[#History] From European Migrant Crisis to the Rohingya Crisis - A Journey

A Refugee or Migrant Crisis gripped Europe in the summer of 2015. It was a humanitarian disaster; as thousands of refugees died on their way to safe heavens in Europe, with images of their capsized boats and dead bodies reported by media going viral on internet. Since 2015, 15 Lakh (1.5 million) refugees arrived in Europe by the sea. 15 Lakh was not a small number given the population in European nations. E.g. total population of Denmark is 57 Lakh and Switzerland is 83 Lakh. The migrants were mostly Muslims. According to a report from UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the top 3 nationalities of entrants of the over 10 lakh between Jan 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%). Around 60% were adult males. The demographic constitution of migrants made the European Christians worry a lot. It was said that with such large influx of Muslims, the demography of Europe would change forever. This caused some panic and corrective actions. But the migrants were determined. If one route was closed, they switched to another route. If one country tightened its doors, they tried to reach for another. They were determined, as they had nothing to lose and everything to gain, in their endeavors.

The interesting thing about this migrant crisis was that it never ended. It is still happening while we speak, in 2017. About 95,000 migrants reached Italy in 2017 so far and 9,000 migrants have arrived in Spain in 2017 from the same routes.

A lot of politics is changing in Europe due the migrant influx. At several places, anti-minority and far Right parties and leaders have gained popularity and power. People have started fearing Muslims in general, depicted in new terms like 'Islamophobia'. And there were reasons behind that fear. Most immigrants were coming from war-torn terrorism infested countries and there were no valid means to separate the persecuted from the persecutors. Intelligence reports indicated that large number of terrorists were entering Europe in the guise of refugees. Those who wanted migrants to settle in Europe labelled such reports as 'Islamophobia". But the data can show how terror attacks have increased in Europe in the recent years after 2015 when the migrant crisis began.

On New Year's Eve 2015-16 in Cologne, Germany, groups of migrant men assaulted about 1200 women during New Year celebrations. A report by the German Police Office on crime in the context of immigration found that immigrants were responsible for 17% of all theft, 10% of fraud, 11% of all violent crime, 8% of drug crime, 9% of sexual crimes and 15% of all crime resulting in loss of life. And after huge migrant influx of 2015, year 2016 saw a 53% rise in immigrant crime! Speaking of terror attacks - Paris, London, Brussels, Barcelona and beyond, one after the other European cities have seen clear increase in terror attacks and these are seen to be related to the migrant crisis of 2015.

Indians watched the European Migrant crisis first in horror, disbelief and gradually in the end, with a passive acceptance. "It happened since it was to happen that way" - the famous philosophy which has made Indians accept fate and move on for ages. Europe had anyway become too far and "foreign" to majority of Indians.

It seemed dust had just settled and European migrant crisis was to be forgotten as a historical event of the past. At that moment, something happened in India's backyard - Rohingya Muslims started to flee Myanmar and enter neighboring countries like Bangladesh and India.

Rohingya people are mostly Muslims while some are Hindus. By its constitution and law, Myanmar does not recognize Rohingya people as its citizens. They don't have equal rights as others, can't vote, because of obvious reasons that they are not citizens of Myanmar. According to the law, they are "stateless" people. Buddhists consider Rohingya Muslims as "Bengali Muslims" i.e. those who came from Bangladesh. Some Rohingya Muslims have formed militant groups and hence every once in a while Myanmar police and army attacks the Rohingya villages and reports tell about violations, abuses and violence against them. Rohingya are persecuted people.

There are several similarities between the European and Myanmar's Rohingya crises. Migrants in both crises were supposed to be persecuted people running away from homeland torn by violence. Both often took boats to travel in the sea while fleeing. Both were unwelcome in the countries they wanted to enter. Some among both were linked to terror and violent groups and hence were considered security treats to their hosts. And of course, both were Muslims.

Now there were also several differences. The Muslims fleeing Arab and African nations did not have any "roots" in Europe. But the Muslims fleeing Myanmar were supposed to have Bengali origin; and still Bangladesh did not want them. India tried to persuade Bangladesh to take those refugees.

Several European countries initially saw the refugees as "opportunities" since those could be used in doing low-end manual jobs which no one wanted to do. But in case of Bangladesh and India, these had already got enough poor to cater to; hence their "glass was already full" and the poor migrants were seen as economic "burden". Economic reason was one of the most important factors in other countries not welcoming the refugees; but not all. Most important was that those Rohingya Muslims were supposed to be linked to terror groups and hence were seen as "security threats".

The way European media tried to hide the crime and violence committed by the Migrants of 2015 was also a different case. On the other hand, Indian and Bangladeshi media were swift to show the "real face", the violent background and the crime history of the poor Rohingyas who were running for life. Hence, the national response and people's opinion in both these cases differed widely. India which is home to about 3 Lakh "legal refugees" and innumerable illegal ones, decided to "deport" the 40,000 Rohingya Muslims who were living in India illegally after crossing the Indo-Bangladesh border. What happened to India which has a long history of providing asylum to persecuted refugees to make an exception to Rohingya Muslims?

It can be discussed if the way European Migrant Crisis unfolded had any impact on India's response to Rohingya Muslims' plea to help. Perhaps the European Migrant Crisis has not yet totally "unfolded"; with the terror attacks so farhave been only a "beginning"; and hence it is too early to say if Indians learnt something from the European experience.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - it was said by George Santayana (16 Dec 1863 - 26 Sep 1952), a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist; born in Spain.

After a long track record of not learning from history, has India finally awoken? Has it started learning from not only history but also from events and crises in other countries? Only time can tell.

But somewhere, amidst all the discussions and debates on what should be done and how, there are poor hapless people who are suffering. Somewhere a refugee with a criminal history or not commits a crime, and a hundred other innocent ones suffer. History has been particularly ruthless against the weak. And refugees almost always happen to be weak.

