Thursday, January 30, 2014

Urdu and Muslim Identity in India

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1446

Urdu and Muslim Identity in India.

R. Upadhyay

January 27, 2014

When the Lok Sabha elections are only a few months away, the union Minority Affairs Minister K. Rahman Khan while inaugurating an Urdu festival on January 3 in Maharashtra flagged off a huge column of about50,000 school students carrying banners and raising slogans demanding promotion of Urdu language.

Expressing anguish he said, “the Muslims have never held a protest or campaign for the protection and promotion of Urdu language despite the “Constitutional right to demand protection of our mother tongue”.


The Minister knew very well that except for a limited group of Muslims in UP, Bihar and some other urban centres in north and central India, Urdu is not the mother tongue of Muslims all over the country.  

Yet he is propagating a lie that the Urdu language is the mother tongue of the entire Muslim community in India and what is worse- he is desperately linking the language as part of Muslim identity.  

The Minister who is part of the present government deliberately ignored the fact that the communal legacy of Urdu was the first issue taken up for dividing the Indian society during British rule.  What should be our concern is that these demands are being given prominence just on the eve of elections.  

We saw this in the State elections in Uttar Pradesh in 2012 when the Union Minister Salman Khurshid took up the issue of reservation for Muslims which was the legacy of All India Muslim League and not that of the Congress. 

Historically, Urdu was born out of the socio-administrative requirement of the Muslim conquerors who preferred to settle down in the regions around Delhi.  In this, they broke from the traditions of the past invaders like the Huns or Kushans in Arabising and Persianising the local dialects and used it as the lingua franca for communication between the alien soldiers and the native dwellers. 

This linguistic separatism played a major role in creating a communal divide from which India is still to recover.


Sir Sayed Ahmad (1817-1898), a first British loyal Muslim leader turned the Urdu-Hindi controversy into a political one at the cost of Hindu-Muslim unity against the British. 

Sayed’s snobbish observation before the Education Commission (appointed by the British) that Urdu was“the language of gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar”, was repudiated by his contemporary Hindi protagonist Babu Harish Chandar. He retorted that “Urdu was the language of dancing girls and prostitutes” (Yusuf Abbasi- Muslim Politics and Leadership
in the South Asian Sub-continent, p.90). 

Since then Urdu has been mired in one
controversy or other and used as a political tool to continue the communal divide during British India and after.


Replacement of Persian with Devnagari from the language of the courts on 18 April 1900 by McDonnell, the Chief Commissioner of Oudh gave fresh ammunition to Muslim leaders to
demand the restoration of Urdu in place of local language.  

The then Mohammedan Anglo Oriental Defence Association (an outfit of the Aligarh movement) was renamed as the “Urdu Defence Association” and an aggressive campaign thus began. 

This movement soon converted
itself into one in search of a “muslim identity” which they believed is cannot be done without promoting an aggressive agitation in favour of Urdu language.

‘Jinnah, who could not write his own name in Urdu, included the question of Urdu as one his famous fourteen points and cynically used it as a tool to forge a Muslim identity.’  
(S.K.Ghosh, Muslim Politics in India, 1968, p.15.) 

He exploited Urdu to widen the gap of
cultural divide between Hindus and Muslims though ‘he could not speak a word of Urdu’.

( Rafiq Zakaria, The Widening Divide, p.105.) 

At the height of the partition demand by
the Muslim League, the Muslims repudiated the slogan that was ‘Urdu-Muslim-Pakistan’.


Urdu does not have any religious or Islamic cultural identity. 

Had it been so, there would not have been any conflict between the Urdu speaking Muslims of West Pakistan and Bengali speaking Muslims of East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh. 

Had Urdu been the cultural legacy of Islam, Muslims all over the world would have adopted it. In the present day, Urdu has just become another issue for our minister in the government in his
self-seeking political interest and vote bank politics.   


Pressure for “vote bank politics” was noticed when Urdu was made the second official language in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.

One may ask- Has it helped Urdu in spreading to other places or more popular? 

The answer is a definite - “No”.  

