead to Africa ? this was a Macaulayite style argument of contempt and negation, my disapointment is that - not all were fed by JNU history, Sanjeev was capable of an alternative view.

my opposition was to line "There is not the slightest religious basis for BJP to go about "righting" the 'wrongs' of history." How can the presumed unreal be any basis at all ?

Instead he says, he is interested in politics. Thats what he says is close to his reality. If he gets political brownie points, he will find a "true hindu" - but remember reality of imperial age politics and its love of hindus - (Yeah, the hindus who found non-violence as acceptable politics in turn terrorized muslims into partition. ) The true hindu or the real hindu, thus must be endorsed in this reality of political mafia.

One should have the liberty to free oneself from such political realities faced by imperial british.



(B) I am a product of DAV College but I am I am not a Hindu since the age of 12 when I decided to relinquish religion, though I appreciate many lessons of Bhagwad Geeta.

At the age of 12, after his highscool education, he decided he lacked mastery in religion and relinquish religion.

It is the Macaulayian colonial history that drove hindus to finding "true" hindu in politics... Sometimes going to Germany or to Africa for the roots...I don't see a Mahatma in false confidence of a 12th grade...Usually it could be reflection of a believer in one of the myriad theories of political economy, or such a process in another subject....

Nothing wrong with that, until one finds best confidence of such ideas when asserting the "true hindus" to find a group of fascist hindus, and then finding another group of vile hindus - it is as a sadistic pleasure !! This is the politics for a petty sepoy.

For an average student, one can easily find the destructive political movements of 20th century and opportunists who succumbed to it. he doesn't have to be brainwashed about hindus terrorizing the muslims into partition, nor an average reader has to believe the communist insensitivity as a natural law of history - applied selective only to Bengal but bowing to Bangaladesh.

And the recent hizacking of all state buses when Sonia maino visited Assam had nothing to do with BJP. What priority and experience of our former administrators in finding true hindus who are ready for politics!

Criticism asides,
1- there is a lot of independent postulations from Sanjeev such as the price control etc.... This is to admit with incognito's comment above , Amaresh Mishra, Suzzane Arundhoty Roy would beat Sanjeev hand down in finding truer hindus.

2-The state financing of election didn't work in USA. The person who promised it and reneged had overwhelming power in messaging. In India, it is more transparent now, we understand the Sonia Gandhi doesn't own a car... We understand the Samajawadi Party of Amar Singh has a lot of money....though we understood it decades later. State financing of elections will make it more muddled, it will not clean up the massive influence of those who find BJP is criminal and not true hindu, and bengal communists are to be tolerated at all costs.

12/24/2008 11:06 PM

Sanjeev said...

Dear Harish

I’m quite comfortable with a lifetime search for the truth, and being pointed out where I am wrong. I’m therefore quite happy to engage with you or anyone else who knows things I don’t. It doesn’t matter to me who is ‘right’, whether a Hindu, Muslim or anyone else. The truth is the truth, and that must always win. Satyameva Jayate.

I hold no religious beliefs, but I have noted in my manuscript (‘The Discovery of Freedom’ at: http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/discovery.html) that Islam and Christianity are or have been particularly intolerant religions. But in the same manuscript I have also pointed out how elements of Hinduism (not all of it!), by the actions of some people claiming to be its leaders over the past hundred years, cannot lay claim to being a tolerant religion. A relevant extract from my current draft is attached. (I do suggest you download the manuscript and read it – for various references are provided).

Let me be clear: I’m not against any religion. Far from it. I believe religion is a matter of people’s personal choice. What I oppose strongly, though, is mixing religion and politics. These are not the same field. One is private (religion), one is public (politics). To that extent I condemn members of Islam who mix religion and politics, and so also Hindus who do so (and anyone else). In India parties have bent over backwards to appease various religions. That is plain wrong.