All this concludes only in emphasizing the importance of "peace". "Om shanti shanti shanti," - an invocation of peace. Perhaps our forefathers knew the importance of peace. Perhaps we are supposed to preserve it at all costs.

- Rahul Tiwary 

[#India] Global Hunger Index and India Rank - 2017

Do not get fooled into believing that India is doing all great and is soon to become a Super Power. We are still a poor starving country where children suffer the most. And do not believe it is Government's job alone to make India what it should become.

Global Hunger Index is based on 4 indicators: % of undernourished population; % of children under 5 suffering from wasting (low weight-for-height); % of children under 5 suffering from stunting (low height-for-age) and % of child mortality.

In 2017, India ranks poorly at #100 among 119 countries; down from #97 last year and #55 in 2014 (when Modi ji came to power). A sinking feeling.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indias-hungry-children-even-north-korea-iraq-nepal-myanmar-are-better/articleshow/61050945.cms

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/global-hunger-index-india-down-45-ranks-since-2014-situation-serious-117101200345_1.html

[#Society] Diwali without Crackers in Delhi

I have always cherished vivid childhood memories. Most of those are happy and nice; while some are painful. I remember one Diwali which we spent at our grandfather’s house. I was very small at that time. Father was travelling long distance due to work. We were not really poor and I remember enjoying all Diwalis with plenty of firecrackers. But that Diwali was different. So, mother gave a 10 rupee note to one of my uncles and he took me to buy some firecrackers for me. In 10 rupees we could not get much crackers. I got malnourished ‘fuljhadis’, anemic ‘anars’ and rickety ‘rockets’. I felt really humiliated. The walk from the cracker-stall to our home was my ‘walk of shame’. I was very angry then and threw a lot of tantrums, but that did not change a thing. I remember during Diwali night, my rockets did not even go past the three-storied house of our grandfather. Afterwards we started going to the roof to burn rockets, so that the rockets could go a bit higher. What was wrong in that Diwali? Perhaps the ‘wrong’ was also wrong in so many other areas of our life. Firecrackers had become ‘status symbols’. People burned as many as they could afford.

Later when I grew up, I could afford to burn as many crackers as I wanted. But I did not see any value in it. So I burned some of those just for fun. I never went overboard. Growing older, I almost completely stopped burning firecrackers except a few just for name sake. Firecrackers were no longer ‘status symbol’ for me. I did not see value in producing so much smoke, so much noise and so much fuss about those. I think that was some learning.

So when did our festivals turn into occasions to show-off how rich we were? Just think about it.

The first Diwali was a spontaneous natural celebration of the masses upon return of their long separated beloved prince. Lord Ram was returning to Ayodhya with his wife and brother after 14 long years! It was a jubilation. People must have lighted earthen lamps, for there were no candles or electricity at that time. And for sure there were no firecrackers at that time. Gradually, shape and nature of this festival kept changing with the time. But earthen lamps have remained in vogue even after thousands of years since Diwali was first celebrated! Firecrackers came in between. Electric-lighting came in between. These were not the original tradition. And hence doing or not doing these does not make a difference in true tradition.

Diwali or Deepawali is the festival of light. Light as appearing from an earthen lamp. A poor man makes those earthen lamps. The same earthen lamp would be lighted in front of your gods in the temple inside your house. The same earthen lamp would also light in the homes of the poor. There will be no difference in the ‘light’. Just like there is no difference between our ‘souls’, no matter we are poor or rich. Just like the same supreme being resides inside all of us, no matter whether we are rich or poor. Festivals were expected to bring the best in our culture and tradition. Festivals based on our economic status do not bring the best in us.

Diwali is also equally about cleanliness. It is believed that Goddess Lakshmi travels on this night to all homes and if the home is clean and virtuous, she enters it. If home is dirty or inhabited by immoral people, she does not enter. Just look at the surrounding after burning loads of firecrackers. It is disgusting! No Lakshmi can live amidst so much trash, carbon and smoke.

Supreme court has asked to have a cracker-less Diwali this year in Delhi. It is a good step. What is not good is the fact that not burning firecrackers is not going to improve the air quality. And what would improve it is not happening at all. Do we see anything really serious being done to improve air quality? I don’t see any large-scale plantations, any new public parks, gardens, building better roads, increased cleanliness, better disposal of waste, etc. A dog dies on the road and decomposes by the side of it. Garbage including plastic is burnt for hours. Large scale construction happens without any attempt to prevent tons of dust being generated from it for months. Traffic is clogged resulting in so much pollultion. There is no effective and long-term management of pollution apart from cheeky schemes like ‘odd-even’ for a couple of months every year. Is it fair to stop firecrackers in Diwali singling it out as if it is the ultimate solution?

We can also notice the manner in which and for how long courts have started making laws in India. Government often has to behave like an opposition while the court rules us. Something is not right in this whole self-righteous “law making” trend.

Many are angry about why such things are done only against Hindu festivals. There are festivals like Bakri-Id which result in mass scale killing of animals; no court will try to stop it. The reason is an open secret. It is because Hindus are tolerant by nature. Just in a couple of months “New Year” will be celebrated which is a Christian festival. Firecrackers will be burnt all over, but court will not stop it. The fact that the court has tried to stop firecrackers at a Hindu festival is a testimony that we are expected to agree to it. We Hindus are civil, educated, well-mannered people who care about law. Alas, that is not true. Hindus are being made into the ideal citizen and the best of the lot, which we are not. No one is. So better make us an ideal citizen by educating us; instead of forcing a law on us.

That is the way I see it.

- Rahul Tiwary

[#History] The Black Monday and Fate of Royalties

Battle of Poitiers was a major English victory in the first phase of the Hundred Years' War with France. It was fought on 19th September 1356 near the village of Poitiers in Aquitaine, France. The army of England led by Edward the Black Prince defeated a larger French army led by King John II of France, leading to the capture of the king! King John II was taken as captive to England. Edward the Black Prince was also the Prince of Wales. (Currently, Charles is the Prince of Wales while Camilla is and Lady Diana was Princess of Wales because of their marriage to Charles.)

