The burden of a sensitive man

Brave New World or 1984? Which is the appropriate dystopia to fear?

2010-04-14T04:55:00.000-07:00

The two world wars and the great depression definitely changed people’s perception of the future. This was adequately represented in literature and other popular art forms where there was a dramatic shift from the glory days of utopic representations to depicting worlds that are inherently undesirable. Throughout the history of literature, there have always been projections and forecasts about the future and this marked shift in the mood and tone towards dystopia reflected the conditions in which they were written. Surely, the most disturbing and well known works of dystopian literature are Yevgeny Zamyatin’s WE, Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World. WE was definitely a precursor to the other 2 and contains many themes that were the cornerstone of a generation of dystopian works.

I read an interesting bit about the difference between 1984 and Brave New World in a foreword to a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. I shall reproduce the same here and then have a go at it myself:

“

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.”

Based on this, it would easily seem that Huxley hit the nail right on the spot. There are many striking resemblances in today’s society with Huxley’s. Judging by these criteria, it would be easy to declare that Huxley was a better soothsayer than Orwell. While there is nothing to disagree in what this author has written, I would say that he has missed other important over-arching criteria.

My question is: In our modern futuristic projections based on these great dystopian myths, are the two really that different? My proposition is that it is not that dichotomous, they are not binary ends. Consider the situation today: what we have is a very fine delicate balance between these two supposed contradictions, generously garnished by the ingredients we find in WE.

‘We’ speaks about a dystopian totalitarian post apocalyptic society which runs on the principles of collectivity, loss of individual identity, absolute transparence, where, the engine of growth for society is increased productivity à la the infinitely exaggerated principles of Taylorism (F.W Taylor, the father of modern scientific management (of labour)). Brave New World deals with, again, a collectivist futuristic society based on extreme division of labour, assembly line production and no doubt, Freudian hedonistic construction of human needs and Pavlov, Skinner, Thorndike, and co’s human learning models. 1984 is perhaps the darkest conjecture of the human society to come: a totalitarian society controlled by an overarching, omniscient and omnipotent Party, the fuel for growth is perpetual and continuous warfare, external and domestic.

It is rather facile to dismiss Orwell’s vision because he basically projected a communist based totalitarian government and Huxley’s hedonistic information-overdose situations seems to be the more plausible one. However, the present reality seems to healthily borrow subdued versions of the nightmarish elements present in all three works. I see the three works complementary in nature rather than substitute visions of the future.

At a societal viewpoint, Huxley has made the right projections. With a preoccupation with self, society has allowed itself to decay, as indifference permeates its veins. Consumerism, in its pejorative sense of equating personal happiness with ever increasing consumption, is the closest manifestation of Huxley world order. Life’s purpose is trivialized to the sole aim and objective of consumption; one’s goal in life is simply, to increase purchasing power. This would keep societies content and the order once established, ceteris paribus, the ability to consume is the only determinant of growth and stability.

However, this can be regarded as a partial equilibrium analysis as it dwells on the society’s status quo position. The other side of the equation has to be considered and here is where the complementarity of the two visions falls into place. How is the status quo established for the people at power? How do they ensure they remain in power? 1984 provides powerful tools of analysis of obtaining and maintaining power.

The basis for power in the Orwellian analysis is clearly fear and intimidation coupled with meticulous propaganda. Both play a key role in our society. However, it is not a direct fear via physical force but a psychological fear against a common enemy. Following the Durkheimian analysis of the positive functions of deviance, a common enemy helps in social solidarity and maintaining the status quo. The common enemy takes various forms. In the cold war era, the obvious enemy was communists (remember McCarthy?) and the irony lies in using communist tools against the commies. Then, it was terrorists followed by recessions and depressions and unemployment and foreclosures. Throughout, economic fear plays a key role: the fear of not being able to get a satisfactory share of the pie. Fear drives us into obedience and servitude, nay, even love for those in power. To combat the common external enemy, we look up to those in power.

So, who is in power? This is the evident point of departure from the Orwellian vision. However, for an instant, replace Orwell’s totalitarian government with a totalitarian monetary and economic system and we can readily see the eminence of his prediction. Replace government propaganda with corporate sponsorship and marketing and the similarities are striking.

In Orwell’s view, for the oligarchical, hierarchical societal structure to be intact, production has to incessant and the value of this, instead of being transferred to the consumers, the masses, it has to be perpetually destroyed via continuous warfare. The essence is thus, that production has to be endless in order for the nation to ‘progress’, but produced goods should never enhance the value of the masses. Fortunately, today’s economic system has not yet reached this devastating extreme, but there are traces of it sprinkled all over our economic order. Planned obsolescence is the most striking representation of this, albeit a much sober version. Produced goods in today’s society are never meant to be sustainable and a great deal of economic activity centers around perpetually creating and destroying goods.

Thus, what I have tried to achieve here is build a synthesis of 1984, Brave New World and reality. Next, just to feel better and infuse a sense of hope in mankind’s destiny let me try to recognize any representation of utopic elements in the world today, a much arduous task, without a doubt!

A re-examination of the credit crunch

2010-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:00

The financial crisis of late 2008 and the global recession which has followed is a topic of great interest to researchers, businesspeople, policymakers and the public. The global financial crisis has its roots in the US, Europe and other advanced countries. Indeed, the crisis which had erased around US$25 trillion from the value of stock markets seems largely to have been unexpected. Partly this was because it came on the heels of a seven-year period of high growth and originated in the US; many had expected a global slowdown to start in the emerging markets.

Both the initial destruction of financial wealth as well as the psychological shock of seeing many elite Wall Street firms on their knees, prompted numerous commentators to initially raise the specters of the great depression. Although not the great depression, it is indeed true that the world is staggering from financial to economic crisis as the US, EU, Japan and other high-income economies entered the recession at the end of 2008. Having decimated Wall Street and then crippled Main Street, the financial crisis seems like a hurricane about to sweep across the developing world.

Causes of the crisis

Its proximate causes include sub-prime lending, unsustainable financial engineering, derivatives usage, and faulty credit rating by agencies, a lax regulation and large global imbalances in those countries. But the fundamental cause of the crisis was the loose and excessively accommodative monetary policy followed by the US and other advanced economies from 2002-04.

Sub-prime lending

The sub-prime crisis which broken out in 2007 had resulted in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the acquisition of Merrill Lynch and the nationalization of the major banks in Europe such as RBS, which is the magnate of the commercial banks. It generated a huge crisis of the liquidity of the major banking market all over the world; banking industry had also appeared in a wide range of large-scale losses.

To put it very simply the subprime crisis was caused because the lending norms in the US were very lax. The value of U.S. subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding. In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major U.S. investment banks and government sponsored enterprises played an important role in the expansion of higher-risk lending.

Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison, believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are government sponsored entities. Subprime mortgages remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble. A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which permitted the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their debt to capital ratio (from 12:1 to 30:1 or higher), financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities.

The history behind the asset bubble can be found in the desire of the US government to increase home ownership in the US. Though the intention is good, the methods it took to achieve the cause, was quite disastrous. Unfortunately, the way it chose was by distorting the lending decisions of banks and other mortgage market participants, which is evident in the rationale behind the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) on insured banks in 1977 and an "affordable housing" mission on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. “The government--through CRA--required banks to lower their lending standards. Down payments, steady jobs, good credit histories, and income levels commensurate with mortgage obligations were abandoned in favor of "flexible" lending requirements” (Wallison, 2008). This resulted in many sub-prime mortgages being approved, which otherwise, wouldn’t have been so.

This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending. Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006, then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.

Though the politicians were quick to jump and accuse private investors in Wall Street for the crisis, it would be unfair to leave the legislators out of the blame game. Government policies ensured that when the bubble began to deflate, there would be little equity left in the assets, mainly due to “cash-out refinancing”, which allowed homeowners to draw out their equity through refinancing when their asset prices rose in value.

Accompanying rises in house prices further fuelled credit growth, especially through mortgage lending. In the US, subprime market mortgage lending, to households without the essential means to repay loans, took on huge proportions; according to Lin (2008) about US$1.3 trillion was lent in subprime mortgages. US mortgage lenders securitized these subprime loans, which were then sold throughout the financial system as assets. They were able to issue and securitize these bad loans due to a combination of inadequate regulation and financial innovation. The latter made it difficult for other institutions to assess the risks of these securitized mortgages and led to increased subprime mortgages (Bicksler 2008). Thus in spite of their underlying risk, they were taken up by financial institutions. As put by Krugman (2007),

The innovations of recent years—the alphabet soup of C.D.O.’s and S.I.V.’s, R.M.B.S. and A.B.C.P. — were sold on false pretences. They were promoted as ways to spread risk, making investment safer. What they did instead—aside from making their creators a lot of money, which they didn’t have to repay when it all went bust—was to spread confusion, luring investors into taking on more risk than they realized.

Deregulation

Critics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system.

There were high levels of financial innovation on Wall Street, driven by a search for higher yields in a low-interest-rate environment. Much of this innovation was carried out by firms whose activities were not regulated, and other new instruments were too complex to be effectively regulated. As a result, policies tended to advocate for deregulation of financial markets and were sometimes accompanied by additional lax supervision.

The great rush for Mortgage Based Securities, was mainly due to the fact that regulators demanded lower capital requirements for residential mortgages than for other assets. For commercial loans, banks were supposed to back it up by 8% capital, while mortgages required just 4%. Further, converting this into a Mortgage based security, the capital requirement reduced drastically to 1.6%. The high preference for these securities can be clearly understood in this light.

The deregulation ideologues got their biggest triumph in November 1999, with the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, established after the Great Depression, with much lobbying efforts. The act, in short, separated the investment banks from commercial banks, which implies that the commercial banks were confined to taking deposits and making loans and investing in low risk bonds and securities, as they were primarily representing the interests of a risk-averse population, in stark contrast with the investment banks who played on behalf of wealthy people, who could afford to take big risks, in exchange for higher returns. With the repealing of this Act, commercial banks began to indulge in high risk – high returns mortgage securities, which spelled doom from the beginning.

Financial innovation and complexity

The term financial innovation refers to the ongoing development of financial products designed to achieve particular client objectives, such as offsetting a particular risk exposure (such as the default of a borrower) or to assist with obtaining financing. Examples pertinent to this crisis included: the adjustable-rate mortgage; the bundling of subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and slicing them into tranches based on their riskiness called collateralized debt obligations (CDO) for sale to investors, a type of securitization; and a form of credit insurance called credit default swaps (CDS). The usage of these products expanded dramatically in the years leading up to the crisis. These products vary in complexity and the ease with which they can be valued on the books of financial institutions.

Certain financial innovation may also have the effect of circumventing regulations, such as off-balance sheet financing that affects the leverage or capital cushion reported by major banks. For example, Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."

Ultimately, this aided in not only spreading the risk around the financial sector, but also in successfully masking it. Neither the borrowers nor the lenders truly understood the risk involved in the securities that they were investing in.

Low interest rates

Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%. This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.

Then, along came Bush’s administration’s tax cuts in 2001, which was the answer to the perceived slump due to the dot com bubble bursting. This played a pivotal role in shaping the background for the current crisis, as it led to huge fiscal deficits, which meant that the current expansionary fiscal policy will only aggravate the situation (Stiglitz, 2009). However, the tax cuts could hardly achieve its target of stimulating the economy in 2001, and the real stimulation was left to the Fed. Thus, there was a sharp decline in the real interest rates in the US, UK, and other countries.

“The difference between the nominal long-term Treasury yield and the trailing twelve-month rate of consumer price inflation, another measure of the U.S. real interest rate, falling from about 3.5 percent in 1996 to about 1.5 percent in 2004. In the United Kingdom, the real yields on inflation-indexed government bonds fell from an average of 3.6 percent in 1996 to just below 2 percent in 2004; in Canada, the analogous figures were 4.6 percent in 1996 and 2.3 percent in 2004 ” (Bernanke, 2007).

Revenge of the glut

Bernanke, as the Fed chief, in his two brilliant speeches in 2005 and 2007 speaks of the low interest rate as the third component of the Savings glut or Global imbalances phenomenon, the other two being Current account surpluses and deficits in the world and discrepancies in the savings rate across the world. Krugman (2009) is invariably right when he comments that: “…subprime lending was only a small fraction of the problem. Even bad home loans in general were only part of what went wrong.” Any analysis of the present recession without tracing its historic roots and the underlying problem of global imbalances is bound to be incomplete.

The irony of the problem is that it is the emerging economies that are fuelling and sponsoring the growth in the United States and other developed economies. This has to be understood in a historical perspective. The decade of the 1990’s was a particularly rocky and painful period for the developing countries. First, it was the Mexican crisis in 94, followed by the East Asian crisis in 97-98, crisis in Russia in 98, in Brazil in 99 and finally Argentina in 2002. Though these crises were of different natures and magnitudes, they had one thing in common: horrible mismanagement of the crises by the IMF and the US Treasury, which further worsened the situation in these countries. Left with a bitter aftertaste and a general distrust, these countries began to accumulate huge foreign exchange reserves for such a contingency.

Source: Are Developing Asia’s Foreign Exchange: Reserves Excessive? An Empirical Examination (Park & Estrada, 2009)

Table 1: Showing Asia's top 10 reserve holders

Source: Are Developing Asia’s Foreign Exchange: Reserves Excessive? An Empirical Examination (Park & Estrada, 2009)

As can be seen from Figure 1, emerging Asia’s Forex reserves have been steadily swelling since the 90’s. China seems to stand out in Table 1, with $ reserves well exceeding 2 trillion. This was possible by having savings rate close to 45% of GDP during the same period. The undervalued Yuan also significantly contributes to this, as this makes exports cheaper and imports more expensive, which results in curbing domestic aggregate demand and maintaining a high priority for exports. It all adds up when we look at the mirror image of the US savings rate, which has been steadily declining, falling almost below the ominous 0%.

Table 2: Current account balances (Billions of US$)

Country or region	1996	2000	2004	2005	2006
Industrial	31.1	-304.7	-296.5	-502.5	-607.3
United States	-124.8	-417.4	-640.2	-754.8	-811.5
Japan	65.7	119.6	172.1	165.7	170.4
Euro area	77.3	-37.0	115.0	22.2	-11.1
Other	12.9	30.0	56.6	64.4	45.0

Developing	-82.8	124.7	296.5	507.9	643.2
Asia	-40.2	77.0	172.4	245.1	352.1
China	7.2	20.5	68.7	160.8	249.9
Hong Kong	-4.0	7.0	15.7	20.3	20.6
Korea	-23.1	12.3	28.2	15.0	6.1
Taiwan	10.9	8.9	18.5	16.0	24.7
Thailand	-14.4	9.3	2.8	-7.9	3.2
Latin America	-39.1	-48.1	20.4	34.6	48.7
Middle East	15.1	72.1	99.2	189.0	212.4
Africa	-5.2	7.2	0.6	14.6	19.9
Eastern Europe	-18.5	-31.8	-58.6	-63.2	-88.9
Former Soviet Union	5.2	48.3	62.6	87.7	99.0

Statistical discrepancy	-51.6	-180.0	0.0	5.4	35.9

Source: Ben Bernanke (2007)

Taking a balance of trade approach, which is a logical extension of the savings glut phenomenon, it is imperative to look at the current account deficits in some countries and the surpluses in others. In accounting terms, allowing for statistical discrepancies, the world trade balance sheet has to be equal. So the United States’ $ 812 billion current account deficit has to be matched by surpluses elsewhere. As table 2 shows, that elsewhere happened to be emerging Asia. With rapid growth and a devalued exchange rate that ensured low domestic consumption, China’s current account surplus has been increasing at a tremendous rate. Also, the current account surplus of the oil exporting Middle East with the Iraq war particularly aggravating the soaring oil prices and countries such as Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela have surged significantly. “In 2008, according to forecasts from the International Monetary Fund, the aggregate excess of savings over investment in surplus countries will be just over $2,000bn” (Wolf, 2008). With the deregulatory zeal, uninhibited financial sophistication and innovation, rising stock prices at first and low real interest later, strong dollar, etc the American economy attracted much of the savings glut of the emerging economies and equally led the American population to spend (on imports as well) more than their incomes allow, leaving no room for savings.

Though the lessons from the crisis are plenty and the solutions as myriad as the problems itself, it would be instructive to learn from how certain countries coped with the recession. While China’s strategy has been discussed at varying lengths, the question remains whether it is replicable in other countries. It is worthwhile to discuss India’s position before the crisis which enabled it to get away lightly.

India, by itself, provides an instructive tale and the advanced economies can take a leaf out of its book. While the west was struggling with negative growth rates, India was still achieving admirable growth rates of 6%, and while there was a complete breakdown of the financial sector in US and EU with the biggest banks falling and falling hard, none of the Indian banks even came close to liquidity crisis. The credit crunch has definitely affected India, but to a much lesser extent than most other countries and there are many factors that softened the damage.

As certain economists have put it, the resilience to a global meltdown depends largely on how “decoupled” a country is from the international financial markets. India’s exports account for only 13% of its GDP, which means that the 8%+ growth rates achieved since the 2000s have been largely driven by domestic demand. This can be accounted by the fact that India has, perhaps, the highest middle class population in the world. The burgeoning middle class is able to absorb the industrial supply and drive India’s economic growth.

