A detailed report on chemical pollution in Gujarat:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html
This article reveals how third world countries are becoming a paradise for the polluting industries. The administrative & political corruption in these parts of the world has made the common man a victim of industrialization.
If this would have happened in an Asian country, World leaders would have painted it as an international issue of immense importance. It could have been called the “Communist Oppression”, or “Islamic Radicalism”, or “Hindu Bigotry”. But the fact that it is “W” & “C” at play, there is much silence.
The pace at which justice is offered in Australia is highly commendable. In some of such assault cases, the accused have been tried and convicted in less than a week’s time. On the other hand, Raj thackrey, on whose behest several workers from Bihar were killed in Mumbai last year, is roaming free. We have no idea if any progress has been made on that case.The 1984 Sikh riot case, where thousands of sikhs were killed in communal protest is still doing rounds in the courts. On what could be a misuse of governmental powers, several Congress leaders have been acquitted in this case by special CBI court, when Congress government itself is in power.
I stumbled upon this wepbage which contains quotes from M K Gandhi. My knowledge, respect, and love for Gandhi has increased now.
****
A few quotes from the quotes.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian.
# To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man’s injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man’s superior. Has she not greater intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her, man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart than woman?
England has got successful competitors in America, Japan, France, Germany. It has competitors in the handful of mills in India, and as there has been an awakening in India, even so there will be an awakening in South Africa with its vastly richer resources — natural , mineral and human. The mighty English look quite pigmies before the mighty races of Africa. They are noble savages after all, you will say. They are certainly noble, but no savages and in the course of a few years the Western nations may cease to find in Africa a dumping ground for their wares.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one (Muhammad) who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.
It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace … Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?
The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs.
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it’s not possible to worship both w:Mammon and God at the same time.
One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects.
Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for civilization means “good conduct”.
“To my mind the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.”
***************
He was greatest of a Man
30 January was the day when Nathuram Godse assassinated Mahatama Gandhi. Gandhi was not just a human being, he was a revolution, he was an ideology. And ideas can not be killed. But surprisingly, the idea which the world knew as Gandhi, has been killed, at least from the active lives of our nation.
Nathuram Godse, just killed a man. Then who killed the idea? Not a tough guess … It was the collective leadership of our country, which continued to woo Indian voters on the name of Gandhi, but at the same time, adopted domestic and foreign policies, which were totally averse to Gandhism….
(1) Gandhi and Non-Violence:
. What does Gandhi mean to you?
> “Non-Violence”!
. “Non-Violence as an end”?
> Silence
“Non-Violence as an end” is the greatest myth about Gandhi. Gandhi followed, preached and advocated non-violence. But he preached of “non-violence as a means”, and “not as an end”. What was the End he preached about? We have comfortably forgotten.
Bullet bang on target !!!
(2) Gandhi and Self-Reliance:
Gandhi was about “self-reliance”. Self reliance in every walk of life. Economical & Poliitical self reliance as a nation. Social, Religious and Moral self reliance, as an individual. “Sarvodaya” was his dream for the post-independence India. A dream which never realized. Worst, we have become a nation which is neither economically self-reliant, nor politically.
These wounds will be fatal.
(3) Gandhi and Social Development:
The transformation which Gandhi brought to the Indian society was unprecedented. His initiatives and methods to root out “untouchability” from Indian society, and the amazing success which he received in his efforts, can not be termed less than a magic. He also worked for the social & economic development of “unprivileged classes”. He called for a “greater role of women” in the Indian Society.
(4) Gandhi and Independence:
If it was not Gandhi, India would have got Independence much before 1947. The first world war was the best time to revolt against the British rule, as the Britishers were preoccupied with battle on so many fronts.
“The Delayed Independence” is the second greatest myth about Gandhi.
Independence can mean different thing to different people. To some one it could be the freedom to work on the things which one loves. To some one it could be the freedom of not working at all. To some one else it could mean the freedom to force others to work on the things which they do not like.
Gandhi understood the motives behind British Presence in India. He knew that the Imperialist powers were exploiting the masses in India and elsewhere, for the economic motives. They were not here to prove to us their right to rule, but they were here to gain profits.
Britishers never ruled India as isolated foreigners. They ruled India in collaboration with Indian Kings, and privileged Indian Classes - all shared the exploit.
The division between exploiter and the exploited was never that of “Indian” and “Foreigner”. The division was that of “Sickly Rich” and the “Abjectly Poor”. Sadly, the “abjectly poor” constituted almost the entire nation.