France had not only lost its King as captive but also a lot of its nobility in the battle. This threw the French kingdom into chaos. The reins came in the hands of John's son Dauphin Charles. Charles began to raise additional funds to pay ransom for his father and carry out war efforts by imposing taxes. He faced rebellion by the masses. French nobles brutally repressed the rebellions, robbing and despoiling the peasants' goods.

Capitalising on the discontent in France, English King Edward III assembled his army and decided to attack again. On 5th April 1360, King Edward III led his army of 10,000 men to the gates of Paris. The defenders of Paris led by the Dauphine Charles refused battle and defended the fort. Unable to breach the defenses, the English left Paris after destroying the countryside, and marched towards the French Cathedral City of Chartres.

On Easter Monday, April 13, 1360, Edward's army arrived at the gates of Chartres. The French defenders again refused battle and a siege ensued. That night, the English army made camp outside Chartres in an open plain. Then a huge freak hailstorm struck and killed an estimated 1000 English soldiers, 6000 horses and destroyed all the tents, arrangements and resources. The storm was so devastating that it caused more English military casualties than any of the previous battles of the war. It is called "Black Monday" of 1360.

King Edward III saw it as a sign from God against his endeavors. He agreed to the peace negotiations and began the withdrawal of his army. The French called the storm as a divine intervention because of the English looting of French countryside during the religiously observant week of Lent.

The Treaty of Brétigny was drafted on 8th May 1360 and ratified in October. The treaty set ransom for King John II's release at 3 million Crowns and allowed for hostages including two of his sons to be held in his place. King John returned to France to try and raise funds to pay the ransom.

In 1363 one of King John's son Louis of Anjou, a hostage, escaped captivity. To the surprise of the masses, King John announced that he would return to captivity in England to protect his "honor". He returned to London and was greeted with parade and feasts. But within a few months he became ill and died while still in English captivity. His body was returned to France, where he was buried in the royal chambers at Saint Denis Basilica. Basilica of St Denis in Saint-Denis, now a suburb of Paris, is a large Church where nearly every King of France from 10th to 18th century are buried.

John's son le Dauphin Charles succeeded him as King of France as "Charles V".

Charles V had suffered from an attempted poisoning in 1359. It had caused him an abscess in his left arm. Charles was an intelligent ruler. To pay ransom for his captured father, he had to raise taxes and hence faced revolts by the peasants as well as hostility from some of the nobility. Charles overcame all of these rebellions. By 1375, Charles recovered much of the English territories in France except Calais and Gascony, effectively nullifying the Treaty of Brétigny! He also replenished the royal treasury and restored the prestige of the House of Valois to which he belonged. But in 1380 his old ailment of abscess returned and he became ill. On his deathbed he announced abolition of a harsh tax which was imposed on people. Charles V was called "the Wise" (French: "le Sage"). He died on 16th September 1380 at the age of 42 and was succeeded by his 11-year-old son, Charles VI. After his death, people sparked the Maillotin revolt in 1381.

On English side, Edward the Black Prince became ill after 1366. During a campaign in Spain, his army had suffered so badly from dysentery that 20% soldiers had died. Edward the Black Prince contracted an illness on this expedition in Spain which prevented his participating on the battlefield. This illness ailed him until his death in 1376 at the age of 46. Edward the Black Prince died one year before his father, becoming the first English Prince of Wales not to become King of England. His father King Edward III died of a stroke 21st June, 1377 at the age of 64. He was succeeded by his ten-year-old grandson, King Richard II, son of the Black Prince.

It is also interesting to see what happened when the successors Charles VI ruled France and Richard II ruled England.

In France, since Charles VI was only 11 when he got the throne, his uncles took the power as dukes and misruled the country. The financial resources so painstakingly built up by his father, Charles V, were wasted by his uncles. New taxes had to be raised which caused revolts by people. In 1388 Charles VI dismissed his uncles and brought back his father's former advisers in power and then the political and economic condition of the kingdom improved. But Charles VI turned "mad" afterwards and his misrule made the English win back most of what his father Charles V had earned.

In England, King Richard II's rule turned out to be disaster. He was "over-thrown" and died in captivity. William Shakespeare wrote his play Richard II which portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition as responsible for the 15th century Wars of the Roses.

In order to make peace between them, one daughter of Charles VI of France - Isabella - was married with King Richard II of England. On 31st October 1396 Isabella of Valois married the widower King Richard II of England at the early age of "7". Historical accounts reveal that she was happy with the marriage as she thought she would become a "great queen". She was placed at the famous Windsor Castle and she and King Richard developed a mutually respectful relationship. But just 3 years afterwards, King Richard lost a battle and died in captivity; making her widow.

New English King Henry IV decided that Queen Isabella should marry his son, the future Henry V of England, but she refused and the French supported her decision. Later, at the age of 17, she married her cousin Charles, Duke of Orleans, but died in her first childbirth at the age of 19 on September 13, 1409. Her newborn child was a daughter and survived - called Joan of Valois.

In 1424 at Blois, France, Joan of Valois married John II of Alençon, but they remained childless. She died in 1432 at the age of 22.

John II of Alençon was a famed general in the last phase of the Hundred Years' War and a "comrade-in-arms" of Joan of Arc, who called him "le beau duc" ("the fair duke"/"the gentle duke"). He had a troubled life. He fought with Joan of Arc in her attempt to liberate France from the English. On 30th of May 1431, Joan of Arc was burnt alive by the British in Rouen, a city on the River Seine in the north of France. John was devastated by it. He was held captive, sentenced to death, his Duchy was confiscated and died in prison in the Louvre in 1476 at the age of 56.

Such was the fate of the royalties; sealed by the Hundred Years of War between England and France.