Since 1947 till today the sole agenda of the community leaders has been to frighten the innocent masses of the danger of their identity being lost.  

Besides Mosque and Madrasa,
recognition of Urdu for Muslim identity has been added.


Unfortunately, the patron saints of political parties encourage such communal demands more to get their “vote bank support” and these issues start surfacing only at the time of elections and then left unattended until the next elections. 

Muslim identity is still secure without the Urdu language but such calls during election time do create confusion
amongst the people.


It is not clear why the Muslim leaders in the political parties have not taken any
initiative to launch any newspaper for the community that could be read all over.  

This could also help the community to understand the problems and challenges faced by the country from their perspective in an overall Indian context.
Note: The views expressed are author’s own.
==========================
RELATED PLEASE : HOW TRUE- - - !!


India needs to return to Dharma


Colonel Anil A Athale (retd).

January 26, 2014 


[Without civilisational moorings, India, more a sub-continent than a country, could not exist. Primacy of Dharma has been the cornerstone of Indian civilisation]

Republic Day is a time to celebrate and also a time to introspect; this is an attempt at looking at the challenges of the future.

India is a 'civilisational' State. 

We have a distinct worldview, arts, culture, languages, philosophy and aesthetics that are unique to the sub-continent. Jawaharlal Nehru, our first prime minister, called it the silken thread that binds the people of our country.

In fact, without civilisational moorings, India, more a sub-continent than a country, could not exist as a country. 

Europe, that has much less diversity than India, is only now taking the first baby steps towards integration.

Primacy of Dharma has been the cornerstone of Indian civilisation.

But in the name of 'inclusive' policies and labelling anything to do with the majority as 'communal', India's social fabric is being torn asunder.

Starting separate schools for the minorities, adding newer groups (Jains) to a category called 'minorities' and dividing society into ever smaller groups is a sure way to hell paved with mal-intentions.

One of the best methods to deal with social divisions is integrated schooling. The United States that faced a major problem of race-related divisions is a prime example.

The American supreme court ended segregated schooling in 1954. But finding that separate schooling had become part of urban settings, in 1971 the US courts ruled on compulsory integration by 'busing' children from outside neighbourhoods to create a mixed classroom.

As an observer of the US attempts at racial integration from 1991 to date, I have no hesitation in accepting that the US has come a long way in solving the race problem. President Barack Obama's election has put a seal on this remarkable achievement.

But instead of following the US example, our dynastic ruling elite, many of them having studied in top US universities have been busy dividing society for political gains.

To call this 'inclusive' policy is the height of Orwellian doublespeak. 

But such is the stranglehold of Stalinist Leftist mafia on the levers of power in imperial Delhi that this is being peddled as the only path for harmony.

Dharma has often been wrongly translated as religion or faith and our Western influenced grandchildren of Macaulay (the father of the British education system in India who aimed to create 'natives to run our empire') decided that India is to be 'secular' or Dharma Nirpeksh (in Hindi).

Dharma to an Indian is the right path/duty/nature. 

Thus, there are several 'Dharmas' -- for instance, Rashtra Dharma or patriotism, Pitru Dharma or fatherly duties et al.

Unlike the Western notions of book-based faiths, the decision on Dharma to be followed and its interpretation is left to an individual. The main function of the State is to uphold Dharma.

Dharma defined not as religion, but one's duty in life.

This is in direct contrast with the Western view that sees the State as a necessity to control and regulate the competition between men.

Thomas Hobbes, the 16th century English philosopher in his work Leviathan, thus postulates that state as a mediating agent is virtually a prior requirement for civilised existence.

In the absence of a State, according to Hobbes, it is a war of everyone against everyone and man's life, nasty brutish and short. Even the social contract theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau accept the primacy of the State.

In the Indian view, social order is self-regulating and as mandated by Dharma and not the State. 

But on the one hand the so-called 'secularists' reject the Indian model and also use a distorted Western model.

If the State has to bring about socio-economic changes it cannot afford to be seen as partisan.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently stated that while the media may criticise him, history may judge him differently. 

History may or may not forgive him for economic failures, but the effects of his internal polices will be long lasting and disastrous.

