Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Gandhi, Guevara Fifty-Fifty
By Satya Sagar
Countercurrents.org
”How do we make non-violent activism sexy?” asked a friend in a letter to me recently.
His question was posed in the context of the ongoing debate in the national media and elsewhere about the supposed threat to national security from Maoists who are mobilising tribals in central and eastern India for a protracted war to overthrow the Indian State. The State on its part is marshalling its paramilitary and other troops to ‘flush out’ the Maoists, unfazed by the collateral damage this civil war is likely to cause among the already severely exploited tribal population.
My friend’s point was really that peaceful, democratic social movements never seem to get the same kind of publicity or government attention given to bloodshed by dissident groups of various hues. For example, the reason why the Maoists get so much play from the government and national media is precisely because of their regular use and explicit promotion of armed action as a means to further their cause. The same national political elite and media that calls on the Maoists to enter the mainstream, abjure violence and work within the framework of the Indian Constitution, would not pay any attention to their demands at all if the latter really give up the gun.
Just look around India right now and there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of social activists and groups working peacefully and democratically on a range of important issues for many years. There are movements against forced displacement, struggles for land and forest rights, education and health facilities or the rights of oppressed castes and ethnic minorities- some of them successful, many of them not so. All are dismissed by those in power as not ‘threatening enough’ to be taken seriously. Ironically or deliberately, for all its official abhorrence of violent means, the Indian State and its bulldog media are promoting the perverse idea that if you want to be heard, you have to use the gun.
One good example is that of the Manipuri poet and activist Sharmila Irom, who on 2 November 2009 entered her tenth straight year of fasting demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Manipur- a world record if there is one for hunger fasts anywhere. The AFSPA is one of the most draconian laws anywhere in the world and allows even foot soldiers of the Indian army to shoot ‘suspected’ militants, a privilege they abuse with frightening abandon. Sharmila’s marathon fast though is not the kind of stuff that makes the Indian government even think, leave alone blink. Instead the soft-bellied but hard-nosed politicos who run this country must be simply laughing their guts out at her non-violently starving herself for democratic rights.
Violence Vs Non-Violence
I personally don’t have any absolute position on the issue of violence versus non-violence because both terms are in my view impossible to define with precision and no meaningful debate is possible around them.
For example, do not the speculative flows of global capital that leave in their wake thousands upon thousands destitute, driving many to commit suicide, constitute a clear form of violence? Nobody puts a gun to the heads of the 2.5 million Indian children who die every year due to malnutrition- so are these supposed to be ‘non-violent’ deaths?
Further the ethical and moral dimension of any action depends on the specific context and cannot be pre-judged or prescribed in a cast-in-iron manner. The Muslims who died in Gujarat’s 2002 pogrom for example surely had the right- if they had got the chance at all- to shoot the fascist mobs that managed to lynch them because they found them unarmed.
In many ways the concept of ‘non-violence’ also depends crucially on how ‘violence’ is defined and by looking at the kind of ‘violence’ that is perpetrated. In other words, the notion of proportionality is very crucial to understanding what is ‘non-violence’ and what is not. For instance, if I am threatened by a regime that merely sends me to jail for dissent then the corresponding ‘non-violent’ strategy will different than if my oppressor tries to bomb me and my entire neighbourhood out of existence, a la Iraq or Afghanistan.
On a purely theoretical plane my own answer to the question ‘Gandhi or Guevara?’ is ‘fifty-fifty’. Both had their spectacular successes and abject failures in different contexts.
Gandhi for example after leading a non-violent struggle for India’s freedom could do little to prevent the Partition of the sub-continent that led to the deaths of over 2 million people and displacement of 14 million more within the space of just a few months. This was violence on a scale shocking even for a planet just emerging from two successive World Wars and showed the limitations of Gandhi’s politics of non-violence, that could not take into account the machinations of various other forces operating around him.
Che on the other hand after participating in the violent overthrow of Cuba’s Batista dictatorship got murdered in Bolivia, after failing to get local peasants and workers to join his attempts to spark off an armed rebellion. Four decades later, in the same Bolivia, a revolutionary new government has been elected to power under the leadership of Evo Morales, who successfully mobilised the country’s much oppressed indigenous population through militant but unarmed movements.