- Rahul

[#History] Man from the North in History

The term "Norseman" meaning "man from the North" is applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes living in southern and central Scandinavia. In history, "Norse" or "Norseman" could be any person from Scandinavia.

"Vikings" were Norsemen who raided across wide areas of Europe during 8th to 11th centuries. The Siege of Paris during 885–86 was part of a Viking raid on the Seine, in the Kingdom of the West Franks.

The "Normans" were descendants from Vikings or Norsemen from Denmark, Iceland and Norway who under their chief named Rollo (Gaange Rolf) agreed to be loyal to King Charles III of France and in the 10th and 11th centuries, gave their name to Normandy - a region in France. The Normans were originally "Pagan" but after getting settlement in France they intermarried with the French and became Christians.

In 11th century, Normans conquered Sicily (Italy) from Muslims (Arabs) who were ruling it for centuries.

The Normans were famed for their martial spirit and eventually for their Catholic belief.

"Norman conquest of England" was the 11th century invasion and occupation of England by an army of Norman and French soldiers led by Duke William II of Normandy, later styled as "William the Conqueror". The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14th October 1066 between the Norman army of Duke William and English army under King Harold. King Harold was eventually killed in the battle and the English army fled. On December 25th 1066, William was crowned the new King of England.

England has never been successfully invaded since the Norman invasion.

The invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England. Norman-French, the language of the new ruling class, influenced the development of the English language as we know it today. The Normans built large numbers of castles, fortifications, monasteries, abbeys, churches and cathedrals, in a style characterized by the usual Romanesque rounded arches particularly over windows and doorways.

After the Norman conquest of 1066, the kings of England were vassals of the kings of France for their possessions in France. The French kings endeavored to reduce these possessions over the centuries, and in the end by and large only Gascony was left to the English. The confiscations had been part of French policy to check the growth of English power.

This was the background of the upcoming "Hundred Years' War" between England and France.

(To be continued)

- Rahul

Nature: Plight of Stray Animals due to Thirst

While I was walking, I noticed that there was a drain flowing by the road side. It was completely filled to its brim and all sort of plastic materials like plastic cups etc from nearby road-side fast-food vendors were floating over it. The water of the drain was completely black, indicating that its water did not flow to anywhere but had got decayed while hanging in there. It was a pathetic sight. The only blessing was that it did not produce any bad smell to the pedestrians; I wonder why not. 

Slightly ahead, I saw a stray dog drinking the same black sewer water. It was just standing there and sipping the surface of water through its tongue. I felt so bad for it. What other options would the stray dog have when it felt thirsty? Then I remembered the stray cows and stray bulls who live by the big trash pot on the road side, eating all the garbage. And this is common scene in our country!

Why God, why have you made such an imperfect world! So many living beings die of hunger, so many of thirst, and so many of polluted water! As humans, we have done pretty bad job on earth, it seems. 

- Rahul Tiwary

[#History] How India Changed after 1857 (Part-2)

Today, our government collects lots of data. It uses advance tools to analyze data and then makes policies and legislation. Some very interesting data came out of the Great Indian Rebellion of 1857. And the British took some very far-reaching decisions based on those which changed India forever.  

The rebellion did not happen equally in all parts of India. Some sets of people turned out to be a great threat to the British while some others proved to be friends of the British empire and helped crush the mutiny.  

The Bengal army dominated the British force before 1857. During the rebellion, 54 out of 74 regular Native Infantry Regiments of Bengal Army had revolted. And all 10 of the Bengal Light Cavalry regiments had mutinied. The demographics of Bengal Army was unique. It largely consisted of higher castes like Rajputs and Bhumihar Brahmins, and mostly recruited from the regions of Awadh and Bihar. Based on this data, the British decided to change their army’s composition forever. The Brahmins’ presence in the Bengal Army was reduced because of their large role in the mutiny. On the other hand, Sikhs of Punjab had helped them crush the mutiny and hence were seen as friends who could be recruited more.  

The British had first realized the strength of Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars. There were two major Anglo-Sikh wars: first during 1845-46 and second during 1848-49. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who had expanded the Sikh Empire by winning Peshawar, Multan (now in Pakistan), and Jammu and Kashmir, had maintained a friendly relation with the British. After his death in 1839, his kingdom started falling apart. His two sons who took to the throne after him died under mysterious circumstances. Then there were clashes for the throne. Two major factions emerged in Punjab: Sikh Sindhanwalias and Hindu Dogras. After two Anglo-Sikh wars, Sikh Empire lost and Punjab was annexed under British East India Company rule. During the wars, the British had mainly involved the Bengal Army to fight the Sikhs.  

When the great rebellion of 1857 happened, the Sikhs did not support it. It was due to two major reasons, among others. First because the rebellion of 1857 was seen as a work of the Bengal Army. Due to Bengal Army’s role during Anglo-Sikh wars, the Sikhs did not like it. Second, the mutineers had declared Bahadur Shah Zafar as their symbolic ruler. Sikhs and Mughals had long history of enmity and hence Sikhs did not like it too and ended up helping the British crush the rebellion of 1857.  

The British were thankful to the Sikhs for assisting them against the mutineers of 1857 rebellion. Therefore, post 1857 the British decided to increase recruitment in Punjab. Bengal army was reduced in size and at the same time Rajput and Brahmins were replaced by Sikh recruits from Punjab in Bengal Army. The British liked especially Jat Sikhs; they had well-built bodies due to diet, lifestyle and practicing wrestling and weight-lifting from early days; and martial skills due to Sikhism. Jat Sikhs were seen as “perfect recruits” for the Army.  

The British insisted that only Kesadhari Sikhs could join the army i.e. those who sported the five K's. The 5 Ks are: Kesh (uncut hair), Kara (a steel bracelet), Kanga (a wooden comb), Kaccha (cotton underwear) and Kirpan (steel sword). In Punjab there were Jat Sikhs and other Sikhs. But mainly Jat Sikhs sported the five K's and hence were the biggest beneficiaries. The soldiers were well paid, were given agricultural land and pension. But this policy severely restricted Hindus of other castes who wanted to join the army, particularly Khatris, who had served in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's forces.  