In the last 10 years, his regime scaled new heights in a divisive approach and vote-bank politics. 

On December 9, 2006, addressing the National Development Council meeting in Delhi he asserted, 'The minorities, particularly Muslims, must have the first claim on resources.'

This was not mere rhetoric. Soon enough, his government began schemes of discriminatory scholarships, grants and even bank loans exclusively targeted at the minority.

The government under his leadership has divided poverty, illiteracy and backwardness on the basis of religion. The so-called 'targeted' approach in plain words is basically discriminatory sops.

Imagine a poor villager's son/daughter belonging to the 'majority' community studying in the same class, with similar paucity of resources, s/he has to do with her/his own means. But in the same school another student belonging to the 'minority' gets a scholarship.

Under the pretence of 'inclusiveness', the United Progressive Alliance has torn asunder the fabric of social harmony.

Instead of applying a 'secular' criterion like income, geographical location, parental literacy etc, the prime minister and his government has gone around dividing the social ills and problems on minority/majority basis.

The Muzaffarnagar riots a few months ago were a warning of things to come.

As someone who has dealt with communal violence, one can vouch that once the lawlessness spreads to rural areas, even the most efficient and impartial army will not be able to establish peace.

It needs to be borne in mind that India has moved in double quick time from an agrarian rural society to the post-industrial information age. This change is not uniform and is unevenly spread across and even within a given region.

This rapid change has produced 'disorientation' at the individual level that has produced a tendency to group violence for multiplicity of causes.

Samuel P Huntington in his study of developing societies had pointed out how India that was much poorer than Argentina had nevertheless sustained a democracy while Argentina continued to grapple with dictatorships.

Huntington, though, did not acknowledge that the stability of the Indian system and democracy were a product of Indian values and culture that accepts dissent and diversity.

Unfortunately along with the various other changes and influence of the West, Indian values are on a constant retreat.

All States exist to defend the core values that are enshrined in the Constitution. The basic aim of the State system is to acquire means to preserve and defend the core values.

The supreme reason for which the State of India exists is the acquisition and maintenance of means, economic, political, military, abstract or concrete to preserve and further national aims/core values. 

These are:
  • Primacy of Dharma or moral sense of life, both individual as well as collective.
  • Defence of objects of reverence, both mundane as well as abstract, notions and beliefs which shape our perceptions.
  • Promotion, creation and preservation of an environment for the growth of an individual to attain excellence without boundaries.
  • All encompassing coexistence, between man and nature, between man and man, within the nation, region and the world. Coexistence and tolerance of diversity is not a strategy, but an enduring principle.
If we adhere to our core values that are enshrined in our Constitution, India has a bright future.


Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Narendra Modi attacks Congress over lack of war memorial



Narendra Modi attacks Congress over lack of war memorial


Press Trust of India 

January 28, 2014

Mumbai

[Modi lauded Atal Bihari Vajpayee government for introducing the practice of bringing back the bodies of martyred soldiers to their homes.]

Narendra Modi on Tuesday attacked the Congress - led UPA government over lack of a war memorial as he targeted the massive constituency in the armed forces,minutes after felicitating melody queen Lata Mangeshkar on the 51st anniversary of her memorable song ‘Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon’.

In his politically loaded speech, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate referred to the beheading of an Indian soldier by Pakistan, cyber attacks by China and alleged lack of funding for acquisition of weaponry, to mount a scalding assault on the Centre.

There is no country in the world where there is not a war memorial. India has fought several wars, thousands of our soldiers have been martyred but there is no memorial to honour their sacrifice.

“Should we not remember them? Should not there be a war memorial? I feel some good things have been left for me to do,” he said, apparently referring to surveys predicting a good BJP showing in the Lok Sabha polls.

As the crowd lustily cheered “Modi lao desh bachao (bring Modi, save the nation), the Gujarat Chief Minister said,”this is not the voice of Mumbai alone, this is the voice of the entire country, from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari, and it is said people’s voice is a message from God.”