The Indian Context
In the Indian context, unfortunately, the language of physical force and bloodshed has been preferred by the Indian ruling elites over that of peace and persuasion not just in modern times but for millennia. One has simply to delve into Indian mythology to easily recognise the horrific militarism that permeates every ancient epic and the routine valorisation of intrigue, bloodshed and the murderous mindset it represents.
So in the famous sermon on the battlefield, the Bhagvat Gita, the Hindu deity Krishna exhorts Arjuna to drop his qualms about killing his close relatives, his guru and all those he loves and respects in the ‘enemy’ camp as his ‘karma’ or ‘duty’ to kill is more important than human values. Almost every Hindu god is further depicted carrying war weapons meant to exterminate ‘asuras’ and ‘rakshasas’- obvious euphemisms for some tribal character or the other whose resources were being taken over by the ever expanding Aryan ‘deva’ population. Even the gods are insecure in this country of ours.
Since Independence the Indian ruling class has simply reverted to such age old traditions of using naked force to deal with social sections considered ‘inferior’- like ethnic or religious minorities, Dalits, Adivasis, workers or peasants. Forget about actual civil conflict of which this country has seen plenty since 1947 in Nagaland, Mizoram, Kashmir, Punjab and so on – just look at the figures of deaths in police custody around the country, the highest in the world, and you can understand how violence is an integral part of the Indian State’s day to day functioning.
And why blame the formal Indian State alone, why not take a closer look at the sheer amount of violence that exists in every nook and corner of Indian society itself- where even disputes over parking of cars in the capital city often result in murder. Between dowry deaths, honour killings, female foeticide, infanticide, caste related massacres and jealousies aroused by simple boy-girl romances India is more a Super-Slaughterhouse than the Superpower it wants to be or the Land of Ahimsa it claims to have been in the past.
As for Indian political organizations today, it is not just radical sections like the Maoists but all mainstream national level parties, like the Congress, BJP and CPI(M), that use violent means routinely to establish their hegemony as evident from their respective roles in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, the Gujarat genocide and the Nandigram massacre. While operating within the democratic spaces offered by the Indian polity, contesting parliamentary elections and claiming allegiance to the Indian Constitution, they show little respect in actual practice for democratic rights, norms or processes. As far as they are concerned such spaces are to be merely exploited till such a time they are in complete command and the pretence of democracy itself can be cast off like a dispensable cover over their quest for raw power.
Modernity and Violence
There is yet another source of great violence in the world we live in that comes from the notions of modernity that have been in vogue since the nineteenth century. It is violence born out of blind belief in the concepts of the fortified nation state, industrialisation, urbanisation and ever-increasing production and consumption as being synonymous with progress and development.
During the last fifty-two years, some 3.300 big dams have been constructed in India and another 1,000 are under construction leading to the displacement of anywhere between 21 to 33 million people. Over 55 percent of those displaced are from tribal communities who constitute only 8 percent of India’s population but pay a disproportionately heavy price for national ‘growth’.
Further the skewed policies in favour of urbanization and industrialization has pauperized India’s rural folk, whose survival depends on the callously neglected agricultural sector. Over 180,000 farmers have committed suicide between 1997 and 2007 while millions of villagers are forced to migrate to the cities as economic refugees to live in miserable slums that do not offer even the most basic of amenities leave alone a life of dignity. The urban centers of India are sucking the resources of the countryside dry and with it the very basis of existence of 70 percent of the country’s population.
If one adds to all this the annual toll of human lives extracted by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, industrial accidents, pollution of water by toxic wastes, loss of soil fertility due to Green Revolution agriculture and so on the costs of modern progress are exceedingly high indeed.
Reform or Revolution?
So given all these multiple sources of violence what are the brave but increasingly lonely activists advocating ‘non-violence’ as a means of social action and political change supposed to do?
I would argue that it is precisely because of all the violence around us that there is an even greater need for non-violent approaches to solving social problems. There is in fact an urgent need to lower the levels of violence not just in India but all over the South Asian sub-continent that is home to two nuclear powers and has already seen several wars and the horrific massacres of the Partition.