All this can also be seen as part of “divide and rule” policy of the British after 1857. They wanted to make sure than something like 1857 never happened again. And hence in the next decades after 1857, they systematically suppressed those factions which had rebelled and strengthened those which had supported the British in 1857.  

Then around 1900, the British made ‘Punjab Land Alienation Act of 1900’, classifying people as either "agriculturalist" or "non-agriculturalist". The act limited the transfer of land between these two groups. This act was seen as an "anti-Hindu" and “pro-Jat-Sikh” act. Hindus in Punjab, particularly Khatris, were acknowledged as Kshatriyas but were clubbed together with the “trading castes” in the British Census Reports since large number of them were educated and engaged in trade. Hence these Hindus were seldom accepted into the British military service and now this new land alienation act forbade them to even own lands. Under these circumstances, something very interesting trend emerged.  

Since Khatris and other Hindu castes were marked as “non-agricultural” tribe, many families started getting around this artificially imposed caste barrier by raising one or more son as a Sikh; mainly by having them adopt the name Singh and grow hair/beard to match. The children of such Sikhs became Sikhs and so on. Hence, till a couple of generations ago, the same family had two brothers - one Hindu and another Sikh. 

So as an aftermath of 1857, Jat Sikhs gained prominence in the army and till date have retained a major status. They also gained tremendous economic power since they had become the main owners of land in Punjab while other Hindu castes marked as “non-agriculturalists / traders” were restricted from buying farm land. Today, Jat Sikhs own around 80-90% of agriculture land in Punjab. They also gained new members into their faith, because other Hindu families tried to send one son into the sect in order to gain land ownership and other benefits.  

(to be continued)  

- Rahul

Also Read: How India Changed after 1857 (Part-1)

http://rahultiwaryuniverse.blogspot.in/2017/09/how-india-changed-after-1857-part-1.html

How India Changed after 1857 (Part-1)

Our PM Modi visited Myanmar recently and paid homage to Bahadur Shah Zafar at his tomb in Rangoon. That generated some media coverage on the Last Mughal Emperor. I was reading one such article in Jagran.

Rebellion of 1857 started on 10th May in Meerut and the revolting soldiers reached Delhi next day, meeting 81 year old Bahadur Shah Zafar requesting him to be their symbolic leader. On 12th of May, he became Emperor again and on 16th of May his green Flag could be seen on Lal Qila (Red Fort). The commissioner of Punjab setup a unit called Delhi Field Forces which reached Delhi's northern border by the end of May. The British forces faced massive resistance to their efforts to recapture Delhi. On 14th of September, they tried to capture the Red Fort again. Due to massive resistance on the streets, the British forces took one week to reach Lal Qila from Kashmiri Gate! On 20th of September 1857, the British forces captured Lal Qila again and arrested Bahadur Shah Zafar. Captain Hodson got 3 sons of Bahadur Shah Zafar killed near Delhi Gate (Shahjahanabad). Most sons of Bahadur Shah were killed and after recapture of Delhi, a lot of buildings, markets, schools and monuments were destroyed by the British forces.

It is estimated that 8 Lakh Indians died during 1857 rebellion while the British lost about 40,000 of their kin. This 'First War of Independence' was hell of a war, if one was taking part in it on either side.

One interesting aspect is how sections of Indians participated during the rebellion; particularly the 'martial class'.

The Sikhs of Punjab sided with the British to crush the mutiny. This comes as very shocking now, given the "patriotic" image Sikhs have. I remember reading how Sikhs had remained neutral and did not help the Maratha Empire when Peshwa forces came travelling 1000 miles from Pune to Delhi to counter the barbarian Ahmedshah Abdali during Third Battle of Panipat. The British definitely benefited by competing Indian forces like the Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs and Muslims who did not help each other even strategically to counter the British; thanks to their own big ambitions and egos. Next, the Gurjars of UP went completely against the British. All the villages between Meerut and Delhi declared freedom and eliminated the British. Nahar Singh, the Jat king of Ballabhgarh revolted against the British. While Rajputs of rest of India rebelled against the British, e.g. Babu Kunwar Singh of Bihar was a popular force, Rajputana, meaning "Land of the Rajputs" did not join the rebellion in general. The British had given special privileges to the Rajputs, perhaps learning their importance from the Mughals; and it helped. And the Gurkha regiments supported the British too and fought against the mutineers playing an important role in Bengal. Bhumihar Brahmins fought against the British and the mutiny was in fact started by Mangal Pandey who was one of them. A lot of Zamindars who had got their status from the British did not join the mutiny, helping the British.

Btw, apart from Rajputana, the large princely states, of Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir did not join the rebellion too. In Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Ranbir Singh, son of the great Maharaja Gulab Singh (founder of Dogra dynasty), loyally sided with the British during the 1857 Rebellion.

Muslims played a key role in the mutiny, perhaps inspired by the fact that if the British vanished, Mughal rule would return. Hence they were suppressed severely after the mutiny failed.

What would be our armed forces if not without great sacrifices of Sikhs, Jats, Gurjars, Rajputs, Bhumihars, Gurkhas and Dogras who have a very long martial tradition? But by understanding history of 1857 rebellion, we realize that several of them sided with the British during 1857 which was our first big chance. Who killed those 8 Lakh Indians who died fighting the British?

Before 1857, British forces had around 3 Lakh Indian soldiers and only 50,000 British soldiers. Hence it is most likely that a rebelling Indian during 1857 mutiny was killed by an "Indian" soldier and not by a British.

(to be continued)

- Rahul

Also Read: How India Changed after 1857 (Part-2)

http://rahultiwaryuniverse.blogspot.in/2017/09/how-india-changed-after-1857-part-1.html

That Puppy on the Street

Last evening, I saw a small pup crossing the road inside our housing society.