India had a chairman of the central bank, the RBI, a man who can be considered the anti-thesis of Alan Greenspan. Y.V Reddy, in his prudent manner, ensured that there was enough liquidity in banks, even before the crisis by having tough regulations that would have appalled the banking sector in the West. Lending was done solely on the basis of income and capital ratios were as high as 12-15%, which is why when the bubble burst, Indian banks had less than 2% of NPAs on its balance sheets (Nocera, 2008). The CDOs and other mortgage based securities were an insignificant part of the financial market.

The RBI made sure that Indian banks did not get caught up in the frenzy of the bubble, by almost banning SPVs and other off-balance sheet vehicles. Commercial properties had excessive reserve requirements, which made sure that banks had enough liquidity during the crisis. During the bubble, Reddy saw a threat of inflation and soaring housing prices and raised interest rates considerably to deflate it. Thus, the main difference was that while the American regulators stood by, nay, even encouraged the bubble, the Indian regulators took an active role and made sure things didn’t go out of hand.

Works Cited

Bernanke, B. S. (2007). Global Imbalances: Recent Developments and Prospects. Federal Reserve Bank. Berlin.

Krugman, P. (2009, March 1). Revenge of the Glut. New York Times .

Nocera, J. (2008, December 20). How India avoided a crisis. New York Times .

Park, D., & Estrada, G. B. (2009). Are Developing Asia’s Foreign Exchange Reserves Excessive? ADB Economic Working paper Series , 2-5.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2009). Capitalist Fools. Vanity Fair .

Wolf, M. (2008, December 2). Global imbalances threaten the survival of liberal trade. Financial Times .

Consequential alienation

2009-12-15T16:07:00.000-08:00

This is not a research article, but just a small thought that I have been working on.

With every new set of friends that I interact with and after substantial proximity has been established, the inevitable debate always occurs, almost as though it is the natural sequence of making friends. The vegetarian debate is what I am speaking about. The same set of questions, the same set of retorts, my excruciatingly painful task of convincing them through arguments centred around biology, animal sociology (if something like that exists), anthropology, natural law and what not. The irony of it all is the fact that every time, I almost succeed in convincing my friends that meat, as it is consumed today and the institutional cruelty that is meted out to animals is unnatural, evil and definitely not sustainable but all to no avail as the unfailing response when they have run out of arguments is "I don't care, I enjoy my meat and I will continue doing so.." So, I had to change the direction of my thoughts not so much regarding whether meat eating is good or bad but more towards why are people insensitive towards the cruelty once they are exposed to it.

Then, I figured that the answer to that is not very complex and perhaps might even fall in the realm of 'common sense'. Though I did not run out in the streets nude shouting Eureka à la Archimedes, I was, however, pretty glad that I had realized it especially because of its overarching practical explanatory ability. The thing that I am alluding to is exactly what the title describes, alienation. Primarily, I am of the opinion that once people have detached themselves from the actual point of interaction where the ‘cruelty’ is taking place, they see themselves as not culpable. Notice, how the most common argument proves my point: “If I don’t eat this xxx animal, then someone else will, since it’s already killed” or some variations of the same. Think about it, if they had to kill the animal themselves, this argument just wouldn’t hold, would it? It is the ability, in the modern day economic system, to detach oneself from the actions that are done on one’s behalf that causes people to enjoy the benefits of these actions without the usually accompanying guilty feeling.

I realize that there are a few loopholes in this line of thinking and it cannot be absolutely generalized, but looking at smaller samples, it could hold true. To be more precise, it is true of the people I encounter and interact with. The first counter-argument against this is easy and let me provide that before all else: what about those who are doing the killing? According to this reasoning, shouldn’t they stop? There, there’s another Freudian defence mechanism working there, that of rationalization. Their line of reasoning would be “I am doing this for others” or “I have to do this to earn my living”, etc. It is a rather weak argument, but as of now, it’s the best response I can give. I got this idea mainly from a psychological study that I read some time back; it wanted to study the possible thoughts accompanying those who actually pulled the trigger against the Jews in the Nazi regime. The results were rather conclusive and interesting – almost all the people interviewed said that they did not feel responsible for the deaths as they were merely carrying out the orders of their superiors. So, in a twisted way, our butcher example can be seen as a parallel to the Nazi example, where Hitler is the twin of the people who just ‘order’ meat and not actually kill and the butcher is like the soldiers who just ‘took orders’.

I think it is the same with the environment: as long as people do not see a direct link between their actions and the damage it’s causing, they would be oblivious to the circumstances and thus, it would be extremely easy to shirk away from the responsibility. Imagine a person living in a big city, surrounded by the artificiality of human civilization, masking its own decadence. This person lives so far away, physically and emotionally from nature that it is impossible to connect with nature and thus, see what bearing his actions have on environmental change. Could he possibly see the connection between a simple action such as leaving his PC switched on all night or the big SUV guzzler he drives to office alone and the effect it has on the Western Ghats? It is an abstract causal relationship which is far from evident, unless internalized and indoctrinated. This is why, I feel, that consumerism is thriving today in all its glory and the other social institutions are functionally designed to keep people from realizing this relationship.

Let me now try to apply this theory to other circumstances. I am presently reading this book by Joseph Stiglitz, an outstanding economist, titled “Globalization and its discontents”. He gives an example of the fund and its handling of the Ethiopian case. The person in IMF who was ruthlessly pushing through outdated, ineffective policies, because of his dogmatic beliefs in free markets, that would affect millions of the poorest people in Ethiopia was sitting in an AC room in the IMF building on the 19^th street in Washington, who had never been to Ethiopia, could not describe what the people were going through and, I’m sure, did not know what poverty meant, apart from the official definition given by the World Bank as less than 2400 calories a day. When the policies miserably failed, he merely shrugged his shoulder and blamed it on the ineffectiveness of the policy implementation apparatus. Once, the blame is shifted, he can happily move on to the next target. I have thought of many other instances that can generally fit into this model, but it might exceed the scope of this write-up.

I am now rather convinced that people are apathetic about the moral obligations of certain actions because of their ability to intellectualize or to alienate, detach and isolate themselves from those actions that would otherwise cause anxiety and perhaps, a vague moral dilemma. My question is, which I am still uncertain about, would people still continue to engage in these if, in a hypothetical situation, they would be primarily responsible for the action. The ability to shift responsibility is the core concept that is resounding throughout this piece; and thus, my question would be, what would happen if they could not carry out the required shift? What if the responsibility stuck with them? Would they continue? To exemplify, ignoring practicality for some time, imagine a restaurant where one would have to kill their own meat, if they wanted to eat it. The restaurant would provide all the facilities, the knife, the animal, etc, then, would people still go ahead, kill the meat and eat it? I know that, with habituation, they probably might, but at first, will they? Would this serve as a strong enough reason for them not to eat meat? I wonder...

2009-07-27T22:36:00.000-07:00

I am in strange fix. A sort of fix of passions, if you please.

You know how, as kids, one wants to become everything in life, from a lift operator to a pilot? well, i am going through something similar, if only a bit more streamlined, a bit more precise, but hovering around probably the same range of infinite potential activities that i want to engage in!

Let me spell out the kind of fix I am in. The past 2-3 months of my life has been productive in a strange sort of way! I have been exposed to various new ideas and ideals that i want to emanate in my life. I have met an astonishing number of "interesting people", read about truly inspiring ideas, seen or heard truly brilliant thoughts. The scope of this article will probably revolve around the new ideas that I have garnered or fostered for the past few months, how i seek to develop them and my essential confusion regarding priorities.

Each of these people that I have met are highly specialized in their area of activity, and i have gained quite a bit from the interaction that has ensued. For example, a month ago, I met a truly astounding woman, an environmentalist to the core, and our rather lengthy conversations just reinforced my belief that there can be ordinary people out there with so much dedication towards such an "abstract" cause such as environment. Her dedication, focus and methods of operation left me stunned and wanting to imitate.

Another interesting encounter, so to speak, would be in regard to an organization and its celebrated leaders. I have been following S. Gurumurthy for some time now, especially his columns in Indian Express. I found out that he is the chairman of this particular organization called Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an economic organization that is truly focused on the concept of stabilizing and ameliorating the domestic sector and following perhaps the most sound economic logic. Here, I was introduced to another great Indian economist and his writings, namely M R Venkatesh. I recently read his monograph titled " Capital Account Convertibility", and true to the organization's objectives and rationale, opposes the implementation of full CAC and warns regarding the possible dangers it involves. These two intellectuals, if I can take the liberty of using the term in its true sense and not the contorted connotation that it has received in India today, are definitely my modern day idols and heroes. They have given me a more definite economic rationale, direction of thought and stream of ideas to work on.

Perhaps one of the biggest influences in recent times has led me to fortify the passion for an age old cause that has always hovered around in my mind. Being on a break, I decided to do some social service combined with traveling. This led me to a fervent search for credible organizations that i can work with, but in vain as the NGO are either money making schemes, designed for the western public, institutionalized as the concept of "gap year" projects or they deal in other subvertive and dishonest activities, that I do not want to work with. This search then directed me to the biggest organization in India that works for her development through 'seva' - the RSS. Simultaneously, another well wisher lent me Advani's autobiography "My Country, My life" through which i was exposed even more to the functioning of the RSS and its cadres. Their dedication to the nation's cause and Hindutva is awe-inspiring, something that I definitely do want to get involved in. I am firmly convinced of late, that the institution of religion has, invariably, two sides to it: the personal and the public. The personal, as is obvious deals with one's personal religious beliefs and does hardly interfere in the larger scheme of things. On the other hand, the public largely has to do with identity politics and what is known as "the new social movements". While, in the future, i want to make significant progress in the personal realm, my overriding obsession as of now is definitely confined to the public realm. I want to champion the cause of Hindutva, of Indianness, of Hinduism (notice I use Hindutva and Hinduism differently).

Day after day, reading about how the majority in a country is so blatantly and shamelessly sidelined, oppressed and demoralized through the institutions of the polity is incredible, to an extent that it would render a neutral observer absolutely perplexed and confounded. It is such a unique situation in the entire world, for nowhere else can you find a polity so apathetic to the majority's needs. Well, that's another loosing cause that I want to attach myself to!

Since Election '09, absolutely dejected and disappointed over its results, I have been doing some significant reading on the great blunders of the congress Government in India, past, present and future trends, that i shall restrain from expounding now as I have, in mind, a special big article dedicated to the wonders of the functioning of the congress party. So, that and much more is included in the political causes that I want to be involved in.

Thus, essentially the aforementioned 'fix' pertains to a simple question: which cause do I take up? And I frankly do not think that I have touched even the tip of the iceberg of issues that I want to get involved in. Hell, I haven't even spoken about consumerism, corporates, Monetary system, Media, Public insensitivity, etc.
All of the people I have met, read or in any sense interacted with are masters of their domain, highly specialized in their fields, thoroughly dedicated to their primary cause. The RSS chief I met is 100% or more dedicated to his mission of serving society, the environmentalist to hers, the playwright to his, the economist to his and so on. However, the question that has been plaguing me is that do I have to specialize in one cause? Do i have to take up one passion and give it a higher priority than others? Do I have to train for that from now on, thus neglecting the others? For example, in my masters, shall I take up Political economy, or environmental economics? Or do I take up Financial economics, which might enable me to fight CAC, Promissary Notes, and FDI in retail? Or finally, should I just give up studying and concentrate on being some sort of political activist from right now?

I know one thing for sure: I am still an idealist and want to continue to be so. It is exactly my idealism juxtaposed with my sensitivity to a myriad of issues that has put me in this fix, a fix that perhaps gives me as much trouble as pride. As for the solution, in my ideal world, I need not specialize, I shall fight for all these causes, in whatever capacity I can. I am eager to find out how and in what manner shall my ideal world meat reality? How much of a disappointment will I be to myself? How much can i achieve? How much will the system and reality kill my idealistic spirit? I shall be my own experimental material to find out whether it is possible to transcend human limitations and simultaneously engage in a multitude of causes, which are special to me, which define my personality and outlook and finally, which shapes and gives direction, meaning and a sense of purpose to my life!!!

THE MYTH OF THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY

2009-02-15T11:33:00.001-08:00

1. INTRODUCTION

“The Aryans came down from central Asia and invaded India in 1500 BC, after destroying the Harappan civilization and they brought with them the rich Vedas” – That’s exactly how my 9^th standard History text book reads. Shocking, now, not then. I have to admit that I was quite disappointed that the one greatest wealth (Vedas) that India has was given to us by outsiders.

However, something was fishy in the whole scheme of things. Something didn’t add up. Acting upon this hunch, I decided to do a bit of investigation and found out that many scholars had already been in this place and had disproved every inch of the theory.

1.1 Brief Background to the AIT:

In the beginning of the 18^th century, Germany, France and England started taking a very special interest towards the study of Asian cultures and Indian society in particular in the context of British India. This gave birth to Indology as an academic discipline in the 19^th century with pioneers such as William Jones, Colin Mackenzie, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Max Müller, etc, largely affected by the romantic Orientalism at that time (see my post on Orientalism). Indology mainly involved studying the ancient scriptures of the Hindus (Vedas, Puranas, etc), which was facilitated by new volumes of Sanskrit-English and Sanskrit-German dictionaries that were being published. One of the most important breakthroughs was Max Müller’s edition of the Rigveda, which appeared in 1849-75. The main objective of the Indologists was to rediscover India’s glorious past and give it to the Indians. Noble indeed! Needless to say, things were not quite as it seems, as I shall try to uncover the hidden agenda.

1.2 The Theory itself:

In the late 19^th century and early 20^th century, many seals were found in the Harappan region (now in Pakistan). This led to a fervent excavation campaign and the result of which was the discovery of the ancient civilization of the Harappans.

The fact is that the people inhabiting this area seemed to have moved out and the civilization had perished. Then, the task of the archaeologists and Indologists of the time was to try to explain this mysterious phenomenon as to why such a great civilization had perished. That it was great, there was no doubt because it was one of the most ancient urban settlements which displayed ingenious city planning, advanced knowledge of science and astronomy, efficient municipal governments which placed a high priority on hygiene, sewage and drainage systems, public baths, granaries, etc.

The moment was opportune and it was seized by the scholars and archaeologists who tried to explain this by propounding the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), which I shall briefly restate in the following passages after dealing a bit about the theoretical background...

It has to be remembered that, at that time, there were no Indian scholars who were writing about Indian history but there was an abundance of literature from the West, as mentioned earlier, owing to the birth of Oriental Studies and Indology. Abbé Dubois is perhaps one of the first such western historians who has tried to explain the origin of the Indian population and their presence in India. He stayed in India for nearly 30 years, in which he collected a large volume of data pertaining to the Hindu traditions and customs. A thorough missionary agenda in mind, his aim was to present the Hindus as barbaric and superstitious and not possessing any inherent greatness. His manuscript was bought by the British East India Company and appeared in an English translation under the title Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies in 1897 with a Prefatory Note by the Right Hon. F. Max Müller.

“It is practically admitted that India was inhabited very soon after the Deluge, which made a desert of the whole world. The fact that it was so close to the plains of Sennaar, where Noah's descendants remained stationary so long, as well as its good climate and the fertility of the country, soon led to its settlement.” (Dubois, 1897)

He explains: 'According to my theory they reached India from the north, and I should place the first abode of their ancestors in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus.' The reasons he provides to substantiate his theory are utterly unconvincing-but he goes on to build the rest of his migration theory (not yet an 'Aryan' migration theory) on this shaky foundation.

It was Max Müller, the German scholar (who was, supposedly, an authority on the Vedas), who first or the most notable to propound the Aryan Invasion Theory. According to him, the only reason to explain the disappearance of the Harappans was due to an external invasion of their cities. To firmly establish the link between Europe and India (through the concept of the Aryans), Müller and others suggested that the Aryans were a nomadic tribe who were allocated a place that was halfway between Europe and India. They chose the mystical and elusive place called “Central Asia” (how precise!) from where they moved down towards India and entered India from the North, though they do not take the trouble of explaining which passes they traversed or any other geographical details. They then went on to destroy the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro with the help of their Vedic God Indra and that the dark-skinned indigenous people (Dravidians) were the ones on whom they imposed their religion and their caste system. The Aryans supposedly enslaved the native Dravidians and wiped them out from the Indus valley civilization (this idea stemmed from the fact that a few skeletons and bones were found in these sites). The entire Harappan civilization was supposed to have been massacred by the invading Aryans. The Dravidians, in fear of the onslaught fled from their thriving civilization and migrated to the south of the Indian subcontinent. However, they could not help but accept the superior culture of the Aryans and thus, though belonging to different races, the North and South followed an almost identical Hindu culture.

The chronology of these events becomes all too important, as we shall see later on. Max Müller, a firm believer of the Biblical chronology, tried to establish the periods of these events using the same. According to the Bible, humankind originated from one pair of humans– Adam and Eve, who were created around 4005BC. The great flood took place in 2500 BC, the only one to survive the flood was Noah, and thus all humans are descendents of the sons of Noah. If this was the case, then logically, the Aryan invasion could have occurred only after 2500 BC. Based purely on conjecture, Müller gave about 500 years for the regeneration of human kind and another generous 500 years where the Harappan civilization thrived. Thus, he arrived at the conclusion that the Aryan invasion would have occurred in 1500 BC.