Armed actions do produce results sometimes and are highly attractive therefore to impatient youth or groups for whom it is part of ideological faith. However, hard experience tells the victories are very often ephemeral and only lay the foundation for yet another bout of bloodshed and the cycle keeps spinning out of control well beyond the original objectives with which the violence started. The examples of such violence begetting violence without end are strewn all over the planet from the killing fields of Cambodia to the tropical forests of Colombia.
Armed actions are also elitist in nature and do not allow mass participation thereby depriving an opportunity to politicise the greatest number and build the basis for a genuinely democratic movement or a democratic future. A handful of Robin Hoods do not a Revolution make and it is ultimately the political experience of millions of ordinary citizens that can ensure one dictatorship is not merely replaced by another.
Talking about revolution, political parties that describe themselves as revolutionary and which have the integrity and even perhaps the right social vision should also stop looking down on unarmed movements as ‘reformist’ or conflating all ‘revolutionary’ work with armed action alone. ‘Reform or Revolution?’ is in fact a trick question - like ‘food or freedom’, ‘love or money’, ‘democracy or development’? As if any of these two terms are mutually exclusive and as if anybody really knows where one ends and the other begins. Is it not simply absurd for some of the most sincere and committed political activists we have to be willing to give up their lives for a cause because this is ‘revolutionary’ but not give a glass of water to someone dying of thirst because this is seen as ‘reformist’?
Finally, the reason why armed actions should be avoided as much as possible in the current Indian context is simply because a hell of a lot of problems in the country like the caste system, religious bigotry, honour killings, female foeticide, patriarchy or environmental destruction are extremely complex and cannot be solved by merely shooting bullets or setting off bombs. They require intelligent long-term interventions with a lot of care and perseverance and the involvement of millions in a country as large as India. The weapons of choice are really that of knowledge and courage combined with creative ways or organising the diverse people of this land. The objectives should be to achieve tangible goals such as ensuring basic standards of nutrition, health, education and the infrastructure needed to lead a decent life of dignity.
In that sense they are more like the challenges faced by the farmer trying to grow his crop on hostile soil and battling the vagaries of the weather than that of an engineer trying get a mountain out of his way for a project. The latter can use dynamite but for the former this would be suicidal. Ironically, many advocates of agrarian revolution in the subcontinent seem to be in a tearing hurry to capture the land without doing the hard work of cultivating the soil, waiting for the first rains or planting the seeds of a future society all around. It may be time to learn from the humble Indian peasant and show a little more patience and wisdom instead of ending up harvesting an imaginary crop and cooking a non-existent meal.
Satya Sagar is a journalist, writer and videomaker based in New Delhi. He can be reached at sagarnama@gmail.com
Countercurrents.org
”How do we make non-violent activism sexy?” asked a friend in a letter to me recently.
His question was posed in the context of the ongoing debate in the national media and elsewhere about the supposed threat to national security from Maoists who are mobilising tribals in central and eastern India for a protracted war to overthrow the Indian State. The State on its part is marshalling its paramilitary and other troops to ‘flush out’ the Maoists, unfazed by the collateral damage this civil war is likely to cause among the already severely exploited tribal population.
My friend’s point was really that peaceful, democratic social movements never seem to get the same kind of publicity or government attention given to bloodshed by dissident groups of various hues. For example, the reason why the Maoists get so much play from the government and national media is precisely because of their regular use and explicit promotion of armed action as a means to further their cause. The same national political elite and media that calls on the Maoists to enter the mainstream, abjure violence and work within the framework of the Indian Constitution, would not pay any attention to their demands at all if the latter really give up the gun.
Just look around India right now and there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of social activists and groups working peacefully and democratically on a range of important issues for many years. There are movements against forced displacement, struggles for land and forest rights, education and health facilities or the rights of oppressed castes and ethnic minorities- some of them successful, many of them not so. All are dismissed by those in power as not ‘threatening enough’ to be taken seriously. Ironically or deliberately, for all its official abhorrence of violent means, the Indian State and its bulldog media are promoting the perverse idea that if you want to be heard, you have to use the gun.