There is this building below which there is a car parking. There is a lane in front of the building and on the other side of the lane there is this another car parking. I am sure these days more cars live on the ground than humans, who seem to be hanging in air eternally like the legendary 'Trishanku' did. Now, when we look at a car, what we see is a variety of a car - e.g. a good car or a bad car, a green car or an orange car, a battered car or a safe-until-now car, a car with a tilak on its forehead or a car named 'Mast Gurjar'; a dusty car or a rich car. But when dogs look at a car, they see only one thing - a home. A home which has four bathrooms near the four tires, one roof where they can hike and look down at their tribesmen, and one low-ceiling bedroom in which they can crawl into and just vanish. Even if the car just wakes up and tries to run away, the doggie sleeping below it would still remain unhurt and sleeping. And when you see a doggie chasing a car, be sure that it is not chasing a car but trying to get 'possession' of its home from a runaway builder!

So the pup crossed the road, went inside the car-parking below the building and made a noise. As soon as it made a noise, magic happened and four other pups looking identical to it appeared out of thin air!

What would have happened is this:

There is this big happy family of doggies living in that area. Only humans can be brainwashed by their governments into thinking that only 'small family' can be a 'happy family' while nature has designed all living creatures 'similarly'. Big is better! So this big family of at least five pups lived along with their mother, an occasionally visiting allegedly disloyal father and some dustbins full of trash. One fine evening, the puppies were all sleeping below the cars. The mother left them to go search for some food for herself. Four pups noticed their mother - which they see only as their 'source of food and love' - moving - and hence followed her. One of the puppies was left sleeping below the car. When it wakes up, it crosses the road in the direction of its favorite smell, reaches a point where its 'territory' ends, and then cries. Its brothers could hear it and hence they just jump in!

So the little fellow joined its brothers. And life goes on happily ever after.

Ever wondered how these little puppies which are nothing but lovely bundles of joy grow up to be nuisance spreading, barking, scaring and nothing but four-legged terrorists? Just look at us and you would understand. Life does it to all!

(C) - Rahul Tiwary

सहज को सहेजना और निकटता की दूरी - रामानंद 'दोषी'

स्व० रामानंद 'दोषी' (१९२१-१९७२) कवि, साहित्यकार और संपादक रहे हैं। उन्होंने 'कादम्बिनी' पत्रिका का संपादन भी किया और वह अपना संपादकीय 'बिंदु बिंदु विचार' के शीर्षक के साथ लिखते थे। सितम्बर १९६२ के अंक में उन्होंने जो लिखा है, वह बड़ा मार्मिक है:

"महीनों की दूरी मिनटों में लांघकर तुम मेरे पास आ गए हो। आदमी ने धरा का विस्तार सीमित कर दिया है। सागर की तलहटी में तुम्हारे कदम पड़ चुके हैं। प्रचंड वेग से अंतरिक्ष में उड़ान भरते हुए तुम मुझे सन्देश भेज रहे हो। आदमी ने दूरी पर विजय पाई है, व्यवधान की आन तोड़ दी है। गर्व से मेरा वक्ष फूल जाता है, दर्प-दीप्त नेत्र उठाता हूँ कि सहसा शर्म से गर्दन झुका लेता हूँ।

मेरी दृष्टि श्री अमुक पर पड़ गई है। श्री अमुक घर में मेरे पड़ोसी, कार्यालय में सहयोगी और जीवन स्तर में मेरे सहभोगी हैं, परन्तु हमारे बीच की दूरी कम होने में नहीं आती।

दिशाओं का विस्तार सीमित हो गया पर मन की दूरी पर अंकुश नहीं लगा। हमने असाधारण को सहज कर लिए है, किंतु हमसे सहज नहीं सहेजा गया।

हम एक महल बना रहे हैं, उसमे स्फटिक की दीवारें, मणिमुक्ता का फर्श, चन्दन के किवाड़, स्वच्छ नील सरोवर, सभी कुछ तो होगा। नितांत सहज होकर निर्माण में जुटे हैं हम। महल की तैयारी में हम जो बात भूल रहे हैं, वह यह कि उसमें रहेगा कौन? उसमें प्राण-प्रतिष्ठा जो करेगा, उस आदमी को बिगाड़कर महल को संवारना प्रगति नहीं है, फिसलन है - फिसलन, जो हमें तेज तो ले जाती है पर गर्त की ओर। 

अमुक भाई, दूर दिशाओं की ओर भी देखो, गहराईओं को भी रौंद डालो, अंतरिक्ष में भी राजमार्ग बना दो, पर आओ पहले मेरे गले से लग जाओ!

दूर की दूरी हम अकेले-अकेले भी पार कर लेंगे, किन्तु निकटता की दूरी हम दोनों के दूर किए ही दूर होगी।"

What to Make of 99% Return of Old Demonetized Notes to the RBI

After recent announcement that approx. 99% of demonetized Rs 500/1000 notes have returned to the RBI, media is busy mentioning it as a failure of demonetization. That makes me rethink about how it all happened.

First, Modi addressed nation on the evening of 8th Nov, 2016, announcing demonetization. In his speech, he put equal emphasis on how demonetization would try to address problems of terror-funding, fake currency circulation, hawala trade, along with of course black money and corruption. If you remember the first most visible impact of demonetization, apart from of course the long queues and lots of trouble to the public, it was an abrupt halt on stone pelting in Kashmir. Why did stone pelting stop? Next, we read news and saw pictures and TV footages of how old currency notes were thrown away in rivers, ponds, sewage and some were also burnt, and at some places were also distributed to the poor by making a road-side stall.

Next, a lot of such old currencies were deposited in the Jan Dhan accounts of poor people. We have statistics: 2.26 Crore new Jan Dhan accounts were opened immediately after demonetization was announced and total deposits in them doubled to Rs 87000 Crores. Was govt angry at it and tried to stop it? No, Modi asked people in his humor to let rich people deposit money in the Jan Dhan accounts; but do not to let them withdraw it; thereby keeping the money as their own. If Modi did not want all this money to return to the RBI, would he say that?