Since the Aryans were the superior race who were capable of having literary culture (though they were nomadic), they are the ones who imposed the Vedas on India. Thus, we have to remember that the dating of the Vedas also becomes extremely important in order to prove or disprove the Aryan Invasion theory (the Hindus, however, believe that the Vedas are Anadhi, having no beginning or end, which is also the belief of the author, but for the sake of academic interest in the invasion theory, we shall consider the first written records of the Vedas). Western scholars decided to apply their own methodologies and, in the absence of reliable evidence, postulated a timeframe for Indian history based on conjectures. Considering the traditional dates for the life of Gautama, the Buddha, as fairly well established in the sixth century BCE, supposedly pre-Buddhist Indian records were placed in a sequence that seemed plausible to philologists. Accepting on linguistic grounds the traditional claims that the Rigveda was the oldest Indian literary document, Max Müller allowing a time-span of two hundred years each for the formation of every class of Vedic literature, and assuming that the Vedic period had come to an end by the time of the Buddha, established the following sequence that was widely accepted:

Rigveda c. 1200 BCE Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda, c. 1000BCE Brahmanas, c. 800 BCE Aranyakas, Upanishads, c. 600 BCE

1.3 WHERE DO THE ARYANS COME FROM?

What is not so well known in India is that our footloose Aryans, not content with overrunning the Indian subcontinent, invaded Europe too! And thereby hangs an instructive tale. For Christian Europe, long uncomfortable with what it thought to be a Hebrew ancestry, was eager, to find for itself an identity distinct from the Jewish; the sudden appearance of the Aryan race out of the misty plateaus of Central Asia was seen as a godsend, especially in the strong anti-Semitic atmosphere of the nineteenth century. Thus was born one more myth, this time of the Aryan European, Christian of course, and preferably Germanic. (Nahar, 1996) It had the added advantage of confirming the “natural” supremacy of the white race.

Though there was hardly any sort of proof for such theories, it still widely gained momentum in the rising fervour of European Nationalism. Year after year, raging debates went on across borders to determine which European people was the true descendent of the Aryan “master-race,” and therefore which nation could claim a divine right to dominate others. Europe witnessed “the ridiculous and humiliating spectacle of eminent scholars subordinating their interest in truth to the inflation of racial and national pride.” The most vociferous were undoubtedly the pro-Germanic. Germany seemed to have won the race in claiming descent from the Aryan race. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, Aryanism became a nationalist dogma in the newly unified German state. In fact, it came to be doubted that the Aryans’ “original homeland” was not at all in Central Asia, and several scholars sought to prove on “scientific grounds” that it really was Germany (Central and Western Germany, to be precise!). When in 1924 Hitler wrote in his Mein Kampf, “The Aryan alone can be considered as the founder of culture….a conqueror who subjugated inferior races,” he was merely echoing and amplifying dozens of nineteenth-century savants who had written as many thick tomes to buttress their fantasy. A few years later, full-blown Nazism was no more than a monstrous – but in a way perfectly logical-application of their race theories, with consequences we know.

Swami Vivekananda who has long been refuting the Aryan Invasion Theory made this comment: "Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black haired. If the writer happens to be a black haired man, the Aryans were all black haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lake. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends." (Vivekananda)

END OF PART I

WHY DO WE NEED TO DISPROVE THE THEORY?

What are the effects or consequences of such a theory? Why do we need to disprove it? What did the British and other European scholars gain by doing so? Why is it relevant today to talk about a theory that was constructed over a hundred years ago about a particular phenomenon that occurred 3000-4000 years ago? All these questions and answers diffuse into an overlapping schema of deconstructing academic falsity, which has had an overbearing socio-political undertone to it.

“Aryan Race and Invasion Theory is not a subject of academic interest only, rather it conditions our perception of India's historical evolution, the sources of her ancient glorious heritage, and indigenous socio-economic-political institutions, which have been developed over the millennia. Consequently, the validity or invalidity of this theory has an obvious and strong bearing on the contemporary Indian political and social landscape as well as the future of Indian nationalism.”[1] Let’s look into some of the effects of the theory on Indian society today and the motives behind the construction of such a theory.

2.1 HISTORICAL EFFECTS

2.1.1 RATIONALISING COLONALIZATION:

Firstly, by constructing such a theory of Aryan invasion, the British received the perfect justification for their own invasion of India. How? By proving that the present population of India was never truly the original inhabitants, and that they had been constantly invaded upon, they could justify saying that they are not really doing anything different from those invasions of the past. The main argument was that they are merely re-enacting what the Aryans had done a couple of thousand years ago upon the native population. Since, the Aryans had invaded, plundered, oppressed and pressed their culture on the native population, the Mughal rulers’ conquests and those of the British themselves were perfectly justified as an extension of the previous invasion and meting out to the Indian Aryans what they had done to the Dravidians. In effect, it gave the British a way to rationalize their brutal exploitation and domination of India. It also seemed to lessen the severity of the equally brutal Muslim invasions of India prior to the British arrival. This is perhaps the most terrible use of AIT by the historians. India was described as a land dominated by foreigners ever since its inception. Karl Marx even wrote that the whole history of India was a series of invasions. By showing that the Hindus are mere upstarts and squatters on the land (as they themselves are in America, Australia and other places), they can set up their own claim. For then neither the Hindus nor the Europeans are indigenous and as to who should possess this land, becomes merely a matter of superior might.

While this kind of reasoning might seem far out and implausible to us today, it must be mentioned that the British Empire would use any kind of argument to justify their cruelty and injustice. I am not trying to say that they went into the entire exercise of creating the myth just for justification purposes, as it is too small a motive if we consider the magnanimity of the other astute and scheming motives.

2.1.2 CULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES OF RULE:

How does one conquer a nation? One way is by the sword, but that is outdated and implies quite a heavy cost of operation, loss of men, etc. The other way is the one that Nicholas Dirks and Cohn refer to as the “Cultural Technologies of Rule”, or what is more commonly known as the “Divide and Rule policy”. The formula is quite simple. Enter a land, divide the people on any possible lines, break their solidarity, prove to them that they are not worthy masters of themselves, and evoke a need in them to be ruled by a “superior” kind, which happens to be the British. This play has been enacted over and again in many colonies of the British and it worked to perfection here in India also.

So how did they divide India? On the basis of religion, i.e. Hindus and Muslims is very easy to comprehend and is well known. That was the easier task of the British. However, for some time, they were confounded as to how to break the Hindus. How could they break into the fairly well unified and cohesive Hindu social structure? How could they pit sections of the Hindu society against another? Well, by the introduction of the Caste System, of course. I am not trying to credit the British with the creation of the caste system but it was the British who objectified, reified and transformed the existing social stratification system of the Hindus, with all its merits and demerits into the sole and overarching social identity of the Hindus. They over-emphasized the importance of caste as the only identity of the Hindu. That was the first true politicization of caste. After assuming all importance to the caste, they then used the same to divide the Indians (read Dirks for more). What does this have to do with AIT? Simple, they proposed to the lower caste “Dravidian” castes that they were the result of historic oppression from the “Aryan” upper castes namely the Brahmins who were the sole authority on the Vedas. This was in continuation with their theory that since the Aryans were the ones who gave the Vedas to India, it is only legitimate that they should be the sole authority over it.

While creating animosity between the upper and lower castes using historical arguments was much easier, the greater task still lay in trying to break the Brahmins, who were firmly rooted in their culture and traditions. The moment that they could win over the upper castes and make them adulate Western culture and traditions, that was their true victory and could be rest assured of a long stay in India.

Let me bring in a little bit of history...

Well before the 1857 uprising it was recognized that British rule in India could not be sustained without a large number of Indian collaborators. Recognizing this reality, influential men like Thomas Babbington Macaulay, who was Chairman of the Education Board, sought to set up an educational system modelled along British lines that would also serve to undermine the Hindu tradition. He believed that the conversion of Hindus to Christianity held the answer to the problems of administering India. His idea was to create an English educated elite that would repudiate its tradition and become British collaborators.

The key point here is Macaulay's belief that 'knowledge and reflection' on the part of the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, would cause them to give up their age-old belief in favour of Christianity. In pursuit of this goal, he needed someone who would translate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a way that the newly educated Indian elite would see the differences between them and the Bible and choose the latter. Upon his return to England, after a good deal of effort he found a talented but impoverished young German Vedic scholar by the name of Friedrich Max Müller who was willing to undertake this arduous task. (Rajaram)

This was the genesis of the herculean task of translating and interpreting the Rig-Veda and Max Müler’s commitment to the conversion process was always persistent, exemplified by his letter to his wife: “It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.”

The main objective now, as stated earlier was to separate the Brahmins and their Vedas. How could they achieve this task? By reducing the value of the Vedas in the eyes of the Brahmins. The theory not only stole the antiquity of the Vedas but also, in a single blow, was successful in invalidating most of the Hindu traditions described in the Vedas. The post-dating of the Vedas has serious consequences. For starters, by assigning the invading Aryans as the original authors, it made the Vedas a borrowed tradition. Can you imagine being told one day that something you’ve been practicing for over 3000 years is actually borrowed from outside and is not really that old or great.

In addition, one has to remember that by 1500 BC, the Greek and Egyptian cultures were already thriving, and by assigning a later date to the Vedas, it makes it borrowed knowledge. The Vedas were made to be derived from the Middle Eastern cultures, especially the Greek culture, which is an absolutely absurd proposition. It allowed the science of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture: In fact, the opposite is true.

If the theory of Aryan invasion and its proposed period were true, this discredited not only the Vedas but the genealogies of the Puranas, and all the kings mentioned in these scriptures including Lord Krishna, Rama, Buddha etc. would become as fictional characters with no historical basis: Which simply means disowning and discarding the very basis and raison d'être of the Hindu civilization (Agarwal, 1995).

In short, on the basis of this theory, the propaganda by these scholars was made that there was nothing great in the Hindu culture and their ancestors and sages. And most Hindus fell for this devious plan. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their culture - that its basis was neither historical nor scientific. The Vedas were the work of nomadic shepherds and not the divine revelations or eternal truth perceived by the rishis during their spiritual journey, and hence there is nothing to feel proud about India's past, nothing to be proud of being Hindu.

2.1.3 WHITE SUPREMACY:

When, in the eighteenth century, a few European thinkers began to try and fathom India's philosophy and religion, they were so struck by the depth, the ancientness, the richness they saw, that they soon declared India to have been the "cradle of the human race" and the "birthplace of civilization" in the words of Dohm, a German scholar, and the Hindus to be "the gentlest of people." The great Voltaire also held this view: "We have shown how much we surpass the Indians in courage and wickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom. Our European nations have mutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only go in search of money, while the first Greeks travelled to the same land only to instruct themselves."

He concluded, "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc." Many of the early travellers to India of the time (the exceptions being found mostly among the missionaries) tended to share this enthusiasm. "All history points to India as the mother of science and art". William Macintosh wrote. "This country was anciently so renowned for knowledge and wisdom that the philosophers of Greece did not disdain to travel thither for their improvement." Pierre Sonnerat, a French naturalist, concurred: "We find among the Indians the vestiges of the most remote antiquity.... We know that all peoples came there to draw the elements of their knowledge.... India, in her splendor, gave religions and laws to all the other peoples; Egypt and Greece owed to her both their fables and their wisdom."

I admit that this is not the place to indulge in glorifying Indian culture but I am trying to point out the dominant world-view at that particular period. For, during the 19^th century, with the birth of fervid European nationalism and racial glorification, all this drastically changed. The Europeans could not support acknowledging the fact that the birth of civilization and everything it included like science, art, mathematics, astronomy, architecture, etc could be pointed out to some remote and dark corner of the World, especially with their firm belief that ‘if it is great, it has to be white’ dogma. How could they possibly rob India of its greatness and project the same onto themselves? The answer lay in proving that the knowledge and wisdom existing there is not original and belongs to a race, of which they are a part. This gave birth to one of the greatest academic blunders: the creation of the myth of the Aryan Invasion.

However, this wouldn’t be enough. They also simultaneously proved that India had plunged into darkness later by amassing large amounts of information on the customs, traditions and religious practices of the native population (refer back to Abbé Dubois), to only later dismiss them as being barbarous, dangerous, uncivilized, outdated, etc. Juxtaposed with the justification argument, the British actually tried to convince the world that it had arrived with the noble intention of rescuing India from its darkness.

The British were anxious to clothe their greed in lofty ideals: the "white man's burden" of civilizing (and, naturally, Christianizing) less enlightened races, the "divinely ordained mission" of bringing to India the glory of Europe's commercial and industrial civilization, and so forth. Articles, pamphlets, speeches, thick volumes began pouring forth by the hundreds year after year in praise of the "tremendous task of rescuing India" from the darkness into which she had fallen. (Agarwal, 1995) Understandably, the recognition of India's far more ancient and refined civilization made such noble motives untenable. Thus began a systematic campaign to disparage not only this civilization, its culture and society, but the very roots of Hinduism by falsifying History with AIT.

2.2 The MODERN EFFECTS

2.2.1 THE N-S DIVIDE:

While these are some academic and colonizing antecedents, we must equally consider the modern effects of such a theory, else it would be an incomplete picture. Nowhere in History has any single theory, singlehandedly, caused so much havoc in so many domains of life. Moreover, it has to be firmly kept in mind that such a theory is universally accepted and even taken for granted unquestioningly.

Post-independent India has witnessed some serious challenges to its national-integrity and we can, in fact, shift part of the blame on the AIT. The continuous struggle on part of the Tamil state to break away from India and establish a republic can be attributed to their firm belief and acceptance of the AIT. Their claim is straightforward: they rely on the AIT to prove that they are the original inhabitants of the country and simultaneously, the antiquity of the Tamil language. Since, the Dravidians were conquered and forced down to the south, the Tamilians readily relate to this set of Dravidians and the supposed historic oppression by the dominant Sanskritic Aryans. Thus, they are able to achieve a two-fold objective: of being able to justify their claims for a separate nation and secondly to prove the antiquity of the Tamil language and that it is the true original and oldest Indian language which would then translate into being the oldest language in the world, as against what is commonly believed to be Sanskrit. With the deconstruction of the AIT, their claims would no longer become tenable.

Apart from this, it is also the general cause of tension and animosity between the North and the South in India. The southerners (“Dravidians”) generally mistrust and feel bitter about the Northerners (“Aryans”) due to the fictional historic oppression and thus make claims for compensation, antiquity, etc in the same breath. This has effectively created a North-South divide on racial lines grâce à imagination of a few gifted and talented historians, which is readily used by the politicians for petty vote bank politics. Thus, disproving the theory and more importantly, making it publicly known through the rewriting of the text books becomes imperative in order to achieve national integration.

In short, the communists used the Aryan Invasion theory as the basis for their history of India, substituting the caste war of the Brahmin invaders from Central Asia for the European class war model. Dravidian nationalists used it to their advantage, claiming an older purer Dravidian culture that was different from that of the Aryan invaders from the north. The Dalits used it to identify themselves with the original inhabitants of the country enslaved by the invading Brahmin dominated Aryans.

2.2.2 THE COMMUNIST AGENDA:

Yet, unfortunately, quite strangely and for no apparent reason, India possesses a unique breed of Marxian and other pseudo intellectual Historians (Romilla Thapar would prove to be an exemplary leader in this context) who are only too happy to subscribe to these pejorative colonizing ideas. Even against concrete counter-evidence against such a theory, our historians are rather determined in their stance and refuse to correct the historical academic fallacy, leading to a continued life span for outdated and dangerous ideas. Moreover, it is this unique group of leftist historians who have managed to crawl their way to the governing bodies of educational committees, who are responsible for framing the syllabus for fresh unpolluted minds to read, digest and inculcate. As aforementioned, my ICSE (the premier educational governing body) textbook carries an entire chapter dedicated to the Aryan Invasion theory belting out one lie after another, with no consideration to the kind of effects it could have on young minds especially in the realm of national pride. Any attempt to correct this by great scholars (like Jha, BB Lal, etc) will be branded as Hindu-fundamentalists attempting to distort history for the glorification of Hinduism. I will leave this idea here and proceed to the next aspect, as our famed Marxist historians need another voluminous article in praise of them.

We have to realize that by negating the antiquity of the Vedas, its spiritual and scientific value and by, finally, claiming it to be borrowed, they are successful in churning out a large army of young students who are no longer proud of their culture or nation, juxtaposed with the simultaneous and incessant glorification of the Western culture has lead to a pathetic vicious cycle of imitation of the latter and discarding the former. How can one expect India to truly progress, economically and morally; and how can one expect India to be truly united if such debasing theories are allowed to float about unchallengedely?

END OF PART II

[1] Dr Dinesh Agarwal in his article “Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory”.

The Myth of AIT (cont)

2009-02-15T11:22:00.000-08:00

III

DISPROVING THE THEORY

Now that we have had a grasp over the intentions behind such a theory and the multifarious effects it ensures, the task now lies in disproving the theory. I have to admit, though, that compared to the previous two sections, this task is of relative ease as there have been scores of scholars and archaeologists who have already achieved this feat and my task is to just state these findings. Unfortunately, however, these findings have been continuously discarded as ‘Hindutva agenda’ or ‘Saffron scholarship’. I shall present the facts, it is really upto you to decide whether it is the coloured ramblings or plain unbiased facts.

