What does Dr.Ambedkar say about the Bhagvat Gita?

As the court in the Siberian town of Tomsk deliberates on whether the Bhagvat Gita is 'extremist' literature, the Indian government and parliament seem to have forgotten their own sanctimonious injunction of 'non-inteference in the internal affairs of other countries' (used traditionally to defend such obnoxious pratices as 'untouchability' and 'caste discrimination') to pressurise the Russian goverment to subvert due legal process and somehow persuade the Tomskians to find the Gita non-extremist. And as expected, Indian mainstream media, which has often gone to extreme lengths to protect its exclusive upper caste character, is now going into an overdrive finding men and mantras to defend the Gita. But what was not expected was certain views of Dr.Ambedkar, quoted out of context, being cited to defend, obliquely, the philosophy of the Gita, in at least one popular internet magazine. Which is very disturbing, considering Dr.Ambedkar had clearly called the Gita 'counter-revolutionary'. It is also worth noting that it is the same magazine which had earlier tried to label Dr.Ambedkar's economic philosophy as monetarist, and as supporting free markets.  

What does Dr.Ambedkar say about the Bhagvat Gita?

please read the rest of the article here, at round table india. 

terrorists are animals?

NEW DELHI: A senior judge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday likened terrorists killing innocent people to "animals" and said they cannot be allowed to take benefit of human rights.

"Those who violate the rights of society and have no respect for human rights cannot be a human," Justice Arijit Pasayat said at a seminar on terrorism here.

"We should not talk about human rights violation of terrorists because terrorists are the people who kill innocent people with AK-47 and AK-56," he said, adding that "those who killed innocent people by no stretch of imagination are human beings. They are worth not more than animals."

animals? my view is that they generally started out as human beings. a lot of things helped them along on their progress towards animalhood. including human-made structures, institutions, ideas and sometimes, perhaps, chemicals in their brains. not forgetting other human beings who refused to believe that they were human.

the congress' end is the bjp's end is the communists' end

the karnataka poll results remind me of a few weeks old post, on by-polls in a few u.p., assembly constituencies, by adnan- an excerpt:

Amid the blue hue that has swept UP, the humiliating defeat of BJP and its absolute marginalisation in the state has been totally overlooked.

In the three Assembly by-polls, the share of votes in Muradnagar, Colonelganj and Bilgram, the party has been extraordinary low. It could get just 1.35%, 3% and 5% votes in the elections, the results for which were announced two days back. The BSP won all the three constituences, as also the two Lok Sabha seats. Surprisingly, the Lotus has wilted in the state where it emerged in the mid-80s pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other. And today it seems both Hindus and Muslims have forgotten this party in India's most populous state.

well, as adnan points out, the four weeks old good news is: the bjp seems to be dying in uttar pradesh. and the bad news, fresh off the presses, is: the bjp has emerged a winner in karnataka, on its own.

i know analysts would interpret the bjp's diminishing stature in u.p., as a triumph of the ordinary indian's secular spirit, and the karnataka results as a major threat to the health of the ordinary indian's secular spirit. in most liberal analysts' minds, the fortunes of secularism in the country are inextricably linked with the fortunes of the congress, the bjp and the communists, the national parties.

how true or tenable is that theory?

if you look at the recent communal history of u.p., and of tamil nadu, you'll notice two similarities: a) the significant absence (or insignificant presence) of the congress, the communists and the bjp in those states and b) the significant absence (or insignificant presence) of communal strife in those two states.

what does that tell you? the indian liberal doesn't usually connect those two phenomena in the way i am going to now: i believe that (a) leads to (b). none of those three national political parties/groups are secular on caste, so i don't think they can be secular on religious issues.

which means the bjp is dying in u.p, because the congress is already dead in the state. and the congress is dead because there are no communists in the state. similarly, in tamil nadu, however hard it may struggle, the bjp has very little chance of creating any waves as long as the congress has very little chance of reviving itself. and again, there are no communists in tamil nadu. what do all these factors add up to? peace across religions. or near total peace across religions.

and peace across castes? caste is much older than the religious divide, so it'd be a longer struggle. and karnataka is essentially playing out struggles against caste. the marginalized castes in india have been voting for alternatives in every election since the sixties, voting in those who seemed to be secular (on caste issues), and voting those alternatives out again when they realized they were not as secular as they seemed (on caste issues)- the process started earlier in some states. this opened opportunities for the janata parties in the seventies and eighties and the bjp later. u.p, tried both the janata parties/dal and the bjp, karnataka flirted with only the janata dal. it has voted for the bjp now- which essentially means, this is the beginning of the end of the congress. and then of the bjp in karnataka, eventually.

here's some advice for the upper caste, indian liberal: true secularism begins at home. check how secular the track record of y.s. rajashekhar reddy, chief minister of the only congress ruled state in south india is. i haven't read a single liberal analyst in the country expressing doubts about his secular credentials until now- but most of them, i do remember, celebrated the return of the congress in the state as a great victory for the secular forces in the country. here's an indicator of how non-secular his government actually is: a majority of top posts in corporations, autonomous oganizations functioning under the aegis of the state government, are occupied by reddies: how secular is that? the marginalized castes don't like this reddy raj which seems to be much more disgusting than the kamma raj of the naidu government earlier. some of them are preparing to vote for new, little known alternatives like the actor chiranjeevi's party- no, he hasn't launched it yet. yes, the marginalized castes are that desperate.

the marginalized castes in india don't understand secularism in the same way as the liberal does. and the secular liberal, of course, isn't interested in the marginalized castes' understanding of these issues. so he doesn't understand that the dalit who voted for the bjp in the recent polls didn't actually vote for hindutva. he was looking for secular (on caste issues) alternatives to the parties that had ruled until now: so, in the not so distant future, when he realizes that the bjp too is not so secular (as he definitely will), he will vote for another, untried alternative. and this will go on...

indian first?

dilip wants you to choose:

I choose to be Indian first. I choose to be a citizen for peace.

i've a choice? can i be a brahmin first, anywhere in the country? say, delhi? a bureaucrat? a dictator or a mass murderer who can go unpunished?

there's not much to choose from really: if you wish to be an indian, you've to choose your parents and trust their judgment on their choice of community and/or religion. if their choice turns out right on both counts, you should further trust their judgment on their choice of a) state. and b) the region. it's no good if they choose maharashtra and vidarbha (the rain gods didn't choose vidarbha, so why should anyone choose vidarbha?). both a and b have to be the right choices. say, maharashtra and western maharashtra. now you'll have to depend on their choice of place- village or town? if it's a village, they would've to choose a village where sugarcane is the major crop and not jowar or bajra. why go through all the hassle of lobbying to convince the central government to support bajra? no, i haven't come around to your parents' profession yet- i'm just trying to point out that it'd be wise for your parents to choose the right kind of village to be born in. for both of them. now, we'll have to let your parents decide what kind of teachers choose to work in the village they chose to be born in. oh, they'd have to choose what kind of grandparents they'd want you to have before they do all this choosing. and...does all this sound very karma-esque? well, you've no choice but to let your chosen parents make all those choices so that you can become an indian. so that you when you speak, those who matter listen. and don't treat you like you're a sundry samosawallah. like someone who chose the wrong parents.

i don't wish to be an indian. first or last. i'd hate to live in a country where you've to choose your parents. where if you're from the wrong village, region, community, religion..you've to go to the right place and be treated like a samosawallah. i live in a country where one learns too late that you've to choose your parents.