So, from where did this theory come – that govt did not want all the demonetized old currencies to return to the RBI?

This theory, like a lot others which are circulating, happened thanks to our media and its “TV Experts”. Just next day after demonetization was announced, I heard a “TV Expert” say that after demonetization only 80% of old currencies would return to the RBI and hence RBI’s balance sheet would become stronger. From where did this guy get this “80%” figure? Along with share-market experts and weather forecasters, these “TV experts” are the new “astrologers”. Masquerading pure fiction as expert commentary and cooked figures as statistics, these TV experts hide their ignorance with good language skills and are making good bucks. So, this theory that 20% old notes won’t return to RBI was started by the media and it spread widely since it was “easy to understand”. And now that it did not happen, media is busy putting govt/RBI on the spot, while hiding its own bad job. But we know.

We know that just after announcing demonetization, govt had launched its new black money declaration scheme called “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana” which meant that the govt wanted old currency notes to return to the banks. It just wanted those currencies to return through the right channel and to serve the right purpose. That is why old notes were allowed to be used to pay loan EMIs, to be used in govt shops, cooperative stores, petrol stations, pay utility bills, etc too. Using the Garib Kalyan Yojna, anyone could declare one’s unaccounted money, pay approx. 50% tax and keep the remaining. If govt. did not want old currencies to return to the RBI, why would it launch this black money declaration scheme? It seems govt. was looking at long term goals like increased tax compliance and strategic maneuvers like changing games for terror and hawala funding rather than short term benefits like not allowing old currencies back to the banks and improving RBI’s balance sheet.

In fact, this whole “idea” that govt. should just scrap old notes, prevent people from depositing back old notes, and thereby make gains for the RBI - is so “sinister”. Did media expect or want our govt. to play such “tricks” with the people?

It seems govt. and RBI had clear plans for demonetization and they went ahead with their execution; while the media kept making theories and conducting TV debates.

As such I do not support demonetization because it created lots of discomfort to the common people and I think it was not worth it because of that reason alone. But when media says that it was not worth it “since old notes returned to RBI” I find it a ridiculous idea.

- Rahul

Rise and Fall of Babas; Prevalence of Numerous Sects in Hinduism and the Way Ahead

After recent news and controversies around some of them, 'Babas' have become completely out of flavor. Before the most recent one from Haryana, we had cases with Baba Rampal and Asaram Bapu also, making it look like a "pattern". Our human brain is designed to understand "patterns" and it reflects in the way we are talking about 'Babas' these days. Social media is filled with abuses written by some very educated and bright minds against these Babas. It is not surprising because social media is a means of expression, not a tool of education. But still, what are the lessons we are learning from the infamous 'Babas'?

If we look at their backgrounds, one thing is clear. These Babas were first generation entrepreneurs who ran their spiritual empires like corporate houses. And they lacked tradition, 'sanskara' and were married men with kids (i.e. were no sanyasis) before deciding to go spiritual. Baba Rampal (Original name: Rampal Singh Jatin) had a diploma and worked as junior engineer. He quit his job and started his sect (Satlok Ashram). And what does his sect teach? Among other things it teaches that Saint Kabir is the Supreme Lord; asks disciples not to visit Hindu temples and not to worship Hinduism's trinity of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva! He is married and has two children.

Asaram Bapu (Original name: Asumal Thaumal Harpalani) was born in a Sindhi family in Sindh, Pakistan and migrated to Ahmedabad after partition. Being a school drop-out, he managed his father's coal and wood business for sometime. He is also married with two kids. Although his teachings are not controversial since he preaches Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti Yoga.

It is also not only a male phenomenon. For example we had Radhe Ma (Original name: Sukhvinder Kaur) who is a school dropout, got married at early age and used to stitch clothes to supplement her husband's income. Before of course joining a religious sect and becoming self-styled god-woman.

Now, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan is married with several children. His Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) is a registered NGO and all Gurus of DSS have come from Sikh background. They have their own sect/religion and welcome people from all different religions. It is ironical that it is he who has triggered this "anti-Baba" feeling in the masses while he is not really a "Hindu Baba" per se.

And the worst part is: these Babas are not alone. The more you would know about different sects and their beliefs, the more you would get confused and 'uninterested' in religion. ISKCON for example is a very popular sect and we all visit its temples. But ISKCON sect does not consider Krishna as Lord Vishnu's avatar but it considers Lord Krishna as the Supreme God. Worshiping Lord Krishna is a different matter and we all do that - but not an avatar but Supreme Lord? Where does it leave our Lord Shiva? The sect considers Shiva as a manifestation of Lord Krishna! That changes everything!

If you visited the wonderful Akshardham temple; it belongs to Swaminarayan sect. Ever wondered who is Swaminarayan? He was born with orignal name of Ghanshyam Pande in Chhapaiya, Uttar Pradesh in 1781. At early age he joined Uddhav Sampraday which later became Swaminarayan Sampraday as Ghanshyam Pande became Swaminarayan. Followers of Swaminarayan sect believe that Swaminarayan is the complete incarnation of Lord Vishnu and more superior to other avatars.

And then there is Brahma Kumaris. Their name contains "Brahma" and then their preachers keep talking about "Shiva Baba" and it appears so nice to the Hindus. But go deeper and you would realize that the Brahma Kumaris is a full fledged "religion" in itself. They call their founder Lekhraj Kripalani as "Brahma Baba" and Shiv Baba is their Godfather (supreme being). Although most of their basic ideas are similar to Hinduism, there is lot of dogma about how world started, how it is going to end, and who will survive and how.

In the era of these numerous "modern" sects, older sects like Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission etc appear to be "old fashioned". I wonder how many people from younger generation or in the cities are reaching out to them.