Disproving the theory entails certain quintessential approaches/ methods. As aforementioned, the dating of the Rig Veda is absolutely essential, for, if it can be proved that the Rig-Veda dates earlier than the supposed date for the Aryan Invasion, then it is clear that the Vedas was innate to the Harappans and thus, Indians. Once having done this, we must find clues within the Rig-Veda itself to falsify the theory and finally, we must also prove that there really was no invasion as such based on archaeological findings and it becomes equally important to provide an alternate and more credible version of the evacuation of the Harappan sites.

3.1 Dating the Rig-Veda

The dating of the age in which the Vedic literature commenced and thrived has a detrimental effect on the Aryan Invasion question. The oldest of the Vedas, the Rig-Veda, is full of references to places and natural phenomena that occurred in what is modern day Punjab and Haryana and must have unmistakably been written in that part. The date at which it was composed is absolutely essential to the dating of the Aryan Invasion (presuming that there was one), for whether they came from abroad or they were natives, one thing will be sure: they were certainly completely Indians without a trace of memory of their original home.

The dating of the Rig-Veda, as done by Max Muller is, as mentioned, 1200BC and received considerable criticism even during his time on a number of grounds. Maurice Winternitz, for example, based his estimate on purely philological considerations: "We cannot explain the development of the whole of this great literature if we assume as late a date as round about 1200 BC or 1500 BC as its starting point." There is much sense in what he says. It is not possible to cram all the philosophical, linguistic, cultural and scientific developments, which are evident in the Vedas, into just a few centuries, for, we have to remember that the Vedic age was over by the time of the Buddha, which is the 6^th century. However, this will remain as an argument of plausibility and is not sufficient enough to disprove the older chronology. The most explicit chronology would be provided by astronomical markers of time.

3.1.1 Ancient hindu astronomy[1]

In 1790, a Scottish mathematician, John Playfair demonstrated that the starting date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use among Hindu astrologers had to be 4300 BC. Though this was ridiculed by some and called absurd, it was not refuted by any scientist.

Basically, Playfair demonstrated that the Vedas contained observations of astronomical events dating back to the 4000 odd BC. This was claimed as an attempt by the Brahmins to falsely claim antiquity of their texts by providing astronomical observations of the past as presented in their scriptures by back calculation. In retaliation, Playfair showed that this kind of advanced back calculation was in fact impossible.

Backcalculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair requiring knowledge of a number of physical laws, universal constants and actual measurements of densities, diameters and distances. Though Brahminical astronomy was remarkably sophisticated for its time, it could only backcalculate planetary position of the presumed Vedic age with an inaccuracy margin of at least several degrees of arc. With our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual positions were, and what the results of backcalculations with the Brahminical formulae would have been (Elst, 1998), e.g.:

""Aldebaran was therefore 40' before the point of the vernal equinox, according to the Indian astronomy, in the year 3102 before Christ. (...) [Modern astronomy] gives the longitude of that star 13' from the vernal equinox, at the time of the Calyougham, agreeing, within 53', with the determination of the Indian astronomy. This agreement is the more remarkable, that the Brahmins, by their own rules for computing the motion of the fixed stars, could not have assigned this place to Aldebaran for the beginning of Calyougham, had they calculated it from a modern observation. For as they make the motion of the fixed stars too great by more than 3'' annually, if they had calculated backward from 1491, they would have placed the fixed stars less advanced by 4° or 5°, at their ancient epoch, than they have actually done." (Playfair, 1790) Therefore, it turns out that the data given by the Brahmins corresponded not with the results deduced from their formulae, but with the actual positions, and this, according to Playfair, for nine different astronomical parameters. This is a bit much to explain away as coincidence or sheer luck..

Fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years calls for knowledge of Newton's Law of Gravitation and the ability to solve differential equations. Failing this advanced knowledge, the data in the Brahminical tables must be based on actual observation. So far we’ve seen that the astronomical events that are recorded in the Rig-Veda could not have been back-calculations but the ancient Hindu seers were actually present and recorded it based on observation, which gives vital clues regarding the dating of the Vedas. The next task is to find the events as such, if I could call them that, which could give us an idea of the exact dates.

3.1.2 The Start of the Kali Yuga:[2]

Hindu tradition makes mention of the conjunction of the "seven planets" (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, sun and moon) and Ketu (southern lunar node, the northern node/Rahu being by definition in the opposite location) near the fixed star Revati (Zeta Piscium) on 18 February 3102 BC. This date, at which Krishna is supposed to have breathed his last, is conventionally the start of the so-called KaliYuga, the "age of strife", the low point in a declining sequence of four ages.

Bailly and Playfair had already shown that the position of the moon (the fastest moving "planet", hence the hardest to backcalculate with precision) at the beginning of KaliYuga, 18 February 3102, as given by Hindu tradition, was accurate to 37'. Either the Brahmins had made an incredibly lucky guess, or they had recorded an actual observation on Kali Yuga day itself.

3.1.3 The Precession[3] of the Equinox:

The truly strong evidence for a high chronology of the Vedas is the Vedic information about the position of the equinox. The phenomenon of the "precession of the equinoxes" takes the ecliptical constellations (also known as the sidereal Zodiac, i.e. those constellations through which the sun passes) slowly past the vernal equinox point, i.e. the intersection of ecliptic and equator, rising due East on the horizon. The whole tour is made in about 25,791 years, the longest cycle manageable for nakedeye observers. If data about the precession are properly recorded, they provide the best and often the only clue to an absolute chronology for ancient events.

If we can read the Vedic and post-Vedic indications properly, they mention constellations on the equinox points which were there from 4,000 BC for the RgVeda, through around 3100 BC for the Atharva Veda and the core Mahabharata down to 2,300 BC for the Sutras and the Shatapatha Brahmana.

However, our dear Communist historian Romila Thapar, amongst others, still believes that "planetary positions could have been observed in earlier times and such observations been handed down as part of an oral tradition" (Thapar, 1992), so that they "do not constitute proof of the chronology of the Vedic hymns". This is perhaps one of the most illogical arguments that I have come across, for she is implicitly acknowledging that accurate astronomical data were indeed made from the 5th millennium onwards, and that they were preserved for more than two thousand years, an unparalleled feat in oral traditions. If such a feat is not an indication of literacy and of written records, at the least, it supposes a mnemotechnical device capable of preserving information orally, and the one that was available then was verse. So, some poems with the memory aiding devices of verse, rhythm and tone must have been composed when the information was available firsthand, i.e. close to the time of the actual observation, and those hymns would of course be the Vedic hymns themselves.

There are scores of other astronomical references in the Rig-Veda, each of which gives us the date for such an event occurring. These dates range from 3000 odd BC uptil 5000-5500 BC (inferences drawn from the Saptharishi cycle, etc). Whichever date we might choose as the earliest recorded astronomical observation, it is definitely at least a couple of thousand years older than the date given by Max Müller.

3.2 Major flaws in the AIT

Presuming for an instant that the Vedas were given by the nomads, there are few questions that are begging to be answered by the defenders of the theory. Most importantly, how is it that the invaders who scripted the Vedas have not mentioned a word about their original habitat? It is a peculiar phenomenon where rich descriptive accounts regarding the flora, fauna, forests, rivers, mountains, etc of the Indian subcontinent are found but not a single mention of their homeland.

There are constant references to India as their holy land. Why don’t they consider their original home as their holy land? There is no mention of any location outside the mainland of India in any of the Vedic texts! If Aryans came from Europe, then why haven’t the so-called Aryans mentioned any of the European locations in any of the Vedic or related texts? The farthest location away from India towards the west mentioned in the Vedas is Kadhahar of present day Afghanistan, which was called Gandhar in the Vedic texts and was said to be the kingdom of Shakuni.

Why haven’t any of the texts mentioned about their European locations? Why is there no Vedic text that talks about migration from Europe? “If the Aryan Hindus were outsiders, why don't they name places outside India as their most holy places? Why should they sing paeans in the praise of India's numerous rivers crisscrossing the entire peninsula, and mountains - repositories of life giving water and natural resources, nay even bestow them a status of goddesses and gods.” (Agarwal, 1995)

We are also aware that for all ancient civilizations, rivers were the mains source of sustenance and each of these civilizations, in whatever capacity, adulate these rivers and sing praise of them. In the Vedas, Saraswati, Yamuna, Sindhu, Ganga, etc are all mentioned constantly but the question arises as to why the Aryans did not mention any European or Central Asian river, which would have been their source of life previously?

The range of questions does not end here. Further, if the Aryans did come from outside and destroyed its inhabitants and their civilization, why is it that they did not occupy it? The wandering tribe could not have asked for a better home. For, the fact is that the excavations of these sites clearly reveal that these townships had been abandoned. Was the Harappan town, with all its modern, urban facilities not good enough for them? In addition, if, in fact, they did decide not to inhabit Harappa, where did they settle?

Moreover, if the original inhabitants, the Dravidians, were indeed pushed down to the south, how come there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide in the respective literatures and historical traditions? We know that, prior to the arrival of the British, the North and South were not culturally or politically hostile to each other. In fact, the contrary is true. There was a continual intermingling and exchange of culture between the two. The Sanskrit language, the so-called Aryan language was the lingua franca of the entire society for thousands of years. For example, “the three great figures of later Hinduism - Shankaracharya, Ramanujam and Madhavacharya were Southerners who are universally respected in the North, and who have written commentaries on Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit only for the benefit of the entire population. Even in the ancient times, some of the great Sutra authors like Baudhayana and Apastamba were from South. Agastya, a celebrated Vedic rishi, is widely venerated in the South as the one who introduced Vedic learning to the South India.” (Agarwal, 1995)

One of the most important practical and historical complication that arises out of accepting the AIT is the logical wondering about who were the original inhabitants in the south? Was South India uninhabited? Unlikely. Then, did the original inhabitants welcome the Dravidians who were pushed down with wide, open arms? How is it that the Dravidians were accepted without any hostility or at least a grudge? It just does not make sense. The final truth is that there were neither Aryans nor Dravidians.

3.2.1 The Real Meaning of the word Arya

True, the Rig Veda and the other Vedas and Puranas have, at times, mentioned the word Arya. It was dear old Max who is again credited with the introduction of the word Arya into the English language as referring to a racial, linguistic category when propounding the AIT. This is glaringly a false conception of the term, which, he himself has admitted later on. Nonetheless, it was unquestioningly accepted.

The real meaning of the word Arya, however comes to mean ‘a gentleman’, good-natured, righteous person, noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before the name of a person like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc. In Ramayan (Valmiki), for example, Rama is described as an Arya in the following words: Arya - who cared for the equality to all and was dear to everyone. V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionary relates the word Arya to the root r-,to which a prefix a has been appended to give a negating meaning. And therefore the meaning of Arya is given as "excellent, best", followed by "respectable" and as a noun, "master, lord, worthy, honourable, excellent", upholder of Arya values, and further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law, friend, Buddha.

Thus, we see that even in the myriad of meanings and connotations that the word carries, relative to different interpretations, like all Sanskrit words, nowhere does it mean a race or a linguistic group. This linguistically absurd idea was the result of a complete misinterpretation and mistranslation of Sanskrit by Müller. Etymologically, according to Max Müller, the word Arya was derived from ar-, "plough, to cultivate". Therefore, Arya means - "cultivator" agriculturer (civilized sedentary, as opposed to nomads and hunter-gatherers), landlord, etc.

In fact, scientific literature now confirms that there are primarily only four races in the world. There are only four primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mongolian, the Australians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of constant heat, the bodily frame tends to get a little smaller. Moreover, these differences cannot be the basis of two altogether different races. Similar differences one can observe even more distinctly among the people of pure Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any colour ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in between.

Further, a recent landmark global study in population genetics by a team of internationally reputed scientists over 50 years reveals that the people habited in the Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all belong to one single race of Caucasian type. According to this study, there is essentially, and have been no difference racially between north Indians and the so-called Dravidian South Indians. The racial composition has remained almost the same for millennia. This study also confirms that there is no race called as an Aryan race. (Luca Cavalli-Sforza).

3.2.2 WARS AND SKELETONS

The Rig-Veda contains references to wars that have occurred during its period. This is used by the ‘invasionists’ to further their claims about the war between the dark skinned Dravidians and the fair-skinned Aryans. This is a gross misinterpretation of the Vedas and as we shall see, has no connection whatsoever to an invading tribe. So what do these wars that are mentioned refer to? They can be studied under two broad categories: (Agarwal, 1995)

· The Wars between forces of nature: Indra, the Thunder-God of the Rig Veda, occupies a central position in the naturalistic aspects of the Rig Vedic religion, since it is he who forces the clouds to part with their all-important wealth, the rain. In this task he is pitted against all sorts of demons and spirits whose main activity is the prevention of rainfall and sunshine. The clouds are depicted in terms of their physical appearance: as mountains, as the black abodes of the demons who retain the celestial waters of the heavens (i.e. the rains), or as the black demons themselves. Thus, it is a conflict between the rain(pure, white) and the clouds(dark, evil). This, in no way, is to be construed as the war between white Aryans and black Dravidians. This is a perverted interpretation from those who have not understood the meaning and purport of the Vedic culture and philosophy. Most of the verses, which mention the wars/conflicts, are composed using poetic imagery, and depict the celestial battles of the natural forces, and often take greater and greater recourse to terrestrial terminology and anthropomorphic depictions. The descriptions acquire an increasing tendency to shift from naturalism to mythology.

· Actual conflict between different groups: Iranians are known to have been originally residing in Northern India, but had an ideological schism from the Vedic Indians. Due to which, they moved out to the North West. However, there were quite a few wars between the two groups. The Iranians not only called their God Ahura (Vedic Asura) and their demons Daevas (Vedic Devas), but they also called themselves Dahas and Dahyus (Vedic Dasas, and Dasyus). The oldest Iranian texts moreover depict the conflicts between the daeva-worshippers and the Dahyus on behalf of the Dahyus, as the Vedic texts depict them on behalf of the Deva-worshippers. There also mentions of the various conflicts between different indigenous tribal groups over natural resources and various minor kingdoms to gain supremacy over the land and its expansion.

There have been a few skeletons that were excavated from the Harappa and Mohenjo daro sites, which is conveniently explained as the bodies of the warriors who fought the battle against the invaders. However, consider the facts properly. A city of 3 miles in circuit has given way to only 37 skeletons, which can be attributed to the Indus Valley period! Does that represent a war? They were all found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final defence of this thriving capital city to have been made. (Dales, 1964)

Further, one can reasonably expect some sort of souvenirs from the war. The war site can expect to have burned fortresses, arrowheads, weapons, pieces of armour, smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders or defenders, etc. Nevertheless, the extensive excavations at these sites provide not even a clue to such an invasion having been taken place.

3.2.3 INDUS SCRIPT DECIPHERMENT

S. R Rao, a renowned Indian archaeologist, who worked in the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), has done extensive research on the Indus script. This work has borne fruitful results, as he has been able to bridge the gap between the ancient Indus script and the Brahmi script. The language that he deciphered belonged to the Aryan language family after all. The people who resided at Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and other sites were culturally Aryan is thus confirmed by the decipherment of the Harappan script and its identity with Sanskrit family. The Harappa culture was a part of a continuing evolution of the Vedic culture, which had developed on the banks of Saraswati River.

Among the many words yielded by Dr. Rao's decipherment are the numerals aeka, tra, chatus, panta, happta/sapta, dasa, dvadasa and sata (1,3,4,5,7, 10,100) and the names of Vedic personalities like Atri, Kasyapa, Gara, Manu, Sara, Trita, Daksa, Druhu, Kasu, and many common Sanskrit words like, apa (water), gatha, tar (savior), trika, da, dyau (heaven), dashada, anna (food), pa(protector), para (supreme), maha, mahat, moksh, etc.

While the direct connection between the late Indus script (1600 BC) and the Brahmi script could not be definitely established earlier, more and more inscriptions have been found all over the country in the last few years, dating 1000 BC, 700 BC, and so on, which have bridged the gap between the two. Now it is evident that the Brahmi script evolved directly from the Indus script. (Rao, 1991)

3.2.3.1 HORSEPLAY AT HARAPPA

In 2000, N. Jha and N. S Rajaram published a book “The Deciphered Indus Script”. The findings of this book are astounding. It simultaneously achieves a two fold objective: It links the ancient Indus script to the Vedic culture and also proves that the script on the Indus seals are perhaps the oldest available ‘writings’ by any human civilization. “In the Indus seals, we have in all probability the mother of alphabetic writing” is the conclusion drawn after Jha’s phenomenal work. Though the seals were found in 1920s, it could not be appropriately deciphered previous to Jha’s work because of the dogma of the AIT. It is impossible to decipher unless the Indus script can be seen as a predecessor to the Brahmi script and its content cannot be comprehended unless seen as part of the overall Vedic culture. This was yet another blow to the Theory.