One good example is that of the Manipuri poet and activist Sharmila Irom, who on 2 November 2009 entered her tenth straight year of fasting demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Manipur- a world record if there is one for hunger fasts anywhere. The AFSPA is one of the most draconian laws anywhere in the world and allows even foot soldiers of the Indian army to shoot ‘suspected’ militants, a privilege they abuse with frightening abandon. Sharmila’s marathon fast though is not the kind of stuff that makes the Indian government even think, leave alone blink. Instead the soft-bellied but hard-nosed politicos who run this country must be simply laughing their guts out at her non-violently starving herself for democratic rights.
Violence Vs Non-Violence
I personally don’t have any absolute position on the issue of violence versus non-violence because both terms are in my view impossible to define with precision and no meaningful debate is possible around them.
For example, do not the speculative flows of global capital that leave in their wake thousands upon thousands destitute, driving many to commit suicide, constitute a clear form of violence? Nobody puts a gun to the heads of the 2.5 million Indian children who die every year due to malnutrition- so are these supposed to be ‘non-violent’ deaths?
Further the ethical and moral dimension of any action depends on the specific context and cannot be pre-judged or prescribed in a cast-in-iron manner. The Muslims who died in Gujarat’s 2002 pogrom for example surely had the right- if they had got the chance at all- to shoot the fascist mobs that managed to lynch them because they found them unarmed.
In many ways the concept of ‘non-violence’ also depends crucially on how ‘violence’ is defined and by looking at the kind of ‘violence’ that is perpetrated. In other words, the notion of proportionality is very crucial to understanding what is ‘non-violence’ and what is not. For instance, if I am threatened by a regime that merely sends me to jail for dissent then the corresponding ‘non-violent’ strategy will different than if my oppressor tries to bomb me and my entire neighbourhood out of existence, a la Iraq or Afghanistan.
On a purely theoretical plane my own answer to the question ‘Gandhi or Guevara?’ is ‘fifty-fifty’. Both had their spectacular successes and abject failures in different contexts.
Gandhi for example after leading a non-violent struggle for India’s freedom could do little to prevent the Partition of the sub-continent that led to the deaths of over 2 million people and displacement of 14 million more within the space of just a few months. This was violence on a scale shocking even for a planet just emerging from two successive World Wars and showed the limitations of Gandhi’s politics of non-violence, that could not take into account the machinations of various other forces operating around him.
Che on the other hand after participating in the violent overthrow of Cuba’s Batista dictatorship got murdered in Bolivia, after failing to get local peasants and workers to join his attempts to spark off an armed rebellion. Four decades later, in the same Bolivia, a revolutionary new government has been elected to power under the leadership of Evo Morales, who successfully mobilised the country’s much oppressed indigenous population through militant but unarmed movements.
The Indian Context
In the Indian context, unfortunately, the language of physical force and bloodshed has been preferred by the Indian ruling elites over that of peace and persuasion not just in modern times but for millennia. One has simply to delve into Indian mythology to easily recognise the horrific militarism that permeates every ancient epic and the routine valorisation of intrigue, bloodshed and the murderous mindset it represents.
So in the famous sermon on the battlefield, the Bhagvat Gita, the Hindu deity Krishna exhorts Arjuna to drop his qualms about killing his close relatives, his guru and all those he loves and respects in the ‘enemy’ camp as his ‘karma’ or ‘duty’ to kill is more important than human values. Almost every Hindu god is further depicted carrying war weapons meant to exterminate ‘asuras’ and ‘rakshasas’- obvious euphemisms for some tribal character or the other whose resources were being taken over by the ever expanding Aryan ‘deva’ population. Even the gods are insecure in this country of ours.
Since Independence the Indian ruling class has simply reverted to such age old traditions of using naked force to deal with social sections considered ‘inferior’- like ethnic or religious minorities, Dalits, Adivasis, workers or peasants. Forget about actual civil conflict of which this country has seen plenty since 1947 in Nagaland, Mizoram, Kashmir, Punjab and so on – just look at the figures of deaths in police custody around the country, the highest in the world, and you can understand how violence is an integral part of the Indian State’s day to day functioning.