Would it make any difference to the lives of “exploited”, if “exploiter” was an Indian rather than a “British-Indian combine”?
Independence to Gandhi meant the “freedom” of Indian masses from the “social and economic” exploitation by the “Privileged Classes”. The nationality of the “Privileged class” was rarely important. Gandhi fought for what he saw as independence, and he fought for it successfully. He transformed the entire nation in to a self-aware and self-reliant society, and it was only because of him that the Britishers found the economic motives for their presence fading out from the India.
…
Sadly, Gandhi departed before the Sarvodaya could take shape. The Ideas which he sow, pumped life in to the veins of our nation for more than half a century. But the economic self-reliance is again disappearing. The division between “exploiter” and “exploited” is once more becoming apparent. Gandhi is dead.
….
Some Links about Gandhi
Gandhi and his Philosophy
Gandhi short Biography
Sarvodaya
…
The picture which you see was taken by me at “National Gandhi Museum” at Delhi.
Nigerian police has arrested a Goat, on the charges of armed robbery. As per the police, the armed robber has transformed himself in to a Goat, using black magic.
Twentieth Century has witnessed great advances in the field & Science of Technology. Scientific innovations have made our lives happier & luxurious. But, sadly, a majority of world population remains totally untouched by theis “happiness” and “luxury”.
Food, Clothing & shelter - these have been the basic needs of mankind from eternity (or at least from the time which you and I can think of). In a civilized world, health-care & education too must qualify as basic human needs. We should be evaluating the advancement of Science & Technology based on how well the basic human needs are beings are being fulfilled today (than it was before). The progress is not as enthusiastic (though positive) as we tend to believe.
The thrust of Science & Technology today does not seem to be on human welfare. The thrust is rather on the economic exploitation of the mankind. Can it change? Will it change?
I am not against the division of society between rich & poor. But I really dislike any section of society being blinded by greed. I can accept the fact that poverty can not be eliminated. I can accept the idea that division of society between rich and poor is inevitable. But in a world which has advanced much (or at least we claim to have advanced), can poverty not raise its standards? Can’t a person get food, clothing, shelter, basic health-care & education and still be poor.
Why is the rich still hell bent on depriving the poor of their basic human rights? Why is the economic exploitation (by developed countries) still worst in the under-developed countries? Why the artificial scarcity and artificial threats still dominating the world? Will science be able to take another leap forward and overcome these evils?
Last week Indian government signed a huge defense deal (2 billion USD) with USA. In the wake of Mumbai Terror Attack, and the war hysteria which has grown (or rather been deliberated created by two governments) between India & Pakistan, no political party has questioned this deal. In absence of the current crisis between India & Pakistan, such a deal would have invited censures from all political & financial circles. So, is it still tough to understand the war games?
It is not the USA Citizen who bears the burnt of those millions of dollars, which USA government pumps in to Pakistan as financial aid. It is rather, the Indian citizens (and citizens of other third world countries) who have to pay the heavy prices of military funding to a country like Pakistan.
I feel that India & Pakistan should cut down their defense expenditures and spend the same money on national development and social welfare. This is only possible if the voters of two countries act mature, and elect only those politicians who can carry out national development, rather than playing to the tunes of so called world powers.
A couple of weeks back, in an official statement, CIA acquitted Pakistan leadership (i.e. Pakistani Civil Government, and ISI, and Pakistani Army) from any involvement in Mumbai Terror Attacks (though they were also suggesting an entirely opposite possibility, unofficially). Even the USA government did not show much interest in coercing Pakistani government to act against those, who were involved in the Mumbai Terror Attacks. In wake of the multi-billion Indo-American arms deal, American Government has started to put pressure on Pakistani Government to act against the culprits. The Pakistani government has also sensed the situation, and accepted that Kasab is a Pakistani citizen.
Has terrorism become a well planned marketing agent or is it just a coincidence? Recent news is that, India is evaluating the purchase of “Nuclear Defense System” from USA. Wow. Wonderful.
I recently came across this official website of Noam Chomsky. The website contains rich information on the international politics of today’s world. The articles contain more facts than opinions, something which is rare to find. The articles reveal the USA’s Imperialist policies and systematic exploitation of third world countries by the USA corporations.
USA has been invading sovereign third world nations for its own economic interests for last six decades. During the cold war days this was being done on pretext of fighting communist menace. Today it is being done on pretext of “Offering Freedom” or “Fighting Terror”.