The BJP’s prime ministerial contender touched upon the highly emotive issue of beheading of a soldier by the Pakistanis.
“A small country beheads our jawan and we fail to do anything. Bring the head of our soldier back to the Indian soil,” he said, adding more Indian soldiers had lost their lives in terrorist attacks than wars.


“A soldier who wants to take the enemy’s bullet on his chest suffers the most when he dies in his own cantonment instead of the battlefield,” he said.

Apparently referring to cyber attacks by China, he said, with the country having a big talent pool of Information communication technology perfessionals why could it not stop such intrusions.

He also flayed the government for massive import of armaments to meet the requirements of defence forces.
“Today we have to make huge imports of armaments to replenish our weaponry. How would the bullets made in alien barracks fire?” he asked.

Calling for formulating effective programmes and policies for indigenous production of weaponry for armed forces, he said there was no reason why the country could not become self-reliant in defence production and even export arms over the next decade.

“Our ancestors exported swords when battles were fought with swords, why can’t we do so now? India cannot wait for it to be attacked to be self-reliant,” he said and underlined the need for introducing defence production research as part of curriculum at science institutes.

He lauded the erstwhile NDA government of Atal Behari Vajpayee for the Pokhran II nuclear bomb test and for introducing the practice of bringing back the bodies of martyred soldiers to their homes.

“There was a time when only the uniforms of soldiers used to reach their homes as sign of their martyrdom. Vajpayee introduced the practice of sending their bodies home. Today, in his death, the fallen soldier inspires patriotism as his community, village and the entire state assembles to pay him homage,” he said.

Earlier, Modi felicitated Lata Mangeshkar, on the 51st anniversary of the moving song Aye mere watan ke logon’. The song she first sang in 1963 after the Sino-India war, had moved Jawaharlal Nehru to tears.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED PLEASE :



Indian Express

The missing monument

Arun Prakash 

Apr 23 2013


[Unlike in India, cities across the world have war memorials in central locations]
Not long ago, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit remarked that a national war memorial around India Gate would clutter up a recreational space and hinder people’s enjoyment. 

But surely the Delhi administration can create such spaces elsewhere? Pleasure seekers might find more appropriate places than Edwin Lutyens’ grand central avenue, leading from India Gate to the elegant Rashtrapati Bhavan, with the imposing North and South Blocks guarding its flanks. 

The civilised world’s capitals are replete with heroic statues of soldiers, with squares and avenues named after generals, admirals and famous battles. In India, we mostly celebrate politicians, along with a few saints, film stars and cricketers. But soldiers seem to be anathema. 

It is worth asking whether the Delhi CM would have opposed a memorial to a politician or religious figure on the grounds that it would be a hindrance to people’s enjoyment or that it would spoil the environment. Ever since Independence, the Indian politico-bureaucratic establishment has typically regarded its soldiers, sailors and airmen with a certain disdain. 

This is bizarre and incomprehensible, considering that a soldier laid down his life for the country just days after Independence.Lieutenant Colonel Dewan Ranjit Rai earned glory and a posthumous Maha Vir Chakra for fighting Pakistani raiders near Baramulla. 

In the 66 years since then, there has scarcely been a day in the life of our embattled nation that a grieving family somewhere has not welcomed a hero, brought home in a tricolour-draped coffin. 

The war memorial, if one is ever created, will be a small tribute to the memory of the young men who gave their lives for the nation. 

It has been the gallantry, patriotism and selfless sacrifice of these young men that repeatedly saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour, as our strategic naivete led to adventurism by neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999.

The refusal to pay homage to fallen soldiers on the anniversaries of the Bangladesh and Kargil wars, or to the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka, on specious political grounds is unforgivable, especially since Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka celebrate these events in their own ways. 

The crowning national ignominy is the fact that the Sri Lankan government has been gracious enough to erect an impressive monument to the IPKF dead, while these brave soldiers remain unsung in their own motherland. 

Whether it is the Arlington Memorial in Washington, the Cenotaph in London, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or the impressive Jatiyo Smriti Soudho in Dhaka, these magnificent monuments embody the pride of nations and the spontaneous desire of citizens to acknowledge the sacrifice of their national heroes, the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have fallen in the country’s wars. 