It should be obvious to you that I am not a communist. Second, I do not have any interest in false history. I read a fair bit, but may have missed some crucial parts of history. I’m happy to be corrected – my mistakes pointed out in public! I have no ego, so I have no hangups about correcting my errors of logic and thought in public. You may well be right. If so, please critique my writings based on evidence. If you like to write me off un-read, that is also fine. But that, you realise, won’t help me understand the truth which you claim to have access to. Why not share the truth with others?

I look forward to a lively debate. After we have discussed this issue which I know (and understand) bothers you the most, we can consider talking about how to take India to freedom and greatness. That, I’m sure is what both you and I really want in the end: a country we can be genuinely proud of.

Regards
Sanjeev

Extract from current version of manuscript:

Mixing of religion with politics, and resort to communal violence
It is true that many Muslim rulers in India did not endear themselves to Indians by the destruction of temples, and in a few cases, by the forcible conversion of Hindus. But after it became increasingly clear that the political might of Islam in India would reduce as India become a modern democracy, the increasing aggressiveness seen from the early 20th century, of Hindu political leaders was unjustified. Indeed, this was the first major test of Hindu tolerance and many Hindu leaders failed in that test. It was necessary for tolerant Hindus to embrace the poor Muslims who had been forced to convert through the economic pressures of the jaziya and assure them of equal status after democracy was introduced.
It suited the British well to have a counterweight against the growing power of the Congress by actively promoting the Muslim League (founded in 1906). The Muslim League did not need much of a prompt, for it was perceived by them that the increasingly powerful Congress was more representative of Hindus than Muslims. For instance, many Congress leaders demanded a ban on cow slaughter – a clear imposition of religion in the affairs of the state. Bal Gandadhar Tilak glorified Shivaji actions, but from the Hindu perspective:
I protect the cow as my mother
She is the foundation of life, the giver of strength
…Yet these people, they take mother cow away
they lead her to the butcher, they have her slaughtered.
The growing demand among Hindu leaders for society to be structured around their religious beliefs meant that Muslims started expecting the worst. It must be obligatory on the part of the powerful – particularly if they claim a legacy of tolerance – to display exemplary behaviour, and to leave religion out of politics. The Congress made some overtures to extremist Muslims through the 1916 Lucknow Pact which, however, went overboard and agreed to a disproportionate share of seats to Muslims in future representative arrangements (Jinnah was a member both of the Congress and Muslim League at that time). Such pleasantries did not last; the Congress and Muslim League were to separate under unpleasant circumstances in 1937. The Lucknow Pact was contrary to the requirements of equal freedom and led many Hindus to abandon the Congress believing it to be an organisation for the appeasement of minorities. This feeling against appeasement of the Muslims led first to the creation of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1917 and then to the RSS in 1925.
We see the cycle of mutual fear being escalated in this process. Hindus could be said to have indiscreetly started it started by mixing religion with politics – innocently, for sure (e.g. Gandhi’s call for Ram Rajya) – but in the charged atmosphere, it increased suspicions in the minds of Muslims. The appeasement by Congress of the Muslims led in turn to stronger Hindu groupings, which then fuelled further unrest in the minds of the Muslims. By the 1920s, ‘Abu’l Kalam Azad and the Jamiyyat were advocating the mental partition of India’ with self-governing institutions purely for the Muslims. In the 1920s, furious communal violence broke out across India.
In December, 1930 Sir Muhammad Iqbal, during a Muslim League session as its President suggested the amalgamation of four Muslim majority states into one. This suggestion, divisive though it was, was not in the same as asking for two separate nations. The two nation theory first arose in January 1933 when Rahmat Ali, a student in England, proposed the independence of the hypothetical amalgamated state that had been postulated in 1930 by Muhammad Iqbal. But India Muslims did not buy into his concept and Jinnah (a non-entity at that stage, living as a recluse in England) refused to entertain this view. Indian Muslims seem to have been largely intent even then on becoming an important part of one nation. While Jinnah had left the Congress in 1920, objecting to Gandhi’s methods, he remained at some level committed to the aims and objectives of the Congress – of independence.