However, strangely, this phenomenal work by Jha and Rajaram was sidelined and ‘scholars’ such as Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel were more interested in horses. They go on to label the book as ‘Hindutva propaganda’ (Michael Witzel, 2000). Their main qualm with the book is that the authors have misrepresented a particular seal where a bull is shown to look like a horse.

It is impossible not to question: ...why bother with one unimportant seal when the book gives a complete methodology and one hundred tables of deciphered readings covering over fifteen hundred Harappan seals? In a book of nearly 300 pages, there are just two footnotes about the horse. (The article by Witzel and Farmer occupies ten pages of small print followed by a two-page article by ‘eminent historian’ Romila Thapar about horses.)

The point is that the defenders of the AIT have held that the Harappans did not have horses and it was this point that made them weak and susceptible to the Aryans who had a fairly good cavalry. By proving that horses were, in fact, known to the Indus civilization before the supposed invasion of the Aryans, their entire theory falls flat. Thus all of this horseplay is nothing but a desperate attempt on part of the Western academicians, Indologists and the tribe of Thapars (communist Historians) to save the theory from being completely discarded. “The Frontline article is part of the campaign to somehow save the crumbling edifice of the Aryan invasion version by creating diversions and raising the spectre of ‘Hindutva propaganda’. The real agenda is clear: protect their discredited Aryan invasion/migration version and the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization by labeling opponents as ‘Hindutva propagandists’. The rest is diversion.” (Rajaram N. S., 2000)

“Men like Witzel are successors to these colonial-missionary scholars, while Indians like Thapar and her tribe, are their camp followers. Our book exposes this. So their tactic is to discredit the book by attacking us personally. This is exactly what the ‘Secularists’ did to the distinguished archaeologist B.B. Lal when he exposed their lies at Ayodhya. More things change, more they remain the same.” (Rajaram N. S., 2000)

What reason do the duo give for their long article criticizing Jha’s and Rajaram’s work? What importance is a horse seal from centuries old civilization to the German and American scholars? Why, its the ‘White man’s burden’ card played all over again. Can’t Indians think for themselves and decide the authenticity of the work? Apparently not, which is why they feel they have to caution us. “We fear for India and for objective scholarship.” (Michael Witzel, 2000) So Witzel and Farmer have to save India and Indians from being corrupted by devilish ‘heathens’ and ‘natives’ like Rajaram, Jha and Talageri!

But seriously, who are they trying to kid? Surely, there must be other reasons why someone like Witzel should go to such length to attack two writers who he himself dismisses as of no consequence. One reason is probably emotional. Witzel is a German Romantic. His heroes still are nineteenth century German Indologists like Bothlingk and especially Oldenberg. Therefore, it is natural that he should be attached to nineteenth century German ideas like the ‘Aryan nation’ and the ‘Aryan invasion’. But there is a more serious concern: fear of academic survival in the face of ‘downsizing the humanities’ at American universities. The collapse of the Aryan Invasion model of history, which the work records, and which is receiving wide notice, could not have come at a worse time for the likes of Witzel. Their careers and reputations are at stake. This is what one needs to understand. Harvard, like many other universities, in America is not interested in funding research offices and programs that are unproductive and which does not attract new students. Thus, unless Witzel and his likes do not weave research papers regularly, off goes their funding.

That apart, horses were really found in Harappa. Numerous excavated sites along Indus valley and along the dried Saraswati river have produced bones of domesticated horses. Dr. SR Rao informs us that horse bones have been found both from the 'Mature Harappan' and 'Late Harappan' levels. In fact, as far back as 1928, John Marshall, Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India had written about Harappan sites: “Among the domesticated animals were— the humped long horned Indian bull (Bos Indicus) (of which to judge by the frequency of the remains large herds must have been maintained), the sheep, pig, dog, horse and the elephant.” And he is quite specific about the horse: “The horse in the Indus Valley was the small ‘equis cabalus’ near akin to the Indian country bred.”

3.3 David Frawley’s paradox

The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over a vast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to be living an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the other hand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in the world. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record that they ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicating a substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around 2000 BC. (Frawley, 1999)

Sanskrit is supposed to be the language of primitive invaders and yet it is, by the opinion of many, one of the most refined languages in the world. It has been regarded as the best language for computers because of its clarity. How can a nomadic primitive tribe develop such a sophisticated language while a highly advanced civilization with intense knowledge of maths and science has no literary developments at all?

Sanskrit is also a highly self-contained language developing organically out of specific roots, quite unlike English, which is a mixture of various different languages like old German, Danish and French, with an admixture of Greek and Latin, reflecting a land that was invaded by many different peoples. This also goes to show that Sanskrit was home to the Indus Valley Civilization.

3.4 The real explanation

Though for many years now, renowned scholars and academicians have been refuting the AIT on numerous grounds but, were not able to provide a firm alternative explanation to the reason of the abandonment of the Harappan cities. The final nail on the coffin of the AIT was delivered with the finding of the dried course of the river Saraswati.

In the Rig-Veda, the honour of the greatest and holiest river was not bestowed upon Ganga but upon the River Saraswati. a mighty flowing river all the way from the Himalayas to the ocean across the Rajasthan desert. The Ganga is mentioned only once while the Saraswati is mentioned at least 60 times.

In 1910, G E Pilgrim published a landmark paper in which he drew attention to an alluvial deposit of great antiquity found stretching all the way from the Himalayan foothills to the Sind gulf Pilgrims imagined the deposit to have been laid by a primitive river. Recent satellite imagery by the NASA and ISRO have shown a dried up river bed along this course. Geological excavations have also proven the same.

The River Saraswati seemed to have changed directions atleast four times in her lifespan, each time shifting to a more westerly alignment according to geological data. She seems to have been massive, up to five miles across in her heyday, flowing through Hanumangarh in Rajasthan to Marot in Pakistan as divulged by satellite photography. The Post Graduate Research Institute, Deccan College has worked out the changing routes of the river in detail. About 4000 BC, Saraswati in her original course emanating from the Himalayas lay in a south-west direction passing through Mathura and Panchbhadra to the mouth of the Kutch. With the climate turning drier, the flow shifted between Sirsa and Nohar through Bikaner. The next shift occurred with the flow through Rangmahal, also in Rajasthan. In the tertiary stage she wended her way through Jaikkal and Hanumangarh during the Indus civilisation and in the fourth and final stage she flowed westward from Samargarh to merge with the Indus, thereby losing her independent identity'. (Rao V. G., 2000). And therefore, the river, finally, dried up by 3000 BC.

This has two serious implications. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the Rig-Veda is full of praise to this particular river. The river called Saraswati is the most important of the rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda. The image of this 'great goddess stream' dominates the text. It is not only the most sacred river but also the Goddess of wisdom. She is said to be the Mother of the Veda.

A few Rig Vedic hymns, which mention Saraswati River, are presented below:

ambitame naditame devitame sarasvati (II.41.16)
(The best mother, the best river, the best Goddess, Saraswati)

maho arnah saraswati pra cetayati ketuna dhiyo visva virajati (I.3.12)
(Saraswati like a great ocean appears with her ray, she rules all inspirations)

surpassing all other rivers and waters: visva apo mahina sindhur anyah;

pure in her course from the mountains to the sea: sucir yati girbhya a samudrat (VII.95.1-2)

If the river dried up by 3000 BC, then it must have been flowing in its full intensity at least a 1000 years back when she would have deserved the praises accorded to her in the Veda. This proves that the Rig-Veda belongs to a period of at least 4000 BC, much earlier than the supposed invasion.

The second important implication is that it proves that the Harappan civilization was formed on the bed of the River, much like any ancient civilization. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river. A 350 km land survey conducted in 1985 by V S Wakankar from Adibadri to Somnath has yielded over 160 more sites on the dried-up course of the river. Thus, when the river did dry up in 3000 BC, the Harappans, who were dependent on the mighty river, moved along with the river when she changed her course. The ending of Indus Valley and the Saraswati civilization was due to the constant floods and drought in the Indus area and the drying up of the Saraswati River. There was no invasion or battle but merely an ecological change that made the Harappans abandon their home and move towards other perennial rivers, which could provide sustenance. This is the truth and there ends the matter!

4. CONCLUSION

We have seen that the AIT was the invention of a few parochial and nationalist scholars, which is used till date for political ends. The far-reaching consequences of this theory cannot be overstated and, as we have seen, never before in history has any theory been so abused to subjugate a group of people.

The truth is clear: there was never an invasion but the city was deserted because of ecological reasons. The Rig-Veda dates clearly earlier than 3700 BC and the Indus script can be placed on a continuum of the evolution of the Sanskritic script.

Based on Vedic testimonies, Puranic references, archaeological evidences, and all the accounts presented here above, the most realistic and accurate chronological events of the pre-historic period of India should be fixed as follows:

Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BC
End of Rig Vedic Age - 3750 BC
End of Ramayana - Mahabharat Period - 3000 BC
Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-2000 BC
Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-1900 BC
Period of Complete chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BC
Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400 - 250 BC

Finally, we should remember that this was just another tool in the British armor in their colonial expansion agenda, which is strangely supported by a blindly following group of Indian historians and has, unfortunately, succeeded in permeating the mindset of the Indian population.

Therefore, while acknowledging its falsity on the personal level is the first step, much needs to be done with regards to exposing the myth in the eyes of the public. This perhaps, entails sweeping out of irresponsible, dishonest and ideologically fixed academicians from prominent posts, who decide what the young minds imbibe and simultaneously endeavour to rewrite history based on facts and academic honesty!

Works Cited

Agarwal, D. (1995). Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Dales, G. F. (1964). The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro, Expedition Vol VI.

Dubois, A. (1897). Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies.

Elst, K. (1998). Astronomical data and the Aryan question. Leuven .

Frawley, D. (1999). The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza, P. M. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press.

Michael Witzel, S. F. (2000). Horseplay in Harappa. Frontline .

Nahar, M. D. (1996). The Invasion that never Was.

Playfair, J. (1790). Dharampal: Indian Science and Technology.

Rajaram, N. Aryan Invasion - History or Politics?

Rajaram, N. S. (2000). Harappan Horseplay: The real story.

Rao, S. R. (1991). Decipherment of the Indus Script, Dawn and Development of Indus Civilization, Lothal and the Indus Civilization.

Rao, V. G. (2000, November 13). Saraswati: River Beyond the Myth. Times Of India .

Thapar, R. (1992). The Perennial Aryans.

Vivekananda. The Myth of Aryans and non-Aryans. Madras.

[1] This section largely involves the work of Dr. Koenraad Elst, from his paper “Astronomical data and the Aryan question” as I have little knowledge of astronomy myself.

[2] The next few sections are a little tough to comprehend if one is not familiar with the Hindu calendar and astronomy in general.

[3] For the uninitiated, precession refers to the regular motion of a spinning body such as a spinning top or a planet, in which the axis of rotation describes a cone.

TIGHTROPE WALKER

2008-11-18T10:48:00.001-08:00

Try to conceive a tight rope walker balancing on a rope tied between two identical buildings. The rope represents the man’s current state. Man is something that must be overcome as he is a bridge with no ends. Thus while it is highly impossible for any one to balance on the rope it is impossible to stay there, eliminating the rope as a possibility for being the goal. Then again if it is two identical buildings and the walker has just left one then it is impossible that the other building should become a goal.

Then what exactly do these represent?? The building he has left is himself, the building he is targeting is himself and finally the rope he is walking on is himself. Thus the man is overcoming himself and in the process of doing so, he is overcoming others.

"Here man has been overcome at every moment; this has here become the greatest reality--whatever was so far considered great in man lies beneath him at an infinite distance. (The abyss.) The halcyon, the light feet, the omnipresence of malice and exuberance, and whatever else is typical of the type of man. While he has overcome self he is at a great height and he is looking down to see the people.

The rope is reality, reality without illusions--dangerous, elusive, contradictory, terrible and beautiful. Only while balancing on the rope, can man, look into that abyss, truly see it.

It also represents a kind of transformation and transcendence of man’s animal instincts. Here, man is seen as the bridge between the animals and finally the ubermensch or the overman that he must strive to become. Humans are not the be all and end all of existence, as the "last men" would see themselves. We are still largely governed by our animal instincts, which lead us to prejudice, superficiality, and to easy reliance upon faith. In order to refine our being, we must turn our instinct for cruelty upon ourselves, and carve away at our prejudices, superficiality, and faith, creating something deeper. Zarathustra speaks of the triumphant moment where we look with contempt upon all the human qualities that we once valued. This would signify our triumph over our shallow, human nature, and our progress toward the overman.

IDEOLOGY, CONDITIONING AND ORIGINAL THINKING

2008-11-18T07:14:00.000-08:00

A small discussion in Socio class today made me go into a thought spiral. A small phrase about ideology being borrowed that was thrown in in the class got me thinking about the whole issue of ideology, conditioned knowledge and original thinking.

This is basically my proposal: There have been great amount of writing on the greatness of human intelligence, its unlimited capacity and the general wonder that it is. However, most people have overlooked one great flaw or shortcoming in the human intelligent order: our extremely limited imagination/ creativity. All our existing thinking patterns are nothing but products of conditioning of a particular social structure or existing thinking patterns. Thus, there is really no such thing as a novel idea, creative thinking, creating new forms of thinking, etc. When we think we have come up with an original idea, it is nothing but furtherance of existing cognitive order and knowledge based. There can be no original idea, no new theory which is not already based upon existing knowledge. Even if this idea is in sharp contrast to the existing order, it is still dependent on the knowledge base for its survival.

So can there be any original thinking at all? IS there anything called original or is it just an extension of the present knowledge based? Can there be a single thought that is free from all other thoughts, from previous conditioning? The answer is no!!!

Even in rebellion, one can but see the influence of present conditioning!Historically, there've been ideas that have dramatically shifted from existing moral order. Ideas that are contrary to the present thinking patterns which are known as paradigm shifts... Marx, Montesquieu, etc might have all architectured these shifts but doesn't the shift literally mean that they're moving from an existing position of perception to a new one because of whatever shortcomings they found... Such revolutionary ideas are not really that revolutionary... It is a change in thinking but within the same conceptual frameworks and social structure...

Let me move on to the next aspect - imagination.
One of the high points of human intelligence is our supposed great imagination capacity. Again, following the logical sequence, I believe that our imagination wither has a long way to go or it's just that we can never really achieve higher levels of imagination. We cannot imagine new things. Our imagination always requires supply of material from real life for fabrication.
Have you ever wondered about the fact that we can never really dream of unknown things. Every element that presents itself in a dream is a product of previous experience. We never really dream of unknown faces or locations. We use, in different proportions, things that we have previously viewed to fabricate dreams.
Like the anti- cliché goes: Man created God in his own image!

Let us take a more practical example... Something that has been eluding me for quite some time. We've all watched alien movies... The depiction of the aliens provide an excellent example. We've always created figures and images of aliens in more or less human or animal terms. We use the concepts, imagery, etc known to us in diff combination to try and recreate alien images. For ex: aliens always use eyes, some form of organs for movement, and basically are represented as a mutated form of organisms that we have encountered. We are never able to transcend this limitation of our imagination. If we take this step further, apart from the use of known organs, aliens are also represented in the familiar concepts. Concepts such as vision, movement, life, cognition, communication, interaction, survival, etc. What if aliens are unknown to the concept of vision or movement? What if aliens don't know what sensation is? what if there's no death for aliens? What if...

Ultimately imagination is heavily dependent on knowledge, and knowledge is acquired... thus with the law of transitivity, imagination is acquired and hence, cannot be new or original!

NAXALISM

2008-11-18T07:05:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION:

In 2004, during his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh admitted that the Naxalism was the “single biggest threat to India’s internal security” bypassing the more ostensible contenders like fundamental terrorism, insurgency movements and cross-border terrorism. In retrospect, this acknowledgement by the government is a positive step in itself.

Naxalism unlike other militant movements has the double dubious distinction of not being confined to either a single issue or to a single region. The significance of the problem of Naxalism cannot be overstated as it reflects deeper shortcomings of the socio-economic system itself. The birth, maintenance and inspiration for the movement are derived from the faulty structure of the socio-economic system.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NAXAL MOVEMENT:

The decade of the 1960’s will be remembered as one that sparked revolutions all over the globe. “There was music in the cafés at night and revolution in the air” . There were mass uprisings against the system in different parts of the World. France had its students and workers’ movement against the Charles de Gaulle govt, there was a cultural revolution in China, a Maoist led sociological repression, apart from the several communist guerrilla rebellions.

India too had her share with the spontaneous uprising of peasants in Naxalbari, a hitherto unknown small hamlet in West Bengal. This was largely due to oppressive land tenure system and the general economic backwardness of the masses that existed there. Though the seeds were sown in Telengana in 1948 in Andhra, the Naxalbari movement was the first concentrated communist revolutionary movement of the peasants against the state. Comrade Charu Mazumdar was at the forefront of the revolution and the mainstay of the movement in the initial years.