All these are in prime locations in the heart of the city. Far from spoiling the environment, they evoke deeply patriotic sentiments. 

In India, it is only the armed forces who pay homage to their own, at the Amar Jawan Jyoti erected below India Gate. There are two bits of irony here, which seem to escape everyone. 

First, India Gate is a war memorial erected by the British in memory of soldiers of who lost their lives in World War I and the Third Anglo-Afghan War. Although most of the names engraved on the granite walls are Indian, the monument does not celebrate a national war. 

Second, free India’s contribution to this imposing monument is merely a rifle lodged, muzzle-first, in stone, with a helmet perched on its butt. The symbol is recognised across the world as an ad hoc battlefield marker for a soldier’s temporary grave. 

For a politico-bureaucratic establishment that has stubbornly refused to acknowledge, by word or deed, the sterling contribution of the soldier to India’s freedom struggle, its post-Partition consolidation and to combating the repeated assaults on its territorial integrity, the construction of a national war memorial at a central location in the Capital would be a belated but welcome gesture. 

It would bolster the pride and morale of not just a million and a half Indian men and women bearing arms, but also of the large fraternity of veterans who “gave their today for our tomorrow”. 

The writer is a retired chief of naval staff 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/bigidea/know-the-unknown-soldier/article1-305457.aspx
Know the unknown soldier

Barkha Dutt

April 18, 2008



Ask us increasingly cynical and notoriously fickle Indians to name something or someone we still have deep and abiding respect for and chances are we will all have the same answer: the Indian Solider. 

We may have lazy scorn for our politicians, historic resentment of our bureaucrats and deep-seated envy of our industrialists. But show us those landscaped images of a lone jawan stoically standing guard on an icy, barren, mountaintop, throw in a few strains of AR Rahman’s Vande Mataram and watch our tears turn into a flood of empathy.

We push our military into duties that were never really part of its job description. So,
apart from and in addition to fighting wars and terrorism, we count on our soldiers to
play roles as varied as building bridges when the tsunami hits, keeping the peace during religious riots and even managing the now-epidemic condition of saving children who mysteriously end up at the bottom of borewells. 


But if we are a country that really cares so deeply for its military, why is it that a
monster called apathy is in serious danger of devouring the future of the Armed Forces?


This week, while we were all consumed by whether the Olympic torch would make its way safely pastIndia Gate (built by Edwin Lutyens to honour the 84,000 Indian soldiers who died in World War I),the Army Chief was making a trip down the same road. 

He was on his way to meet the Urban Development Minister, probably wondering — as many of his predecessors had before him—  whether he would have any luck convincing this government
to do, what the British had already done as far back as 1921. 

He was carrying a file that has now travelled through multiple ministries for seven years: the plans and architectural designs for a National War Memorial.

For the last two years, different government bodies including the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the Heritage Conservation Committee
have squabbled like recalcitrant children over whether the designs for the memorial are tenable. 


Could anything be a more shocking illustration of the stranglehold of red-tape around what should have been a flagship project for any government?

The designs for the memorial (the proposal is to build the structure around the canopy at India Gate) have been created by Charles Correa, easily one of India’s most venerable architects. 
Yet ask officials what has held up the green signal, and they will tell you it is a “lack of consensus” over how high the walls of the memorial should be. 

Have you heard of anything more ludicrous?


Admittedly, India Gate is a heritage building, and any new construction within its circumference would have to be aesthetically sensitive.

But that is not even the point.

Surely the question to ask instead is why military chiefs should have to implore different mantrijis to sign on the dotted line for something that should be a matter of intuitive national pride. 

We like to think of ourselves as self-confident nation, a global powerhouse that is hard to beat.

And yet, a file to create a national memorial for soldiers who die in conflict has gathered cobwebs and dust for seven long years, and we aren’t even angry enough to ask why.

Perhaps it’s time to admit that cocooned in the embrace of the new economy and the
surging sensex, we may like to be believe that we care about the ordinary Indian soldier, but at best, our solidarity is notional and feeble. We have passionate opinions on India is a ‘soft state’ or whether our governments are ‘tough on terror’.