And why blame the formal Indian State alone, why not take a closer look at the sheer amount of violence that exists in every nook and corner of Indian society itself- where even disputes over parking of cars in the capital city often result in murder. Between dowry deaths, honour killings, female foeticide, infanticide, caste related massacres and jealousies aroused by simple boy-girl romances India is more a Super-Slaughterhouse than the Superpower it wants to be or the Land of Ahimsa it claims to have been in the past.
As for Indian political organizations today, it is not just radical sections like the Maoists but all mainstream national level parties, like the Congress, BJP and CPI(M), that use violent means routinely to establish their hegemony as evident from their respective roles in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, the Gujarat genocide and the Nandigram massacre. While operating within the democratic spaces offered by the Indian polity, contesting parliamentary elections and claiming allegiance to the Indian Constitution, they show little respect in actual practice for democratic rights, norms or processes. As far as they are concerned such spaces are to be merely exploited till such a time they are in complete command and the pretence of democracy itself can be cast off like a dispensable cover over their quest for raw power.
Modernity and Violence
There is yet another source of great violence in the world we live in that comes from the notions of modernity that have been in vogue since the nineteenth century. It is violence born out of blind belief in the concepts of the fortified nation state, industrialisation, urbanisation and ever-increasing production and consumption as being synonymous with progress and development.
During the last fifty-two years, some 3.300 big dams have been constructed in India and another 1,000 are under construction leading to the displacement of anywhere between 21 to 33 million people. Over 55 percent of those displaced are from tribal communities who constitute only 8 percent of India’s population but pay a disproportionately heavy price for national ‘growth’.
Further the skewed policies in favour of urbanization and industrialization has pauperized India’s rural folk, whose survival depends on the callously neglected agricultural sector. Over 180,000 farmers have committed suicide between 1997 and 2007 while millions of villagers are forced to migrate to the cities as economic refugees to live in miserable slums that do not offer even the most basic of amenities leave alone a life of dignity. The urban centers of India are sucking the resources of the countryside dry and with it the very basis of existence of 70 percent of the country’s population.
If one adds to all this the annual toll of human lives extracted by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, industrial accidents, pollution of water by toxic wastes, loss of soil fertility due to Green Revolution agriculture and so on the costs of modern progress are exceedingly high indeed.
Reform or Revolution?
So given all these multiple sources of violence what are the brave but increasingly lonely activists advocating ‘non-violence’ as a means of social action and political change supposed to do?
I would argue that it is precisely because of all the violence around us that there is an even greater need for non-violent approaches to solving social problems. There is in fact an urgent need to lower the levels of violence not just in India but all over the South Asian sub-continent that is home to two nuclear powers and has already seen several wars and the horrific massacres of the Partition.
Armed actions do produce results sometimes and are highly attractive therefore to impatient youth or groups for whom it is part of ideological faith. However, hard experience tells the victories are very often ephemeral and only lay the foundation for yet another bout of bloodshed and the cycle keeps spinning out of control well beyond the original objectives with which the violence started. The examples of such violence begetting violence without end are strewn all over the planet from the killing fields of Cambodia to the tropical forests of Colombia.
Armed actions are also elitist in nature and do not allow mass participation thereby depriving an opportunity to politicise the greatest number and build the basis for a genuinely democratic movement or a democratic future. A handful of Robin Hoods do not a Revolution make and it is ultimately the political experience of millions of ordinary citizens that can ensure one dictatorship is not merely replaced by another.
Talking about revolution, political parties that describe themselves as revolutionary and which have the integrity and even perhaps the right social vision should also stop looking down on unarmed movements as ‘reformist’ or conflating all ‘revolutionary’ work with armed action alone. ‘Reform or Revolution?’ is in fact a trick question - like ‘food or freedom’, ‘love or money’, ‘democracy or development’? As if any of these two terms are mutually exclusive and as if anybody really knows where one ends and the other begins. Is it not simply absurd for some of the most sincere and committed political activists we have to be willing to give up their lives for a cause because this is ‘revolutionary’ but not give a glass of water to someone dying of thirst because this is seen as ‘reformist’?