The ideology of naxalism soon assumed larger dimension and entire state units of CPI (M) in Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and some sections in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh joined the struggle. The AICCCR was formed as the leading organization for the Naxalite movement. Then on it has been a story of violence, party splits, insurgency, counter-insurgency, more violence, more party splits, unification, etc.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAXAL STRUGGLES:

It is a common mistake to label the Naxalites as just another terrorist group. There cannot be a greater folly. While possessing a completely different ideology, the Naxals stand out in terms of mode of operation and organizational structure. Other terrorists attack the Indian state at its strong points—its secularism, its inclusiveness, its democracy. Naxalism attacks where it is weakest: in delivering basic government services to those who need them most. The Naxalites do not threaten the government in Delhi, but they do have the power to deter investment and development in some of India's poorest regions, which also happen to be among the richest in some vital resources-notably iron and coal. So their movement itself has the effect of sharpening inequity, which many see as the biggest danger facing India in the next few years, and which is the Naxalites' recruiting sergeant.

Forty years after the Naxalbari uprising, it is remarkable that Maoism remains a potent political force. It has survived the disappearance of Maoism in the land of its origin and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. It has survived the retreat of the Left in academia and trade unions, which contributed to the rise of a middle class that was indifferent to politics in general and the Left in particular. It has survived the rise of caste, as opposed to class, politics.

IMPACT OF THE NAXALITE MOVEMENT ON INDIAN SOCIETY:

IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY:

The Maoists campaign against the government will have far-reaching consequences on India's stability and, most particularly, its energy security. It is an alarming fact that the Naxalite insurgency is strongest precisely in the areas with the richest natural resources, especially the coal that is the power behind the Indian economy.

The state of Chattisgarh is by far the worst effected with the Naxal problem and woefully, the state is generously endowed with rich minerals and other natural resources. Forest accounts for 46% of the total land area. Sal and teak are the main trees of the forests both of which have high economical value. Timber accounts for 40% of the total revenue from the forest sector. Chattisgarh is home to 28 varieties of major minerals including Bauxite, Garnet, Quartz, Aluminium, Diamond and Gold. In addition, the state produces all the tin ore in India and is renowned for having one of the best iron ore deposits the world over.

The Naxalites have a presence in almost half of India's 28 states, while in some of the poorer and most heavily tribal states, particularly Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkand and West Bengal, they have turned into a political force to reckon with. These five states account for about 85% of India's coal resources, and continued disruption and deterioration of the political environment could lead to profound consequences for both India and its neighbours.

Coal is an important part of the Indian Economy as it accounts for about 55% of India's current primary energy supply and 75% of its electricity generation. A prolonged or excessively costly resource war in these states could cripple the economy and alter the global import balance if India has to look elsewhere for energy resources.

Naxalites frequently levy their own "taxes" on resource extraction in districts within their control while many ideological Naxalites are opposed to the development of additional coalmines and power plants at any price.

The Naxalite insurgency is creating hurdles in India’s economic growth story. Naxalite insurgency could not only hamper India’s economic growth but also restrict the in-flow of Foreign Direct Investment into the country.

Fear of being caught in the cross-fire between the Maoists and the state law officers has forced over 3000 villagers in the Naxal controlled region of Andhra Pradesh to refuse telephone connections. The villagers fear that they would be caught between the two warring parties if they apply for phone connections. Either the Maoists would suspect them of being police informers or the cops would label as Maoist sympathisers refusing to pass on information.

Intelligence sources estimate that roughly INR 40-50 crore is extorted by the PWG in Andhra Pradesh alone each year. Similarly, papers seized during special operations in the Garhwa-Palamau areas of Bihar provide evidence of enormous and organised financial operations in which targets and 'block budgets' are defined for each 'squad' of the MCC . Thus, one such squad had raised INR seven million in a single year. In addition, Naxalite squads exercise a monopolistic control over forest produce and government contracts in their areas of dominance, and also receive a substantial share of all development funding flowing into these areas. Moreover, the Naxalites also engage in, or control, significant levels of illegal economic activity, especially the illegal harvesting and smuggling of forest produce. This does not include the money spent on counter-insurgency operations by the govt as it is incalculable.

One has to remember that Naxalites are themselves, the cause and effect of economic backwardness and underdevelopment. While they rose to prominence with a view to develop the hitherto overlooked areas of India, they seem to be blocking all forms of developmental activity initiated by the govt in its vow to fight it. Thus, they systematically block infrastructure development (roads and telephones), stop industries and factories from being set up and finally protests against foreign investment in these areas, the general path of development taken by the GOI.

VIOLENCE AND MODUS OPERANDI:

Though the stream of Naxalite violence had been subdued during the 80’s, it has found a new vigour in the 90’s and post 2000. The Naxalites operate mostly in the interiors of the forests of the backward areas as previously mentioned. Apart from violence carried out on the developmental projects and energy projects, their other favourite target includes police stations.

Telephone exchanges are the second most favourite targets of the Maoists after police stations. A total of 270 exchanges have been attacked so far with Andhra Pradesh accounting for 265. The damage caused by these attacks ranges anywhere from Rs.30,000 to Rs. 50 lakh. Each time the Maoists attack a telephone exchange, they not only succeed in cutting off all lines of communication but also scare people about the repercussions of using these utilities.

Some of the deadliest Maoist attacks in the past 5 years:

•An attack on ex-CM Janardhan Reddy in 2007 and on TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu in 2003.
•2004: Over 1000 Maoists looted over 2000 sophisticated guns worth Rs 50 crore.
•Jehanabad Jail-break (2005), involving the freeing of over 375 prisoners and looting 200 rifles and freed 40 prisoners in Orissa in 2006 and again 303 in Chhatisgarh in 2007.
•2006: Attack on relief camp in Chhatisgarh, killing 25, kidnapping 20.
•2007: Attack on police outpost in Chhatisgarh killing 55 security personnel, looted weapons.
•2008: Attack on police outposts and training camps in Orissa, killing 45 security personnel and looting over crores of Rs worth ammunition.

Now, I shall proceed to make a closer examination of the particular causes behind the Naxal movement in the Indian context.

Overall, the Naxalite challenge rests upon the issues of agrarian transformation, tribal people's rights, the nationality movement and resisting imperialism and globalisation. All this adds up to what they characterise as the people's democratic revolution to change the very character of the Indian state. Because of the issues they pursue, the Naxalites have a social base, which sustains them despite a variety of repressive measures pursued by the state.

The reasons for the Naxals' success are fairly straightforward. Naxals flourish where there are huge disparities in assets and incomes, and where injustice and violence by the privileged are rampant. “The Naxal movement is irrepressible because it draws sustenance from the grievances of the people which have not be addressed by the government”

We are all quite familiar with the plight of the average tiller who works on an Absentee landlord’s lands for pittance of a pay for his labour. All the hitherto sufferers of the oppressive Zamindhari and land tenure system of Indian society are sympathizers of the Naxal cause mainly due to the fact that the Naxals are sympathizers to theirs.

While, economic backwardness are some of the primary causes, Naxalism is as much a crisis of political empowerment. It is hardly surprising that Naxal influence is strongest in tribal India. Tribals, more than any other oppressed category, have got nothing out of the Indian state, before or after globalisation. The Indian state has always taken land alienation of tribals for granted, as one of the consequences of 'progress' that must be put up with owing to a skewed pattern of land distribution, tribals and Dalits are at the receiving end of the land- owning castes. However, they do not possess adequate political resources (power) to be able to fight for their cause, which is a classical example of Bachrach and Baratz second dimension of power.

In addition, a contractor-politician nexus controls the wealth of the forests and pushes tribals to the margins. A repressive state apparatus, represented by the police and the black laws they use to their advantage, helps keep this exploitative system going.

With the opening up of the Indian economy to trade and investment, the entry of mining companies in Orissa and Chhattisgarh poses a threat to the livelihood of tribals and their way of life. Naxalites are among those — though not the only, or even main, political force — who are with the tribals in this context. Even as their adherence to violence cannot be condoned, it is no worse than the violence of the state and oppressive forces in the region.

The entry of MNCs is doing no good to the oppressed duo (dalits and tribals) either. FDIs, MNCs and giant private corporate houses all want a share of the rich natural resources that rural India is endowed with. While they are pushing indiscriminately and a more than willing state apparatus to please them, the effect on their entry on the indigenous population is oft forgotten. The only recourse the tribals have, it seems, is to join the Naxals.

GOVERNAMENTAL FAILURE:

The govt is definitely a top contender to take a part of the blame for the current problem. This is not to be construed as the govt being the main culpable for the problem. Instead, it reflects the govt’s failure to handle the bad situation in a better fashion, thus, making things worse. A series of faulty policy measures or plain incompetence has left the discontent groups at worse stages.

To start with, it was the failure of the govt machinery in its policy of land reforms. Land reforms were never seriously implemented. Ceiling on land holdings was treated as a joke by the rich landlords, who could easily evade the laws. Consolidation of land holding and tenancy reforms was an utter failure. Co-operative farming, micro-finance, rural credit, and a whole array of such well-intentioned schemes never saw the light of the day. Land acquisition for industrialization and a horrible record of implementing R&R packages are other factors aggravating the problem. In brief, the govt utterly failed in addressing the problems of the rural poor who form a bulk of the Indian population.

One of the costliest mistakes of the govt was to treat the Naxalite problem as a mere ‘law and order’ problem, failing to recognise the underlying socio-economic tones. The waves of rebellion and revolution was sustained mainly due to the fact that the govt continued to look the other way when it came to matters of developing the really underdeveloped regions of the country. Since, it was treated as a law and order problem, the govt adopted a battery of repressive measures which only contributed to make matters worse. It increased state spending on paramilitary forces, special task police, and ordinary police to try to repress the movement. Violence cannot be solved with counter-violence. The repression only infuriated the naxals more and resulted in fresh violence. It was nothing short of an all out war between the state and the rebel forces, overlooking the heavy toll it took on citizen’s lives, property and peaceful existence.

Banning the organizations was the other costly mistake. This resulted in denying the necessary political space, which otherwise might, perhaps, have led the rebels to seek justice within the constitutional provisions. In addition, the label of being a banned organization shed the naxalites of all responsibility towards a responsible approach.

Perhaps, one of the most juvenile and puerile course of action that the govt took was to employ the Salwa-Judum, counter insurgency movement. Though govt officials claim that it was a spontaneous uprising by the tribals against the naxals, the neutral NGO reports speak otherwise. The govt accepted, coerced and seduced the tribals into becoming armed groups to fight Naxals.

The Naxalite problem recently got aggravated because of the Indian state's withdrawal from public services, leading to their near-collapse, and the growing illegitimacy of governance in many regions, coupled with massive corruption. This has led to failing states in many parts of India. Agrarian distress, growing unemployment, and depredations of the forester-contractor mafia, have intensified popular discontent. As has unequal globalisation.

SOLUTIONS:

Obviously, because of the multitude of causes and the multifarious manifestations of the problem, there cannot possibly be a single solution. Instead, the govt should try and attack the problem at the cause itself. Mentioning the causes which have to be attacked would be unnecessary but it has to be noted that the alleviation of poverty and amelioration of socio-economic backwardness seems to be the instant mantra for any sort of reprise. The govt should learn from its own experience, both positive and negative. For instance, in the late 70s, the West Bengal govt carried out land reform schemes extensively in Naxal affected areas. This led to the disappearance of the movement and the creation of happy and a new wealthy peasant class. Notice how there is no mention of Naxal activities in Naxalbari, the birthplace of the movement. Land reforms and tribal rights have to be implemented!
Excessive spending on the armed forces is definitely not the solution, but for the short run, the govt should upgrade its armed personnel in terms of training and weaponry so that the police do not find themselves in a situation where they are as scared as the next ordinary citizen.

Moreover, the govt should give the Naxals a democratic space for self-expression and encouraging them to come overground. This was a success in Andhra Pradesh in the 80s and recently in 2004, when peace talks were held.

While these are the basic solutions, I would like to mention that the latest govt report on the Naxals is definitely a step in the right direction. It has pinpointed many causes for previous lapses and offers many novel solutions based on a good understanding of the problem. Though it will be useless to repeat what the report says, it is however, necessary to mention that implementation is the key.

CONCLUSION:
Now that we know that the situation of the oppressed classes is bad and that the govt has done nothing, we must ask the inevitable question – Was the Naxals of any use? What did they achieve?

The story of the Naxalite movement on the ground certainly has had beautiful aspects and inspiring moments. The Naxalite movement has been a significant political movement of our times. Politically, the movement has raised important questions regarding India's democracy and underlined the need to bring about "a people's democracy". There have also been significant practical achievements in specific areas: curbing of feudal practices and social oppression; confiscation and redistribution of ceiling surplus land; more equitable access to village commons; higher agricultural wages; elimination of the stranglehold of landlords, moneylenders, and contractors; protection from harassment by forest department officials and the police; heightened political consciousness and empowerment of the poor, amongst others.

The question remains whether the same results could not have been achieved through non-violent or at least less violent means. The use of indiscriminate violence has taken a heavy toll and has negated what the Naxals stood for.

On the other hand, like a lot of other cultural and social revolutions in the world, Naxalism too has slowly diluted into petty wars, quick materialistic gains and a taste for violence. The Naxal ideology serves as an excellent platform for unemployed, uneducated youth to extort, kidnap, use violence and ultimately feel the power of taking others’ lives. I wonder if the newly recruited youth, who are attracted mainly by a steady wage promised by the naxals, a secure shelter, supply of arms, etc, still remember the slogans of the Naxalbari uprising, or the cause for which Charu Mozumdar gave his life to, or what Marx really meant by armed resistance and false consciousness.

Ultimately, because of either the govt or the Naxals or the perpetual war between the two, it is the common person who suffers. India still has a long way to go before it can reach and solve the root causes of such problems.

The Jharkhand Tribal Movement

2008-11-07T09:21:00.000-08:00

The tribes of the Chotanagpur region have been subjected repeatedly to outside invasions from the Mughal to the British to the Hindu Zamindars. The tribals were marginalized when the Hindu traders and Muslim farmers had moved in and modern law and administration was established. British authority and its accompanying array of devises facilitated the process of pauperizing the tribals. The administration was manned by outsiders and there was introduction of paper currency which was alien to the tribals. Their villages were in the hands of the landlords who were committed to the expropriation of tribals. All this had one inevitable result: that of armed resistance.

The 19th century rebellions have been attributed to the twin consequences of illegal deprivation of tribal lands and the reduction of the tribals to a state of poverty and indebtedness.

The first ever revolt against the landlords and the British government was led by Tilka Manjhi, a valiant Santhal leader in Santal tribal belt in 1771. He wanted to liberate his people from the clutches of the unscrupulous landlords and restore the lands of their ancestors. The British government sent its troops and crushed the uprisings of Tilka Manjhi.

Soon after in 1779, the Bhumij tribes rose in arms against the British rule in Manbhum, now in West Bengal. The Bhumij were always conspicuous as a turbulent people. Whenever the authorities made any attempt to settle the jungle Mahals, the Bhumij rose in open revolt. This was followed by the Chero tribes unrest in Palamau. They revolted against the British Rule in 1800 AD. Hardly seven years later in 1807, the Oraons in Barway murdered their big landlord of Srinagar west of Gumla. Soon the uprisings spread around Gumla. The tribal uprisings spread eastward to neighbouring Tamar areas of the Munda tribes.

THE TAMAR REVOLT
The landlords were given extraordinary powers and the authority to evict the tenants, dispose of and sell their property, and even seize their persons without recourse to the court of law. The tenants had no documentary evidence of their rights.
Signs of tribal unrest became evident. In 1789, there was an insurrection in Tamar, which was put down by the military, but disturbances followed again in 1794 and 95. Police outstations were now introduced who joined hands with the powerful landlords to further worsen the state of the Tribals. Further insurrections followed in 1811, 1817 and 1820. The Hos in Singhbhum were growing restless and came out in open revolt in 1820 and fought against the landlords and the British troops for two years. This is called the Larka Kol Risings 1820-1821.
The Kol Insurrection was the biggest uprising against the British empire (Dec1831 to Jan 1832) which united the Oraons, Hos, and Mundas in a frenzied but short-lived outburst. They had decided that not a single foreigner should be left alive in their land. In every village, the Suds(Hindus) and the dikus were murdered, plundered and their houses were burnt down. By the end of January, the rebels were in control of the Chotanagpur as the British were not expecting such an upheaval. It was not until March that the rebellion could be suppressed.

THE SANTHAL REBELLION: 1855-57

The Santhals occupy the third place among the major tribes of India. Santhal Paraganas form the largest political unit if this tribe.
The Santhal rebellion was one of the more pronounced instances of tribal resistance to the growing deterioration in their conditions. 4 factors were primarily seen as instrumental in its eruption:

1. Exploitation by moneylenders
2. The misery caused by their wicked and immoral system of allowing personal and hereditary bondage for debt.
3. The corruption of the police in aiding the moneylenders.
4. The impossibility for the Santhals of obtaining redress from the courts.

Rising prices, deteriorating financial conditions, bonded labour all loomed in the background while two brothers Sidhu and Kanhu kindled the revolution with their tale of divine inspiration. In it, they were instructed to kill and end all the diku rule themselves. The beginning of the movement was marked by peaceful submission of petitions and grievances. A few spontaneous murders of moneylenders and traders occurred. Soon, the tribals picked up the only weapon he possessed and knew to operate, the bow and the axe. They soon went on a rampage killing police officers, moneylenders, railway attendants and the Zamindhars. The brothers were in command of the entire operations. In a last desperate measure, the brothers led an army of 30,000 Santhals to Calcutta to petition the Governor-general.