But beyond the sound and fury of drawing room debate, soldiering is something that happens to other people. 


We respond to stories of valour and tragedy with applause and tears but as the moment passes, so does our interest and engagement. 

It’s almost like watching a movie — for
those three hours we are transported enough for celluloid emotion to tug at our hearts, but as the popcorn winds down and the lights beam up again — we know that our lives are elsewhere. 

Our engagement with the plight of the Indian Soldier is similar — ephemeral and maudlin, but essentially indifferent.

The PLU (People like us) brigade would no longer consider the military as a career option and many of those who did are now lining up and pleading for the freedom to leave. 
Ask the Generals and Admirals unofficially, and they will concede that they have to reject resignations, because the shortfall would be too dire to deal with.

In Kashmir, there are already reports of ordinance and artillery units doubling up for infantry duty, because of the numbers crunch.

And for the first time in years, the Army is actually considering a one-time emergency, short-service commissioning of officers to fill the ever widening gap. 


That’s how serious and morale weakening the situation is. 


Like any other wing of the government, the military knows it can’t compete with the big bucks of the private sector. But, no matter, what your view is on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, can you think of a single reason why the military has never had
a representative on any pay board? Or why the military shouldn’t just have its own wage board?


The carpers will ask where it will all end. Tomorrow, the police and the paramilitary,
they say, will ask for the same. The liberals will hurl phrases like ‘jingoism’ at you
and say far too much fuss is made about soldiers. 

But chances are that they have never
had to stand upright and tearless to salute a coffin draped in a flag. And the rest will
say we are on the side of the soldier and forget all about it with the turn of this page.


In the meantime, the old school soldier will try and tell a generation that doesn’t care
that everything is not about money. He will say that there are such things as romance and respect for which there is no other substitute.

He will then open the newspaper and read about a country that has been debating whether we need a war memorial since the 1960s. 


And he will be silent.

Barkha Dutt is Managing Editor, NDTV 24x7


Thursday, January 23, 2014

NRI scientist AJ Paulraj wins tech ‘Nobel’



NRI scientist AJ Paulraj wins tech ‘Nobel’


Jan 23, 2014


NRI scientist AJ Paulraj wins tech ‘Nobel’
The Marconi Prize comes just three years after Paulraj was honored with the other major Telecom technology award - the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for his work on theoretical foundations of MIMO. 


WASHINGTON: An India-born engineer-scientist who was disdained by the Indian system despite his yeoman contribution to the country's naval defence, and whose subsequent work in the United States is at the heart of the current high speed WiFi and 4G mobile systems, has been awarded the 2014 Marconi Prize, a Nobel equivalent for technology pioneers.

Coimbatore-native and Stanford University Professor Emeritus Arogyaswami Joseph Paulraj,simply known as ''Paul'' to his legion of friends and admirers, has been recognized for his work in inventing and advancing MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) technology, a key enabler of wireless broadband services that has revolutionized high speed delivery of multimedia across the world.

The Marconi Prize, whose previous winners include world wide web pioneer Tim Berners-Lee, Internet legend Vint Cerf, Google search maestro Larry Page, and cell phone inventor Martin Cooper, comes with a $ 100,000 prize, but prestige and recognition worth a lot more for these people who are already millionaires. Uncommonly, the Marconi Prize comes just three years after Paulraj was honored with the other major Telecom technology award - the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for his work on theoretical foundations of MIMO.

''Paul has made profound contributions to wireless technology, and the resulting benefit to mankind is indisputable. Every wifi router and 4G phone today uses MIMO technology pioneered by him,'' says Professor Sir David Payne, Chairman of the Marconi Society and Director of the Optoelectronics Research Centre at the University of Southampton. ''MIMO will soon be pervasive in all wireless devices. Moreover, Paulraj's work has provided fertile ground for thousands of researchers to explore and advance MIMO's potential to enhance wireless spectrum efficiency.''

The Marconi Society, celebrating its 50th year in 2014, was founded by Gioia Marconi Braga, daughter of the legendary radio inventor Guglielmo Marconi.