Although most interesting thing about Hinduism is that while its "diversity" would appear like its weakness (there are so many beliefs, so many deities, so many sects and hence Hindus are seldom united for any cause), it is actually a strength which has allowed it to "survive". It is common knowledge that a very large set of people are difficult to be kept in one piece and dividing them into smaller sets makes them easier to manage. I think such was the idea of having so many sects. But what if sects start preaching very different things; and try to make themselves break out into separate full fledged religions? It has happened with Sikhism in the past which had started as a sect within Hinduism. If it happens too often and starts giving unwanted results, then it has to be "curbed".

The solution is simple: "return to the roots". According to most central ideas of Hinduism, Supreme Being is called Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva when it creates, preserves and renews. If you see any sect trying to say one of these are higher than others, which essentially means that these three are different and one can be "higher" or "lower" than other; be warned against such upstarts. If you see any sect asking you to "worship" mere mortals like its sect leader, any guru or any imaginary being, be warned. Try to be as near to the ancient practices as possible. If Yagna is not possible, offer flowers and other items which symbolically mean the same (offerings). Try to visit temples of original deities like Shiva, Vishnu or Durga. Pick any one of the deities and keep your faith in one deity instead of making it a spiritual tourism - because the more you would wander, the less peace you would have. Try to read original scriptures but be warned against different versions written by different sect leaders with a political explanation of the meanings. Try to read Swami Vivekananda in case of any doubts, who has done a wonderful job in writing down his thoughts and conclusions on most of the things related to Hinduism. And if you are choosing a Guru, look for his family history and other things apart from competence and the advertising done around him.

Let us take the rise and fall of 'Babas' in a stride as an opportunity to do course correction. Let us also pardon them because they were mere mortals and prone to corruption. Let us watch ourselves instead to avoid any flaws and bad habits getting into us. Even those disgraced 'Babas' taught nice things to others; and hence teachings do not matter. What matters is: how much we get to practice the good that is shared with us.

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti.

- Rahul

Justice in Gurmeet Ram Rahim Case Leading to Mass Violence

With 30+ people dead, 350+ injured, including 50 women in serious condition, and with a civil-war like situation on the streets, after an unpopular verdict by a court; makes us wonder: "was it worth it?". Was it worth it?

Everyone knew including the court and govt of course, that an unfavorable verdict towards the cult leader would lead to this situation. It appears govt and police tried their best to avoid it and yet it turned out to be exactly the way everyone feared it would turn out to be. Only, we are not sure if the court and govt "feared" at all.

I tried to search internet to get some particulars about the case. In April 2002, an accusation was made in an anonymous letter that a woman including several others were sexually exploited by the cult leader for "3 years". Although there was no case filed by the victim, High Court ordered an inquiry in this case and after sometime HC handed over the inquiry to CBI. The ordeal went on for 15 years; during the time the victims were married to other men and were reluctant to share details. But somehow CBI was able to take statements of two women and other parties. None of the media reports, at least during my internet search, reveal about what proofs CBI collected, apart from of course the "statements" of the victims and some others.

After the ongoing case for 15 years, all of a sudden last month in July, as if due to a divine intervention, the court ordered "daily hearings" in the case. After daily hearings, arguments were closed and the cult leader was pronounced guilty yesterday. None of the media reports reveal particulars of the case like what proofs and evidences were presented, what were challenged, etc. In the era of 20-20 Cricket, we are now seeing "snap judgments". If justice delayed is justice denied, I wonder what "justice hustled" should be called.

What could have been done differently? First, there should not have been daily hearings given the sensitivity of the case. Rushed emergency-like proceedings were expected to "shock" the cult members, leading to social unrest and wide spread speculations. Taking it slowly over at least 6 months would have kept the tempers under control. Secondly, the proceedings of the case should have been briefed to the media, so that people would be aware of and in-line with gravity of the case, fairness of the proceedings and would not get shocked with what was to finally come out. Third, if cult leader was pronounced guilty, verdict on punishment should have been made on the same day, instead of giving 3 days to the chaos and if there was a possibility for the accused to get a bail, his bail application should have been processed on the same day. That would have pacified his agitating and grieving supporters while still keeping the records right.

As we know, this is a CBI court and the cult leader can still go to a higher court to get bail and challenge its verdict. So, was it worth it to let an impression be created as if this was the last straw and that there was no road ahead for the cult leader; leading to mass protests and violence?

Coming to media; while I read news report, I read how the cult leader worked extensively against social evils like drug addiction, helped families financially during daughters' weddings, worked a lot for women empowerment, etc. That does not help build a public opinion against the accused. And media reports which are totally lacking the particulars of the case proceedings, add to the chaos of anxious supporters.

To me, this whole episode appears to be a man-made disaster. While trying to uphold the "justice", the court rushed to decision resulting in shocked reactions of supporters. And worse - this is a trend. Centuries old practice of "triple talaq" was abolished abruptly after the court said it would do "daily hearings". I wonder what has gotten over the judiciary that it is rushing to give most shocking verdicts in most unexpected hurried manner. Next in line can be Ayodhya case which can go the "daily hearing" mode. Are the courts comforted by a strong national government at the center? No matter what the source of this "over confidence" is, it is a recipe of disaster.

Not the verdict themselves, but the manner in which these verdicts are being rushed to, needs review of the judiciary. Given the law and order situation in our country, communal harmony has always been the top agenda of our governments. But all these recent court orders which are being rushed to are linked with communal and religious faiths.

We can hail the court verdicts as victory of justice but we can't afford to lose our men and women like this. Justice for the sake of justice, ignoring the realities of the time, leading to mass violence and destroying the communal harmony in our country appears a better candidate for delaying rather than having it now and leading to disasters.

I would prefer justice delayed but taking public opinion along with it, rather than justice hustled to and leading to mass violence and protests.

I don't think it was "worth it" to have 30 lives lost and social unrest invited over the last 24 hours.

Let peace prevail.

- Rahul