In a fierce engagement between the British and some 4,000 Santhals on 15-7-1855, the latter ultimately lost the battle after their leaders Sidhu and Kanhu were wounded with bullets. Later, 12 Santhal villages were set on fire by Captain Sherwill. And again a cluster of 15 villages were destroyed. There was a year long hard fought battle which witnessed 10,000 – 15,000 deaths, mostly Santhals. The British had crushed them.

Owing to the mutiny of 1857 and the Santhal rebellion itself, a few temporary administrative reforms were introduced. These were quickly nullified and the tribals soon found themselves in the same old boat. Many other fractured and small rebellions took place under various leaders which did not yield any positive result like those under Bhagirat Manjhi, Dubia Gosian and the Kerwar movement and the Sardar Agitation.

THE BIRSA MUNDA MOVEMENT: 1895-1900

This was the last of the heroic tribal movements of the 19th century in the Chotanagpur plateau. The mundas had been living in the Chotanagpur plateau for more than 2000 years and are one of the most ancient settlers in this land.
The revolt essentially started as an economic one like many other tribal revolts but soon turned into a political one. They fought against the British who openly supported the exploiters namely the Zamindhars and money lenders who took advantage of the corrupt British and Indian officials. In 1856, there were in Bihar 600 Zamindhar dikus holding land ranging from a portion of a single village to even 150 villages each.

The introduction of rent for the land, a concept hitherto unknown to the tribals, infuriated them. Then there was collection of taxes for just about any reason. The British courts, unfamiliar with the tribal language had to depend upon the local interpreters to act as middle men. These people were only too pleased to help their powerful landowners. Thus, the tribals could not get justice from any direction and led them to believe that it rest upon themselves to rid the place of dikus.
The dikus, unable to comprehend the social and political organization of the tribals simply dismissed them and replaced with limbs of modern governmental machinery. Worst of all, the tribal customs, practices and superstitions were dismissed lightly. Another important reason for the revolt was of course, the concept of Beth Begari, or what is known today as Bonded labour.
General poverty led many of the Mundas to leave their ancestral homes and shift to work in the Assam tea plantations and their earnings were spent mostly on liquor.

Though at first the struggle commenced by attacking the land-lords, later it was directed against the ruling British authorities and the Christian missionaries, as the Christian missionaries over emphasis on conversion irritated the Mundas. They now helped only the tribals who had converted and oppressed the non-converts and with the aid of the authorities, perpetuated atrocities against them. This resulted first in the Sardari Larai (1890).

The hero of the revolt had been Birsa Munda, who on account of piety, virtuous life and reputation for possessing psychic powers which enabled him to have communion with God, came to be known as Birsa Bhagwan. His followers came to be known as Birsite Bhagats. He believed that the Mundas will be able to regain their lost kingdom with the annihilation of the enemies. He then wanted to establish Birsaite Raj in which he would be the King. He had, by now, a firm belief that he was a divine incarnation fit to lead his people.

The core of Birsa’s message had initially been social and religious. He called upon the Mundas to uproot superstition, abjure animal sacrifise, cease taking intoxicants. Birsa Munda continuously infused the tribals with a sense of their destiny with many of the ancient myths that lay embedded in the popular consciousness.

He advised people to not to obey the police, the magistrates and the landlords and to boycott the ‘beth begari sytem’. He spoke against unlawful land acquisition and tried to unite his people against the diabolic exploitative triad of zamindhar, foreigner and traders.
In 1895, Arson and arrow firing against the Christian missionaries and few police stations started in an epidemic scale under the leadership of the Birsa. There were secret meetings held on the hill tops where they would plan their next attacks which would be carried out sincerely by the Mundas. 3-4 revolts later, the police got a tip off on the next location and surrounded the Dombari hill. The arrows were met with the bullets, yet surprisingly the toll was not alarming. Then, the police systematically arrested the disciples of Birsa, who had by now absconded into the thick of the forests.

The Mundas were galvanized into martial fury and carried out their revolts with great courage and determination. The results were, however, the same whenever the tribals fought the mighty British: they were crushed. Birsa was captured, released and finally recaptured after his forces suffered a terrible crushing by the British army in 1900. With his death, the Birsa movement slipped into oblivion but he had succeeded in giving them a solidarity which was missing before. Again, some temporary measures were taken.

THE TANA BHAGAT MOVEMENT: 1915-1920

The next major tribal movement was the Tana Bhagat Movement organized by the Oraons from 1915 – 1920. The movement took its origins at the hands of Jatra Bhagat and Hanuman Oraon. Like all else, it was anti-Zamindhari, anti-missionary, anti-British. The main features of the movement were:
1) Self government
2) Abolition of Rajship
3) Perfect equality between man and man
4) No rent payment.

It then merged with the mainstream national movement, firmly Gandhian by then. The enemies and reasons were retained from the previous rebellions. They refused to pay rent to the non-tribal Landlords as land was a gift from God to the tribals. They then, went on to participate in the civil disobedience movement of 1930 by refusing to pay rent. This did not quite provide fruitful results, largely due to the peculiarities of their situation.

FROM ETHNICITY TO REGIONALISM:

From the 1920s, the focuses shifted from small, sporadic tribal uprisings to party politics led by an urbanized intelligentsia.
The foremost objective was to expel the ‘dikus’ from the Chotanagpur and Santhal Paraganas, to recover ancestral tribal lands that had been forcibly alienated. Allied to this primary imperatives was the demand for a larger share in the revenue generated from this territory. Finally, the tribals wanted recognition of their special historical status recognized within the Indian union by the reservation of jobs and places in the administrative structure.

In 1915 the Chotanagpur Unnati Samaj was started for the socio-economic development of the tribals. This organisation had also political objectives in mind. When the Simon Commission in 1928 came to Patna the Chotanagpur Unnati Samaj sent its delegation and placed its demand for a separate Jharkhand State for self-rule by the tribals. The Simon Commission however did not accede to the demand for a separate Jharkhand State.

The demand for Jharkhand had its genesis in the Adivasi Mahasabha. In 1939 Jaipal Singh was invited to come to Ranchi from Darjeeling to join Adivasi Mahasabha. He came and joined the Adivasee Mahasabha and was elected its President. After the independence of the country, the Adivasee Mahasabha was given the name of Jharkhand Party. Jaipal Singh remained the President of the Jharkhand Party from 1939 to 1960.

JHARKHAND FOR JHARKANDIS:
The new phase of the movement beginning with independence saw the pinnacle of the movement being reached. The Jharkhand party was born under the leadership of Jaipal singh. The tribals had been awarded the minority status in the constitution. The geographical entity of Jharkhand was sought to be broadened with the inclusion of 16 districts in Bihar, Orissa, and M.P. The Jharkhand Party grew stronger politically gradually but various Commissions examining the demands for a separate Jharkhand State rejected its demand one after another. In August 1947 the Thakkar Commission rejected it saying that it would not be to the advantage of the adivasees. In 1948 Dar Commission also examined the demand for a separate Jharkhand state but rejected it on linguistic grounds. Despite these reports of these Commissions going negative in nature, Jharkhand Party never lost sight of its ultimate target – a separate state of Jharkhand. It fought first General Election in 1952 and won 32 seats in the Bihar Assembly. In the second General Election in 1957 too Jharkhand Party won 32 seats and for two terms the party remained the leading opposition party.
Tribal politics in the 60s were molded by 2 factors: the fission of the party with congress and the introduction of agrarian issues. The conditions of the tribals did not see any marked improvement.
The party was soon split into several splinter groups each claiming to be the genuine Jharkhand party. Finally in 1973 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was formed under the leadership of Sibu Soren. In 1986 All political parties carrying with themselves the name of Jharkhand gradually dwindled except the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha led by Sibu Soren, which was an alliance between the Mahtos and the Santhals. The demand for a separate state and repossession of alienated tribal lands were on top of its agenda apart from cultural revivalism.

CREATION OF A NEW JHARKHAND STATE

In a historic move both the houses of Parliament passed the Bihar Reorganisation Bill – 2000 during the first week of August and the President gave his assent to it a few days later. With this the stage was all set for the formal beginning of the governance of the new Jharkhand state from the 15th of November 2000. This witnessed the fulfillment of the long cherished dream of the people of Chhotanagpur and Santhalparganas for a separate state of Jharkhand. The new state comprised of 18 districts in Santalparganas and Chotanagpur.

MILITANCY AND IDENTITY POLITICS IN ASSAM

2008-11-07T09:08:00.000-08:00

Composition:

Assam, in the North Eastern part of India, is connected to 6 other N.E states and shares a long border with two neighbouring countries – Bangladesh and Bhutan. Assam is specially known for its diversity. It has different national, ethnic, religious and tribal group living together in this region for centuries.
The population of Assam is a broad intermixture of Mongolian, Indo-Burmese, Indo-Iranian and Aryan races and a considerable number of Bengali and other language/dialects speaking people are also present. The Assamese people form the upper part while the Bengali speaking population is concentrated in the south. In terms of religion, Hindus are the majority (54%), while Muslims constitute the second largest group (24%).
The tribal population constitutes only 13% of the total population. The Karbis and Damashas, living in the hilly districts in the North, have their own dialects and culture and do not wholly identify with the Assamese people. Besides these hill tribes, there are also many plain tribes spread throughout Assam. While some of these tribes are entirely assimilated into the Assamese culture, there are others who are determined to maintain their unique identity. There are also tea plantation workers who were brought by the British to work in the tea gardens. What contributed to such a diverse population in Assam?

IMMIGRATION ISSUES:

The present situation in Assam cannot be understood without looking at the complex history of immigration in Assam. Immigration in Assam began nearly 200 years before Christ. Tribes from different parts of the world belonging to different races came to Assam throughout history. The Mongoloid race from West China, The Austric race, the Drabian race, and finally the Aryan race from the Gangetic plains have all immigrated to Assam before 1st century AD. Successive Mongoloid rulers invited Brahmin priests to Assam and got converted to Hinduism. Around 12th century, the Ahom rulers from Burma established their long lasting rule (till the advent of British). The Ahom rulers also converted to Hinduism but encouraged the co-existence of all other religions. The captured Mughal soldiers also set up their families in the region. The British conquered entire region of Assam and brought together the various tribes in Assam under the administrative umbrella of Assam province. The British also imported large numbers of tillers from East Bengal, who were Muslims. The influx of Muslims into the region was constant and thorough. If the initial communal riots in East Bengal after partition brought 15,00,000 Bengali Hindus to the region, the liberation wars and quite constantly after that, lacks of Bangladeshis are crossing the border with much ease. There is also immigration from different parts of India for commercial purposes (Marwaris).

COMPLEXITIES OF IDENTITY FORMATION:

Due to this immigration and other factors, Assam also has an equally complex history of identity formation and identity crisis. Most importantly, the population is mainly composed of different communities migrating to the region, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to determine who is the original inhabitants of the region, who exactly compromises of the ‘natives’? Different tribes of this region claim their tribal identity and the outsiders subscribe to their own identity and thus, Assam as a whole does not have its identity. Going by lingual standards, the state govt tried to impose Assamese as the ‘native’ language of the state, which received strict resistance from other tribes. Religiously and ethnically, the population is too diverse to carve an identity that can encompass all. Politically, and here is the biggest paradox, it is impossible for people from this region to take up the Indian identity as very few believe that Assam belongs to India, and an even smaller minority can relate to the India that treats it nothing more than a strategic, conflict ridden area and the people treated as coming from an entirely different race, and often mistaken for Chinese or other oriental religions. In addition, the North Easterners themselves are conscious of not having a recorded history of their antecedents. Their historical pasts and migrant routes, often so essential in identity formation, are shrouded in mystery.

THE ROLE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS:

Since, historically Assam has inherited a fractured society, there was bound to be competition for scarce social, economic and political space, which further aggravated the prejudices and hostility among the different ethnic groups. The interesting characteristic of this autonomy movement is the role of the newly educated middle class. The spread of modern education in the hills and the influence of Indian markets, have led to the creation of a newly educated moneyed class among the Adivasis, who have taken upon them the responsibility of fighting the exploitation by the non-Adivasis. In Assam, the growing English educated middle class gave voice to the subnationalist aspirations of the people. The Bengalis who had settled largely in the south began to push for Bengali as the official language and as a medium of instruction. This annoyed the Assamese middle class. This support from the educated middle class had a determining effect on the growth of the autonomy movements. It was the middle class that often stressed on making Assamese as the official language and medium of instruction in schools in Assam through various organizations such as the Asom Sahitya Sabha.

Economic probs:

We can also look at the entire autonomy movement from the economic perspective. The economy was stagnating and employment and other resources were scarce. The Congress government, both at the centre and at the state did very little to develop the economy. Thanks to their non-performance, even after 5 decades of independence, Assam still remains an agrarian state. Owing to low levels of industrialization, limited urbanization, week transport and other infrastructure facilities, alternative avenues of employment for the people are very limited. Govt jobs and administrative posts are also limited. Land is the only way to income and when land started becoming scarce, different communities soon became hostile to the other and tried to monopolize the existing resources.

Outsiders dominating the economy:

During the formative years of the Assam Movement, its leaders noted with dismay that though at that ime, the state supplied more than 60% of India’s crude oil production, it received less than 3% of its value from the federal government. It was again the major contributor to the tea production in India but its royalties were incredibly low and it was the same case with plywood. Even the regional capitalist class that developed in Assam after independence was mostly comprised of Marwaris. The urban areas were dominated by outsiders and even the major source for administrative personnel came from outside.

Guha and other historian have often pointed out that the immigrant Bengali Hindus were initially disliked because they competed with the dominant Assamese middle class for land, jobs and local power. Later, there was a shift of focus from the Hindu Bengalis to the Muslim Bangladeshi immigrants who had hijacked much of the local jobs and not to mention, inflated the electoral roll. This significantly reduced the importance of the middle class, economically and politically. The infuriated emerging Assamese middle class, frustrated by being squeezed out of their own homes, took to arms. The unsympathetic and apathetic attitude of the plains people serving in the bureaucracy of the provincial government has further hardened the attitude of the conscious sections of the tribal middle class.

ORGANIZATIONS:

The main organizations that took up these issues, which often took a violent turn, was either formed by the middle class or was entirely backed by them. The All Assam Students Union (AASU), All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) or the Assam Popular Movement Front were all aided and supported by the emerging middle class. Finally, even the ULFA comprised many of urban educated youth and had the firm ideological backing from this class.

LANGUAGE ISSUES:

The state and the central government are both equally responsible for the mess. The State government in Assam handled the language issue bad enough to drive the other tribes into a flurry of insecure thoughts about their survival in the state. Initially in its drive to fight Bengali domination, it got the support of other tribes in promoting Assamese nationality. But soon, it went into an overdrive and failed to redress the fears of other tribes of an Assamese domination. Blinded by the fear of Bengali domination and in a hurry to make the Assamese a major community in Assam, the political leaders tried to Assamise all linguistic minorities in the state.
In 1960’s, the govt tried to establish Assamese as the official language of the state but due to stiff resistance from the Bengalis in the valley and the Bodos from the hills, the govt had to recognise their languages also as associate official languages. This hasty move from the govt created suspicions in the minds of the hill tribes such as Mizos, Nagas, Boros, Khasis, etc and each demanded for separate hill states fearing living under Assamese domination (which eventually led to the formation of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, etc). The incompetence of the State government in addressing the development issues also spread discontentment among the diverse population.

Hope was created and shattered within no time of the victory of the AGP in Assam as people realized that it provided no solutions to their problems. The successive failure of the AGP to redress issues was perhaps one of the important causes for the general population to go in favour of more hard-line violent organization like ULFA.

POROUS BORDER:

Another important contributing factor to the problem is the absolute lack of political will regarding the porous border. The constant demand of the Assamese people to the central govt has been to check the large influx of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants into the state. The centre however, has taken very little or no corrective measures over the years. Even the regional party AGP, though it came to power based on the promise to correct the porous border has terribly failed in this regard. This has further pushed the insurgents to take the issue in their own hands.

THE GROWTH OF MILITANCY AND INSURGENCY MOVEMENTS:

By provoking national and ethnic identities, the Assam agitation has prepared the ground for the rise of militancy in Assam. The dreaded ULFA which has challenged India’s sovereignty over Assam, showed the way for other militant organizations in Assam fighting for the protection of their communities’ interests. Their avowed goals range from protection of the interests of the natives from foreign immigrants to the formation of autonomous district/ state and creation of a separate state within the Indian Union to complete secession. Though, initially, their intentions were good and in relation to the community’s needs, it soon moved away from the very people it claimed to serve. Many are taking to militancy either for adventure or to make a quick buck.
These militant organizations resort to all kinds of methods, including killing, abduction, extortion, etc to collect money for their activities. They have also resorted to bombing trains and destruction of public property and innocent lives just to get attention. Because of their inhuman and unjustified activities, they are quickly loosing public support.