And then something happened which damaged the situation badly. Political relations between the Muslim League and the Congress soured in 1937 as the ‘Congress proceeded to read the Muslim politicians of the United Provinces, the province where historically Muslims had considered themselves the natural aristocracy, a lesson in the power of elected majorities’ The Muslim Leaguers, who had barely managed to win a few seats, wanted a face-saving agreement with Congress to allow the League to participate in a coalition government. But Nehru’s Congress would have none of this. It wanted the Muslim League to cease functioning as a separate group before accommodating that request. That was very hurtful to Jinnah, who had returned to India in 1934, with the sole purpose of organising a better future for Muslims. Muslims took this to be a complete confirmation of the future intransigence by Hindus in India. From their perspective, their fears of Hindu majoritarianism had come true. Jinnah complained: 'We are not going to be camp followers or a subject race of a Hindu Raj.' This event ‘had a very serious effect on the subsequent history of India and changed the Muslim outlook towards the Congress. They felt betrayed and humiliated, and in opposition took every opportunity to make public the wrongs, real or fictitious, suffered by the Muslims under Congress rule. No doubt, Nehru, seeing the circumstances and problems faced by the country, acted correctly; yet the consequences of the rejection to enter into a coalition with the League were worse.’
While relations had soured, Jinnah still was not convinced of partition. It took the fanatic Hindu groups to precipitate this monstrous idea. In 1939 Golwalkar wrote: ‘The foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment-not even citizen's right.’ A fascist statement, surely. (This book by Gowalkar has since been officially disowned by RSS. It will be hard, however, for RSS to delink many people’s beliefs, however mistaken, that this 1939 view represents its underlying ideology). Following on from Golwalkar, a few Hindu leaders first went public with a demand for two nations. It was not Muslims but the Hindu Mahasabha which publicly lit the flame of the two nation theory. During its 1939 annual session in Calcutta, V.D. Savarkar (an atheist but firm member of the Hindu Mahasabha, noting that atheists can well be Hindus) stated: ‘In India we Hindus are marked out as an abiding Nation by ourselves... Let us bravely face the unpleasant facts. There are two nations in India, the Hindus and the Muslims’
Upon hearing this declaration the Muslims followed suit. There really was nowhere to go for them. Talking to the Congress had become impossible. They were left no choice but to go alone. Indeed, if events such as the total mixing of Hindu religion and politics in India evidenced by the 1992 demotion of the Babri Masjid and the subsequent mass killings of Muslims across India are an example of what Hindus had in store for them, then the Muslims were probably right in joining the rabid Hindus in a demand for a separate nation, no matter how impossible that demand.
It is hard to say what should have happened. I would have liked the theorists of freedom to have persuaded all kinds of religious fanatics to leave their religion at home and talk of a common nation with a common system of governance and rule of law. But that is counterfactual. I’ll leave such conjectures to the student of history. What is important for the history of freedom is to make note that any attempt to impose one’s religious views on others is nothing but an act of intolerance. Hindus cannot demand a ban on the slaughter of cows if they also want to claim to be tolerant. They cannot paint Muslims with black paint and expect them to hold charitable feelings towards them.
What happened next is worth noting, since it deeply impacted the future of my family. Half a million people lost their lives in the partition of India and thousands more have lost their lives subsequently through wars between India and Pakistan, communal violence in India, and in Kashmir – an issue which would not have existed had India been a single country. In the recent decades, the rabid elements in Hinduism have made things worse for everyone in India thorough criminal activities and assaults supported by the RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal, among many others offshoots. ‘Hindu’ politicians, (e.g. Shiv Sena, but also member of the Congress (I)) are not averse to starting major communal riots against the Muslims for short term political gains. In addition, the Police who largely comprise Hindus, have committed significant atrocities against Muslims during these riots. Case studies of these riots speak for themselves.
To claim that Hinduism is tolerant despite this increasing intolerance and aggressiveness is therefore a serious travesty of the truth. Since India’s independence, Muslims in India have largely become extremely docile. Like other people, they too want to live in peace and harmony. But increasing Hindu intolerance, combined with the intolerance in other religions, is making India a communal tinder box where violence explodes without notice in the most unanticipated places.