The articles also disclose how the USA government has been using the state machinery to carry on false propaganda about “Threats to the USA Freedom” by foreign powers. To persuade its citizens in to fear, so that questions are not asked about the validity of unlawful invasions and wars by the USA.
This is the first part of a 3-part series.
—–
“Terrorism” has become one of the most celebrated news items these days. Newspapers, Magazines, Weblogs, Evey where there is a spur of terrorism related articles. Though a lot is being written & discussed about this topic, I feel that most discussions lack truth & clarity. The big media houses continue to carry out government propaganda, whereas most discussion on other small forums are driven by opinions rather than facts. Arguments are made based on emotions & affiliations, rather than based on rationality.
(1) What is Terrorism?
————————
The human society has been constantly evolving. We have come a long way from the stone age [when man was a predator] to the diplomatic world of today [where violence is a crime]. Human beings have assumed different roles through these different ages; predators, agrarians, barbarians … In today’s society use of any kind of violence against fellow human beings [very few people have same compassion for the non-human lives] is socially & politically unacceptable. Despite a strong social dis-approval, violence & wars still occur in differnt part of the world, for differnt motives. It is important to understand how these kind of violences and wars are different from terrorism.
(2) Terrorism Vs Violence
————————–
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. [From Wikipedia]
(3) What Constitutes Terrorism?
———————————
(a) Violence – “the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence”. However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.
(b) Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.
(c) Perpetrated for a political goal – Something many terrorist attacks have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.
(d) Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm’s way.
(e) Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among such non-combatants, fight from vantage points in the midst of non-combatants, and (when they can), strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking other people, so that the government will be blamed. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word “terrorism” is rarely used.[citation needed]
(f) Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus “lawful”) and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a “legitimate” government; “legitimacy” and “lawfulness” are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.
[From Wikipedia]
(4) Exercise
—————
In wake of the above definitions, we are now well equipped to understand what kind of activities classify as terrorism. Let us try a set of exercise.
(a) Question: A political party organizes a protest against ruling government’s economic policies. The protest turns violent & leads to arson. Is it terrorism?
Answer: As a singled out event this can not be termed as terrorism. However, if there is a repeated incidence of violence during the protests, it is definitely terrorism. Repeated violence implies that it is not by chance, but it is by design. Arson implies violence against non-combatants. The ideological motive of political party here is to coerce government to its [lawful or unlawful] demands .
(b) Question: A political party has announced a peaceful public protest against the government’s policies. Government warns the political party not to arrange any such protests. The political party defies the government warkings and organizes a public gathering. The government uses armed police force against the peaceful protesters. Hundreds of people die in police firing - is it terrorism?
Answer: It qualifies as state sponsored terrorism [as had happened in Sangrur this year].
(c) Question: There have been various incidents of campus-shootings at various Schools in the USA. Do these events classify as terrorism?
Answer: No. Here a ideological motive is clearly missing. The shootings are being carried out by people because of mental imbalance & they are not out their to prove any political or social point.
(d) Question: A certain secret organization keeps carrying out bomb blasts in busy city areas of a certain nation. Hundreds of lives are lost each time. The organization does not have any declared agenda, it is committing the crimes for unknown reasons. Does it qualify as terrorism?
Answer: This is a tricky situation. As there is a lack of ideological motive [as in case-c] it should not qualify as terrorism. But such kind of organized activities are rarely possible without any political motive. The lack of political motive here could only be a propaganda rather than a fact.
(e) Question: A certain sovereign nation (call it nation-A) calls another sovereign nation (call it nation-B) to change its foreign policies so as to suit the economical and political interests of nation-A. Nation-B finds the requested policies against the interest of its own people and refuses to adopt it. Nation-A invades the nation-B, destroys the civil life and properties, and sets up a dummy government in nation-B. It sends a message to the entrie world stating that nation-A will adopt similar strategy against any other non-coperating nation. Is it terrorism?
Answer: Yes, it is terrorism. We have been witnessing this kind of terrorism for last few decades.
———–
(5) In Indian Context
The violent protests conducted by MNS activitists in Maharashtra qualify as terrorist activities [both by national & international definition of terrorism]. MNS chief Raj Thackrey can be charged for terrorist activities, if the ruling government in Maharashtra has any political will to punish the criminals & terrorists.
…..
The second part of this 3-part series will highlight major terrorist problems which exist across different parts of the world.