ULFA didn’t believe in moderate action, instead, it stood for armed action, conspicuous brutality, and exemplary violence. The students body and their political discourse lend an intellectual legitimization of a brutal chain of extortion, intimidation, terror, murder, etc. Initially the targets were corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and others suspected of committing crimes against Assamese society. This soon shifted to big business men and professionals, making them pay incredibly large sums of money to the organization. Hundreds of prominent businessmen were killed and many more were robbed in broad day light when the AGP was looking the other way. Non-Assamese people really felt insecure now as they considered this nothing more than the military arm of the Assamese middleclass chauvinism.

GOVT’S POLICY TOWARDS MILITANCY:
When things got out of hand, the AGP govt thought it wise to lend support to the operations of the unified command. At present, the army, the paramilitary forces and the state police are working together to suppress the militant activities in the state. Several leaders and cadres have either been arrested or killed. The government is also tying to wean away both militants and the people from insurgent activities. By offering rehabilitation packages, the govt has appealed to the militants to lay down their arms and surrender. The govt has also begun to take initiative to develop the N.E region by offering economic packages. However, most importantly it has started fencing the Bangladeshi border. This is just the starting step as lots left to be done in this area if peace is ever to be achieved.

CONCLUSION:

There seems to be a lack of political will both at the centre and at the state to help speed up the process of integration by accelerating the economic growth of different ethnic regions. All the political parties whether regional of the left or right appear to be more interested in pitting one ethnic group against the other rather than in evolving a common workable solution to the long standing grievances of the people.

Electoral politics in a society dominated by identity politics further consolidates ethnic loyalties and identities. Even national parties like the Congress and the BJP have no solutions to the real problems of the people but encourage identity politics to the extent that it serves their narrow political needs. Viewed from this angle, militancy in Assam is only a by-product of macro-social mismanagement and regional ethnic parochialism. As for now, the central government has to ensure rapid economic growth to fight against poverty and unemployment which after all might be the root cause and on our own part, we have to stop perceiving the region as a conflict stricken area which consists of people suffering from pre-conceived ethnic labels.

GENOCIDE IN DARFUR

2008-08-23T00:54:00.000-07:00

Do you remember the Rwandan crisis of 1994??? That was when 937,000 people were killed in a span of 100 days... In Darfur, we thought that History is giving us a second opportunity to redeem the mistakes that were committed in Rwanda... But history is repeating itself all over again... 400, 000 killed and 5 million displaced and counting... and no one's rising a finger against it... In Darfur, Sudan, ‘Rwanda in slow motion’ is unraveling... In case anyone missed Rwandan genocide, here's a repeat telecast!!

GENOCIDE IN AFRICA : A Historical Perspective

Ø 1968-79 - Equatorial Guinea - 80,000
Ø 1977-78 - Ethiopia 150,000 – 500,000 people were systematically wiped out by the Ethiopian Red Terror.
Ø 1971-1979 – Uganda - 300,000 to 500,000 were killed in Uganda by Idi Amin.
Ø 1994 - One of the worst instances of genocide took place in Rwanda; there was ethnic cleansing of the tutsi tribe. 937,000 is the official stated number and the speed of the killing far exceeded any other genocide in history. 100 days is all it took to wipe out 937,000 people.

History, Demographics and the like..

Ø Irrespective of the govt that comes to power in Khartoum, the Darfurians feel neglected.
Ø Due to overpopulation and low agricultural productivity, there is a perpetual food crisis.
Ø The population is roughly divided into two groups : the Arab Africans and the native tribal population. Ø The influence of an ideology of Arab supremacy propagated by Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi that began to be acted upon by Darfurians. Soon categorization of the Darfurians began into "progressive, revolutionary Arabs " and "reactionary, anti-Arab Africans ".
Ø A famine in the mid-1980s disrupted many societal structures and led to the first significant fighting amongst Darfurians. A low level conflict continued for the next 15 years, with the government co-opting and arming "Arab" militias against its enemies.

Humanitarian Crisis: Facts, Figures and a Timeline

Ø April 23, 2003 - Due to continuous neglect, the black non-Arabs decide to take matters in their own hands. They form two militant groups known as the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
Ø The rebel groups attack govt officials (killing 75) and the conflict soon resulted in civilians moving out in large numbers.
Ø In response, the Sudanese govt. trains and arms the Janjaweed, a black Arab militia to fight and destroy the rebels and the tribes that they belong to.
Ø Janjaweed literally means “devils on horseback” as they mainly used camels and horses to launch their attacks. The Janjaweed got the ‘Carte Blanche’ which means an official license to loot, rape, extort and murder at will. That is exactly what they did.
Ø This further causes thousands of civilians to take refuge in the neighbouring Chad.
Ø The two groups sign many ceasefire agreements and violate them anyway, accusing the other party of violating it first.

Ø Dec, 2003 – Almost 100,000 refugees are in Chad due to emergence of conflict.
Ø Jan, 2004 – The Sudanese govt sends its army also and the fighting and the no of refugees escalates.
Ø A typical attack would involve the “devils on horseback” launch an ground attack. They would kill and rape anything that even moved. This would be followed by an aerial attack of bombing by the Army to kill anything that might have survived the Janjaweed carnage.
Ø June, 2004 - UN officials say every fifth child in the Darfur region is acutely undernourished. Many have dysentery, measles and high fever. Children in refugee camps are dying every day from starvation and exhaustion.
Ø UN aid organization also warns about mass rapes of women and a new generation of displaced children.

Ø July, 2004 – The UN Security Council will ‘consider’ to “threaten” to issue an arms embargo and a travel ban against Sudan.
Ø The Arab militias destroy food and water resources and deny entry for the humanitarian groups.
Ø Later in 2004 - The US congress decides to label this as “genocide” in Darfur. Ø Apparently, the Congress label of genocide is supposed to carry a lot of weightage. Ø Sudanese President Omar al Bashir couldn’t care less about the sanctions. He says “I couldn’t care less about the UN or its sanctions”
Ø Sept, 2004 - The World Health Organization says about 10,000+ who fled their homes in Darfur are dying each month.
Ø While these thousands are dying, the UN calls for a meeting to discuss two extremely important issues:
Ø Whether it would be appropriate to call this as genocide?
Ø Secondly, whether or not to put Omar al Bashir, when captured, to trial in the UN Court of Justice?

Ø Dec, 2004 – The aid workers become the new target of the militia and this resulted in the humanitarian groups pulling out in large numbers.
Ø The official numbers come out as close to 400,000 killed because of the civil war and yet, some experts believe that this is a gross underestimation.
Ø The weak and inefficient African Union peace keeping force struggles to keep things from getting out of hand.
Ø Oct, 2005 - Aid workers and part of the UN peace keeping force pulls out due to increased attacks, while the Sudanese govt denies entry for all foreign journalists, making information about current situations extremely hard to reach to the international community.
Ø 10 peace meetings have been held so far between the govt and the rebels and in each of them, one of the two parties walked out without coming to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Killing Continues...
... And so does the Political Drama

Ø Oct, 2006 - Food supply to the refugee camps is cut in half because of shortage of funds.
Ø May 29, 2007 - The US announces further sanctions against Sudan.
Ø The Sudanese Govt further cuts food and medicinal rations to the refugee camps.
Ø Oxfam, the biggest aid workers in Sudan pulled out which left the refugee camps in even dire situations.

Sudan, Oil and The Darfur Crisis: The Background Story

Making Sense of it all ... A Crash Course in Political Economy

Ø The first relevant question is who’s responsible for this mess? Who’s to take the fall for the disaster? Who should we send to the gallows on count of the murder of 400,000?
Ø The First nominee is quite obviously Al Bashir’s regime.
Ø It’s a simple tale of an insatiable thirst for power. As long as there is anarchy in Sudan, he will stay in power. And as long as he is in power, he keeps becoming rich. Simple enough.. A little too simple actually. So, we call upon our second nominee… The JANJAWEED!
Ø As we already know, Darfur is an impoverished region which cannot sustain the existing huge population. The Janjaweed sees this as the perfect opportunity to loot large amounts of wealth which they could never accumulate in the normal course.
Ø The Janjaweed also gets all its desires fulfilled, be it sexual in terms of the 200 rapes committed in a day or be it for power they get when torturing and taking lives.

CHAPTER II : Love thy Neighbour

Ø Our next nominee… CHAD!
Ø In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby came to power by launching a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrowing President Hissan Habre. Deby hails from the elite Zaghawa tribe, which makes up one of the Darfur rebel groups trying to topple the government. So when the conflict broke out, Deby had to decide whether to support Sudan or his tribe. He eventually chose his tribe!
Ø Meanwhile, Sudan’s rebels also have their base in Chad and are continuously trying to destabilize the govt.

CHAPTER III : The Logic of "Humanitarian Intervention“ …Neocolonial tool serving geopolitical interests

Ø The fourth nominee for the prestigious position.. the US of A!
Ø After Sudan received its formal independence from Britain in 1956, the country went through a period of internal struggles. It began moving in a radical Islamic direction rejecting the neocolonial relations that the US and UK was trying to impose.
Ø The U.S in order to tap the rich oil resources in Sudan, sponsored and trained the southern rebel groups (SLA and JEM) in the beginning. It was mainly responsible for providing sophisticated arms to the rebel groups.
Ø The expected consequence was clear to see. As in neighbouring Chad, Rwanda and many other African countries, the rebel groups can cause enough havoc and destruction to completely destabilize the economy.
Ø The IMF and World Bank would then move in along with UN peace keeping force. The IMF would promise to lend money on the condition that Sudan would open up its economy and the hungry American corporations will swoop in to have exclusive control over the rich oil base.
Ø Washington even went so far as to bomb the only pharmaceutical industry in Sudan under no particular pretext (biochemicals or terrorism).

Ø What it did not expect however is for the govt to employ a stronger counter-militia.
Ø What really ticked off US is the fact that Sudan has been using its oil for the cardinal sin of developing an economy independent of the United States.
Ø The US is pushing for its army led peacekeeping force to enter Darfur so as to deny Sudanese the liberty of their land.

Ø It also has to be noted that though the killings were intense enough to be called genocide in 2003 – early 2004, the US were still hopeful of entry into the zone. But when Al Bashir made it clear that the US was not going to have a share of the pie, they suddenly termed it as genocide and issued sanctions.

CHAPTER IV: Beijing 'fuel'ing the killings

Ø So, the question is: If the US and the West is not benefiting from the Darfur crisis, who is? The strongest contender is definitely the burgeoning Asian super power – CHINA!
Ø As we know that China has reached growth rates of over 10% and would eventually find it difficult to sustain unless they found new sources of energy. The answer was Sudan.
Ø China has invested over 300 bn $ through China National Petroleum Company (CNPS) and is responsible for roughly 2/3rds of Sudan’s oil exports.
Ø The new oil refinery pumped as much as 1 billion $ into the govt coffers which will allow Al Bashir to defy the UN and US with much ease and continue the ‘crime against humanity’.
Ø Because of this immense nature and level of investment, china is doing all it can to shield Bashir.
Ø Primarily by Vetoing against any suggestions of sanctions against Sudan.
Ø China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister.
Ø Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war.
Ø While Beijing may be one focal point for international outrage, it would be a mistake if it were the only one. With the Darfur death toll well over rising and with 2.5 million people left homeless by the conflict--there's plenty of blame to go around.

CHAPTER V – Arms instead of Alms

Ø While the US is supplying arms to the SLA and JEM, Russia and China are providing arms to the Sudanese govt and the Janjaweed. Whoever wins, wins the jackpot!
Ø Russia is also one of the nations with veto power and thus would ensure no sanctions and embargo are applied to Sudan.
Ø Russia is the leading supplier of helicopters, and other sophisticated military weapons and is known to make a good deal of money.

CHAPTER VI: Other 'Developing' Interests

Other important players in Sudan's slowly growing oil industry are mostly from India and Malaysia, two other industrialising Asian countries with urgent strategic needs to secure their parts of the world's oil production in an ever fiercer competition with US interests.
Ø India's ONGC Videsh and Malaysia's Petronas have bought substantial shares in Sudanese oil fields as Western companies have been pressured to divest in the country during the last years.
Ø India has already signed 2 pipeline deals with Sudan which means a substantial amount of money going into the Janjaweed.
Ø We can also observe that Darfur crisis has received no or very little attention from the Indian media because of its indirect involvement. Ø In the past three years India's trade with Sudan has increased 100%.
Ø ONGC has a little over 25% in Sudan’s biggest oil extracting projects.
Ø Meanwhile, both India and Malaysia have helped to prevent the U.N. Human Rights Council from criticizing Sudan's conduct.

CONCLUSION

Ø Thus, it seems that after reading about all this political drama, the rebel groups and the janjaweed are perhaps more innocent than the vicious, parochial and avarice nations battling it out to get a share of the oil. The janjaweed after all is just carrying out orders.
Ø The Black man’s skin is now worth so little that the international community still prefers to keep quite and has not found a solution.
Ø As big and powerful nations battle it out amongst themselves to gain control over oil resources, the ‘insignificant’ black man dies for this larger than life cause!
Ø I wonder how many more should die before they think that too many have died!!!
Ø It’s time to put an end to it! NOW!!!

Orientalism

2007-10-26T06:32:00.000-07:00

This is my very first blog... I have been planning to do this for quite some time but due to the paucity of time, i have found myself procrastinating!! I'd like to start off with something academic... before i can get to my thoughts... This is about Edward Said and orientalism! Political in nature and criticizing the authorial positions of the few! Well, I do admit at first these are not my thoughts... but these are my impressions of the thoughts of a good political thinker. I have always accused the dominant groups of creating stereotypical images and this book came as a revelation to me!!!

Edward Said's signature contribution to academic life is the book Orientalism. Said focuses his attention in this work on the interplay between the "Occident" and the "Orient." The Occident is his term for the West (England, France, and the United States), and the Orient is the term for the romantic and misunderstood East (compromising of the Middle East and Far East).

According to Said, the West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the "Orient. The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism. They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. To fill this void, the West has created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East.

The Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience. Yet none of this Orient is merely imaginative. The Orient is an integral part of European material civilization and culture. Orientalism expresses and represents that part culturally and even ideologically as a mode of discourse with supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles. . . .

Orientalism would come to mean many interdependent things. The most readily accepted designation for Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient--and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philologist--either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she says or does is Orientalism. . .

"Orientalism is then, a style of thought that is based on Ontological and epistemological distinctions between the 'Orient' and the 'Occident'. Orientalism was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, West, "us") and the strange (the Orient, the East, "them").”

Edward Said was especially influenced by the writing of Michel Foucault, especially his notion that academic disciplines do not simply produce knowledge but also generate power. Said uses Foucault to argue that Orientalism helped produce European imperialism. He borrowed from Foucault the notion of a “discourse,” the ideological framework within which scholarship takes place. Within a discourse, all representations are tainted by the language, culture, institutions, and political ambience of the representer. Hence there can be no “truths,” Said argues, only formations or deformations.

Said, like Foucault, denies the concept of knowledge for its own sake; according to his method, knowledge is always connected to political, sociological, economic and other power systems. It is formed by interactions with political power (such as colonial institutions), intellectual power (such as the dominant sciences, and among them comparative philology), and with cultural power.

THE HISTORY OF ORIENTALISM:

Said makes the claim that the whole of Western European and American scholarship, literature, and cultural representation and stereotype creates and reinforces prejudice against non-Western cultures, putting them in the classification of Oriental (or "Others"). The heart of the matter in understanding Orientalism is this power relationship and how the Occident has used and continues to use and understand the Orient on its own terms.

Said asserts that according to the Occidentals, the Orientals had no history or culture independent of their colonial masters. Orientalism is more an indicator of the power the West holds over the Orient, than about the Orient itself. Creating an image of the Orient and a body of knowledge about the Orient and subjecting it to systematic study became the prototype for taking control of the Orient. By taking control of the scholarship, the West also took political and economic control.

THE 3 BROAD CLAIMS:

1) The First is that Orientalism, although purporting to be an objective, disinterested, and rather esoteric field, in fact functioned to serve political ends. Orientalist scholarship provided the means through which Europeans could take over Oriental lands. Colonial rule was justified in advance by Orientalism rather than after the fact. Overall, Said submits, his work demonstrates the metamorphosis of a relatively innocuous philological sub specialty into a capacity for managing political movements, administering colonies, making nearly apocalyptic statements representing the White Man’s difficult civilizing mission.

2)His second claim is that Orientalism helped define Europe’s self-image. “It has less to do with the Orient than it does with the Occident. The construction of identity in every age and every society, Said maintains, involves establishing opposites and “Others”. This happens because “the development and maintenance of every culture require the existence of another different and competing alter ego. Orientalism led the West to see Oriental culture as static in both time and place, as “eternal, uniform, and incapable of defining itself.” This gave Europe a sense of its own cultural and intellectual superiority. The West consequently saw itself as a dynamic, innovative, expanding culture, as well as “the spectator, the judge and jury of every facet of Oriental behavior.” This became part of its imperial conceit.

3) Thirdly, Said argues that Orientalism has produced a false description of Asians and the Oriental cultures. This happened primarily because of the essentialist nature of the enterprise that is, the belief that it was possible to define the essential qualities of Asians and Oriental culture. These qualities were seen in uniformly negative terms, he says. The Orient was defined as a place isolated from the mainstream of human progress in the sciences, arts, and commerce. Hence: its sensuality, its tendency to despotism, its aberrant mentality, its habit of inaccuracy, its backwardness.