Tuesday, December 23,
2008
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
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 12/23/2008 03:30:00 AM  
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
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
|