Winners typically include scientists whose mathematical theories and inventions have shaped the Internet and broadband access, public key encryption, Web search, wired and wireless transmission, multimedia publishing, optical fiber and satellite communications.




While Silicon Valley - where Prof Paulraj is already a legend - will exult in recognition of another tech titan, India's Silicon Plateau might yet rue of another genius it let go. An electrical engineer, Paul worked for nearly a quarter century for the Indian Navy before he quit India. In fact, it was the Indian Navy that sent him to IIT Delhi for an M.S program at the instance of Prof P V Indiresan, an influential EE professor who recognized his potential.

The story goes that in 1970, Stanford Prof. Thomas Kailath, a brilliant and influential systems theorist who is himself a Pune-native, visited IIT Delhi to lecture on non-linear estimation. Inspired by Kailath's lectures, Paul went on to make fundamental advances in the area much to the Indian Navy's benefit. In 1971, after the war with Pakistan exposed shortcomings of the Navy's (British origin) sonars leading to the loss of a Naval ship, Paul led a successful project to redesign the sonar adding many new signal processing concepts. Three years later the new technology was widely deployed in the fleet.

''The (Indian) Navy is enormously proud of Paul's many achievements and will remain always indebted for his landmark development of the APSOH sonar,''Retired Admiral R. H. Tahiliani, former Chief of the Naval Staff, told the Marconi Society on the occasion of the award to Paul.

In fact, Paul's work enabled India to overcome the military export restrictions imposed by the west. In an ironic twist, the Navy allowed him to go to Stanford on a two-year sabbatical, joining his mentor Tom Kailath. He returned to India in 1986 and served as the founding director for three major labs - CAIR (Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics), CDAC (Center for Development of Advanced Computing) and CRL (Central Research Labs of Bharat Electronics).

But by 1991, according to the now familiar narrative, bureaucratic battles began to take their toll, and with the consent of the Indian Navy, he returned to the US and Stanford University. ''His departure for Stanford University was a major loss for our country and the circumstances that led to his move may explain why we have so few Nobel Laureates from India,'' Admiral Tahiliani said.

Although Paul and his wife Nirmala live on the Stanford campus, they are frequent visitors to India, which recognized his contribution to the country with a Padma Bhushan award in 2010. He has been a strong proponent for reviving India's telecom technology industry, noting the high cost to the nation for its near total dependence on telecom imports. "It is expensive and it is self-defeating. We should be making our own equipment, we have the talent and the expertise," he lamented in a phone conversation with ToI on Wednesday.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Decade of demonising majority community



Decade of demonising majority community


A Surya Prakash

21 January 2014


[From ignoring the kar sevaks burnt alive at Godhra to pushing the communal violence Bill that blames the the Hindus for all riots, the UPA has sought to tear India’s secular fabric for the sake of a handful of votes]


The United Progressive Alliance came to power in 2004. Ever since it stepped into office, it has been on a minority-appeasement spree. 

It set up the Sachar Committee, which went so far as to demand a communal census of the Indian armed forces.

Then came the Ranganath Mishra Commission and attempts to create communal quotas in universities and jobs. 

There was also the fraudulent attempt to demonise the Hindu kar sevaks who were burnt alive by a Muslim mob in Godhra. 

The UPA appointed a commission of inquiry which came to the most preposterous conclusions in this case.

In short, the policy of minority appeasement vigorously pursued by the Government headed by the first non-Hindu Prime Minister of India and controlled by other non-Hindu players has now degenerated into an anti-Hindu policy. 

Since the de facto and de jure Prime Ministers have enjoyed unbridled power for almost 10 years, they have decided to brazenly display their anti-Hindu stance. 

Hence their determination to pursue the Bill dealing with communal violence and loaded with anti-Hindu features. 

Their recent attempt to push this through in the Winter Session of Parliament has another reason. They believe minority appeasement is paying rich electoral dividends for the party. 

For example, in the recent election to the Delhi Assembly, the Congress won eight seats. 

Five of these seats came from Muslim-dominated constituencies and in its eight-member legislature party, it has five MLAs from minority communities, four of them Muslims. 