12/24/2008 11:40 PM

smokeyright said...

Copyrighted Aryan tourist theory attempted to be busted by Sanjeev


Intellectuals have been as real to me as religion to the intellectuals. Therefore I went into the bizzare world Sanjeev to understand more about ....anything other than sycophancy...

Sanjeev essentially argues in favor of "capitalism"...Good, most regulars of this blog agree about the curse of Neheruvian growth. I agree too. In addition he twists the average arguments in a bizzare way tending with heavy doctrines ......Consider the attempted book on freedom :
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book2/discovery.pdf

Its logo is represented by one of those mystic easten symbols duality.

"A Free person is always accountable for his actions ", sanjeev depicts two halves of duality, in addition to corruption of thought- for the italicized part has no place in the duality.

A free person has to be accountable...Consequently by that logic and representation an accountable person has to be free according to that diagram. A former western slave is accountable. he is not free though. A Macaulayite has been accountable to tribal ideas of history, he is not free to break away from them. Thus that representation shown in the above book is incorrect.

Quote:

"While some underlying ideas of freedom do have a considerable history, most of them are
actually very new."


Why then that picture of duality ? Though it has some revolutionary modern claims, it is actually a mystic symbol, probably popular in budhist or Chinese traditions... one may say the poor, bare footed Alpha male of Sanjeev - that is the Indian priest could talk extempore on that symbol in an village near the Brahmaputras, thousands year before Sanjeev ruled the blocks of Assam as an administrator.

The book is not as clear, it was tough to find coherence between first 20+ pages...I thought it is good to know possible oppurtinist rootless may be thinking, so I debugged it....

Cosmology and stardust Science - you see, this was a silly chapter to introduce the real stuff to natives... the Copyrighted Aryan tourism theory , including sex tourism of alpha males is busted : in page 24 of the above link, Sanjeev thinks he got a new way to paint the racial biblical eurocentric stories as following :


During the last 5 000 generations since our species came into being, humans have diffused
across the planet through many migrations and split into groups of ever increasing difference.
While we are similar at the biological level in almost everything, some extremely minor
biological and cultural differences now divide us politically


Chapter 2.2 introduces linguistics...I dread the Macaulayian ( should I say Max Muellerian ) fascination at introducing these categories among natives. Stopped at chapter 2.2. The next chapter was about brain stuff...And it was good to avoid brain genetics of sickularists.

We the humans - Sorry Sanjeev, you promised to thrash Indian collectivism, and here forgot you pledge at the salivating thought of lecturing the humans... Isn't chapter one of your book a very collective statement ? You are not new.


Me thinks, Some people on the banks of Brahmaputra knew better before you ruled a district on the banks once again as an officer.

12/25/2008 1:17 AM

nizhal yoddha said...

i have been sick and off the net for a few days. in the meantime a friend sent me an email saying that sabhlok is a pro-market pseudo-secular. this is abundantly clear from his thoughts here. i am sorry i inadvertently gave space to this nehruvian stalinist. no more comments will be published on this topic, and in a couple of days i will delete this whole thread.

12/25/2008 9:36 PM

 

This is the comment that Nizhal Yoddha did not post. I’m placing it here for the record.

Dear Friends

 

This is getting quite interesting. I do trust we are looking for the truth. In that spirit let us continue to talk. It is good to discover what creates misunderstandings among readers, so I can remedy them in my writings. I’ll just touch upon three misunderstandings here (there are many others in the writings of the commentators but I’ll skip them for now).

 

1. “You believe that Kashmir should have the right to secede”. There are two issues involved here.