In wake of Mumbai Terror Attacks, a lot of discussion has been happening on “Terrorism”. Most people today consider terrorism as a “Religious Problem”. A majority of people today thinks that only agenda of “Islam” as a religion is to preach violence and to carry out butchering. This kind of sentiments also get some fuel from the history of our sub-continent. We have had a dreadful past which starts from “mass conversion & killings” during “Mughal Invasion” but does not end at the “religious atrocities” during the partition days. It rather continues to haunt us in form of “Hindu-Muslim Riots” in the post-independence era.
The religion has been used in politics as a tool to unite & divide people. The kings during the non-democratic India, and Politicians in the democratic-India have over and again used religion as a tool to protect their misdeeds. Certain religious institutes & religious scholars have also colluded with them to mis-guide the people of their faiths. Even till date, religion is the most sensitive and contentious issue in India.
I read and watch a lot of debate about “Terror & Islam”. Many people believe that religious constitution of Islam is inherently violent and hence it is natural for any Muslim to be a terrorist. I am personally “not for” this argument. It is unlikely that Prophet Mohamed created a new sect, for its people to fight, kill and die. It is more likely that certain powers have hijacked a section of Islamic people (which forms a very small part of entire Islamic world) and they are using them as terrorists.
While discussing this issue on a public forum recently, I raised a few questions. I thought I will post them here too for the readers. I will request the readers to do some thinking over these questions.
(1) Indian has two Muslim dominated neighbors - Pakistan & Bangladesh. Why is that the ”inherent violence of Islam” is more evident in Pakistan but no so much in Bangladesh? Of course, there is some extent of violence in Bangladesh too, but such violence is there in non-Islamic countries too. Even in India we observe violence by non-Islamic groups. But I would like a comparison between the extent of organized terrorism in these two countries? Don’t you see a big difference? What makes the Pakistan & Bangladesh so different, despite their Islamic origins?
(2) Is it really true that the terrorism in Pakistan is funded (funded is the key word here) by Religious Powers? Though it is true that terrorism in Pakistan is being preached as some of the “Islamic Religious Schools”, but do these schools represent the true face of Islamic world? Pakistan’s economy is in shatters to be able to support its civilian base, but yet is is able to run its military programs. These military programs include development of inter-continental missiles, development of nuclear weapons, and running cost of maintaining CIA & Taliban Terrorist camps, in addition to its armed forces. If the Pakistan-born terrorism represents the true face of Islam, will not all the Muslim countries be eager to provide financially fundings to Pakistan and thus support the true spirit of their religion? But fact is that Pakistan is surviving based on funding from USA and USA backed IMF.
(3) Have we ever heard of any terrorist camps being run in Saudi Arabia? If terrorism was inherent in Islam, would we not be seeing most advanced terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, since it is the riches Islamic country in the world? But the fact is that (Islamic) terrorism is being preached in those parts of world, where poverty, unemployment & illeteracy is at its highest.
(4) Is USA a Muslim country? If it is not, why does it fund a Muslim country like Pakistan, whose only agenda is to preach “Islamic Terrorism”? Also, if world Muslim community is pro-terrorism, why they do not contribute to the international funding to Pakistan, in steps similar to what USA is doing.
(5) Is it not true that USA keeps funding the terrorist agenda in Pakistan and at the same time keeps carrying out a propaganda about “Islamic Terrorism” aimed at maligning the international Islamic community?
(6) We can find glimpses of “violence” in the Islamic Texts. But it is important to look at the circumstance amidst which the Islam was born. Was the Christian community at that time (800AD) as diplomatic and as peaceful as it has become today? Which was the religion to first invent the idea of Jihad? Were these not the Christian Crusader - who killed innocent people under religious umbrella? Did those crusader not enjoy the support of Church? Islam was a religion born to defend itself against a Crusading Religion, so it is only natural that its initial texts would have some thoughts and provisions about war & violence.
******
Today both the religions have come a far way forward. Christianity has become much more refined, and so has becomes Islam. It is wrong to implicate the founders of Islam as war mongers & terrorists.
America is too afraid of Arab countries wealth. These countries have become wealthy after the ”Oil-Boom” which started in 1970s. As the oil market has boomed, so had boomed the American Propaganda about ”Islamic Terror”. Before ”Islamic Terror”, American propaganda was about ”Communist Evil”. Once America succeeds in destroying the wealth of Arab Nations, their next propaganda will be against the next prosperous country.