This is the first minority-dominated Congress legislature party in any State after independence, and both Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Manmohan Singh must be thrilled at the success of their policies.

Apart from electoral evidence, we now have the testimony of persons who have held key positions within the UPA Government to prove that this Government’s minority-appeasement policies have acquired a reckless character. 

The most damning indictment of this Government has come from Mr RK Singh, who worked as Union Home Secretary until last June. 

He has said that the UPA had compromised national security because of its vote-bank politics. 

Although these remarks of were denounced by Congress leaders, Union Minister for Home Affairs Sushil Kumar Shinde has virtually confirmed this himself a few days ago by saying that State Governments must be careful while arresting members of minority communities for criminal offences. 

He told the media that he was writing to all State Governments and asking them to examine whether members of minority communities were being illegally detained. 

This blatantly unconstitutional and communal remarks of the Union Home Minister substantially corroborate the accusation made by the former Home Secretary that the UPA was compromising national security. 

Even more shocking is his allegation that Mr Shinde did not want a businessman close to Dawood Ibrahim to be interrogated in the IPL betting case. 

All this goes to prove that national security, internal security and rule of law stand gravely compromised so long as the UPA remains in office. 

The final assault on the majority community by this Government comes in the form of the controversial Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill. 

Though it is supposedly a Bill to prevent communal violence, the central theme of the Bill is to demonise Hindus and look at the conduct of officials and State Governments with utmost suspicion while creating a halo around the Union Government. 

But what is to be done if the Union Government itself becomes the promoter of pogroms against minorities, like it did against Sikhs when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister? 

The absurdity is that the Bill does not address such a situation even though close to 3,000 Sikhs were butchered by Congress goons in Delhi and other northern cities after Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984. 

As a result, all that this dangerous and divisive Bill does is to promote friction between the Hindu majority and other religious minorities and provide legitimacy and legislative sanctity to the perceived victimhood of Muslims.

The original draft of this Bill, produced by the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council, was an absolute horror because it specifically targeted the Hindu majority and said only members of the minority community would be perceived to be victims. 

Thus, for example, if this law existed in 2002 when a Muslim mob surrounded a train at Godhra and burnt alive 59 Hindu kar sevaks, the Hindu victims would have no recourse to legal remedies under this law. 

On the other hand, the perpetrators of this barbaric act would probably get relief under this Bill’s provisions!

The Sonia Gandhi-draft evoked  protests from various quarters and from many States. Several Chief Ministers protested and said the Bill was unacceptable because it violated the federal features of the Constitution and undermined the powers of the States in regard to handling law and order.

After lying low for some time, the UPA, on Ms Gandhi’s goading, resurrected the Bill after making some cosmetic changes. 

However, the core objections still remain because the mischievous intent of the NAC to target the majority is by and large intact. 

The Bill aims to make minorities the ‘victims' and the Hindu majority the villians in any communal conflict. This is the central idea of the Bill and it remains unchanged.  

Many provisions in the Bill are not only unconstitutional but irresponsible and partisan. 

Clearly, the intentions of the Government and Congress are suspect. 

Should the UPA be ousted from power in May, the new Government should hold an inquiry and prosecute the draftsmen for drafting a law that has the potential to tear the secular fabric of India.

Further, apart from generating communal strife and pitting religious minorities against the majority in every State and Union Territory, the Bill incorporates some extremely dangerous provisions which seek to re-impose the dadagiri of the Centre on the States and even promote insubordination in the administration in the States. 

There is also an attempt to introduce some mischievous provisions to classify crimes on communal lines. 

That is why Mr Narendra Modi has said it is ill-conceived, poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster. 

Several other Chief Ministers are also opposed to this Bill for the same reason. 

Those who wish to preserve communal harmony and the rights of the States must prevent the UPA from carrying out its final assault on the majority community before it is thrown out of office by the people this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED PLEASE :


Please read :

PERVERSION OF INDIA'S POLITICAL PARLANCE


By
Sita Ram Goel

Published By Voice of India

New Delhi, India

URL http://voiceofdharma.org/books/pipp/