 

a) I have never asked that Kashmir “should have the right to secede”. Indeed, I ask that EVERYONE in the world must have that right or freedom, which includes the right to secede if the society one lives in does not give us freedom, and in a non-violent manner. How can we claim to have freedom to live but not the freedom to form the society which protects our freedom? The nation is not above the individual. It is always a creation of the individual, it is a social contract. That is the first premise of freedom. So, in my book, ‘Breaking Free of Nehru’ Online Notes section (I trimmed many parts of that book to make the book short: all that I trimmed is available freely on the internet), I note that there must be a civilised way for testing the concept of group ownership of territory. That means there must be a non-discretionary and constitutional method for a group of people who wish to, to secede from ANY nation. I have then proposed such a non-discretionary method for India (take a look at the details of the method I propose before criticising it!). So this part of my comment relates to the generic secession, unrelated to Kashmir.

 

b) As far as Kashmir is concerned, please be aware in my view Nehru made a fundamental blunder by committing a referendum to the part of Kashmir which was handed over to India (that ‘handing over’ has many questions particularly since the King of Kashmir at that time had fled from Srinagar, fearing for his life: effectively, Kashmir was nobody’s land, but once India had taken control, Kashmir was no longer entitled to any referendum: but that is mixed with many other events such as Junagarh, so let us skip this complex area). The main thing is there was no obligation to commit to a referendum under international law. Note that since then that commitment has been overturned by the course of events such as the Simla Accord. However, what do I ask for is that we continuously look to the interests of the children of Kashmir (and all other parts of India!). If we could start history afresh today, what would we do? Punish anyone who kills: that is not in question. But also show genuine love for the people of Kashmir, and their children. Be kind to others.

 

2. “Sanjeev thinks he got a new way to paint the racial biblical eurocentric stories”. You cite my comment that “During the last 5 000 generations since our species came into being, humans have diffused across the planet through many migrations.” Please do read the references perhaps cited elsewhere in the chapter. This is nothing but the theory backed by the greatest research today. It says that mankind came from a small group of North Africans who migrated across the world. This is not Eurocentrism, but Afrocentrism! Not only does this theory say you and I (including all Europeans and Chinese) are Africans but that we are all extremely similar genetically, so as to be almost indistinguishable biologically. We are brothers and sisters, really. Yet, if better science comes along, this theory could well be modified/ changed. So I am merely citing the best available truth today, and keeping an open mind for better answers. If, in your view, the world arose from India (which it could well have!, with exactly the same results), please send me the peer-reviewed research papers in scientific journals which prove it genetically and otherwise.

 

3. “Why then that picture of duality? Though it has some revolutionary modern claims, it is actually a mystic symbol, probably popular in budhist or Chinese traditions”. This criticism refers to my use of the Yin-yang, a Chinese symbol representing two halves, to represent the theory of freedom. I think this is an alternative way of using one part of the symbolism of an existing symbol without referring to any spiritual element. I don’t have to keep inventing symbols merely to say a few simple and obvious things. But if you like, you can think of it as a circle in two halves or a square in two halves. I’ll put a footnote in my book, suggesting people not fixate on the symbol but on what I’m trying to convey!

 

 

Regards

Sanjeev

One last comment before I wind up my current interaction with the Shadow Warriors.

Dear Nizhal

It may be time to stop being a Shadow Warrior and become a true warrior for truth. Do not be afraid of the truth, please! The truth may make you change your mind but that is not as frightening as you think. In the end, we are all brothers with a common objective – to take India (and the world) to freedom and greatness.

Please therefore review your policy of not publishing comments which may stretch your beliefs by involving considered debate based on evidence and facts.

I remain open to further debate should you consider it appropriate. You can always write to me at sabhlok AT yahoo DOT com and we can resume discussions.

As you will note, I’m quite open and transparent about what I stand, and do not have the need to censor debate.

Regards

Sanjeev

26 December 2008