Finally, the reason why armed actions should be avoided as much as possible in the current Indian context is simply because a hell of a lot of problems in the country like the caste system, religious bigotry, honour killings, female foeticide, patriarchy or environmental destruction are extremely complex and cannot be solved by merely shooting bullets or setting off bombs. They require intelligent long-term interventions with a lot of care and perseverance and the involvement of millions in a country as large as India. The weapons of choice are really that of knowledge and courage combined with creative ways or organising the diverse people of this land. The objectives should be to achieve tangible goals such as ensuring basic standards of nutrition, health, education and the infrastructure needed to lead a decent life of dignity.
In that sense they are more like the challenges faced by the farmer trying to grow his crop on hostile soil and battling the vagaries of the weather than that of an engineer trying get a mountain out of his way for a project. The latter can use dynamite but for the former this would be suicidal. Ironically, many advocates of agrarian revolution in the subcontinent seem to be in a tearing hurry to capture the land without doing the hard work of cultivating the soil, waiting for the first rains or planting the seeds of a future society all around. It may be time to learn from the humble Indian peasant and show a little more patience and wisdom instead of ending up harvesting an imaginary crop and cooking a non-existent meal.
Satya Sagar is a journalist, writer and videomaker based in New Delhi. He can be reached at sagarnama@gmail.com
Zionist Power In American Politics
By James Petras
We should combat widespread Zionist hate propaganda, organized and publicized by the ZPC, against Muslin Americans and Arab American, their cultural foundations and charities. We should demystify Zionist claims that the Jews' ancestral homeland is Israel, rather then North Africa and Central Asia, and that there is no historic basis for the Right of Return
Israel: A Monster Beyond Control?
By Alan Hart
On the first anniversary of the beginning of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip – in my view it was a demonstration of Israeli state terrorism at its most naked – it’s not enough to say that the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in Israel’s on-going collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, 53% of whom are children. What is actually happening in the blockaded Gaza Strip, and less obviously on the occupied West Bank, is the continuation by stealth of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine
Israel: A Monster Beyond Control?
Gaza: Love In ActionAnd Global Conscience
By Eileen Fleming
Hundreds of activists who had already traveled on their dime and given up their time to bring some much needed humanitarian aid to the innocents in Gaza and to participate in the Gaza Freedom March have now also given up food. Because the Egyptian government has denied over 1,300 nonviolent international activists entry into Gaza, hundreds of them began a hunger strike on December 28, 2009
click below to read full article:
पहले से ही बिके हुए हैं
पिछले दिनों अंग्रेज़ी पत्रिका आउटलुक ने 'न्यूज़ फ़ॉर सेल' यानी 'बिकाउ ख़बरों' पर एक अंक निकाला.
इसमें ज़िक्र किया गया है कि किस तरह चुनावों के दौरान ख़बरों के लिए नेताओं को पैसे देने पड़ रहे हैं. किस तरह ख़बरें प्रकाशित-प्रसारित करने के लिए दरें तय कर दी गई हैं. इसमें अख़बारों के साथ टेलीविज़न चैनल भी बराबरी से शरीक हैं.
to read full article click below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/hindi/2009/12/blog-media.html
courtesy: BBC HINDI
इसमें ज़िक्र किया गया है कि किस तरह चुनावों के दौरान ख़बरों के लिए नेताओं को पैसे देने पड़ रहे हैं. किस तरह ख़बरें प्रकाशित-प्रसारित करने के लिए दरें तय कर दी गई हैं. इसमें अख़बारों के साथ टेलीविज़न चैनल भी बराबरी से शरीक हैं.
to read full article click below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/hindi/2009/12/blog-media.html
courtesy: BBC HINDI
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Happy New Year - 2010
“The object of a new year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul”
New year, Same Goal
AWAMI BHARAT
EXPOSING THE POLITICS OF TERRORISM
"TOWARDS AN INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM, ZIONISM & BRAHMANISM"
Saturday, December 26, 2009
PRESS CONFERENCE
BHARAT- BACHAO- ANDOLAN
PRESS CONFERENCE
MUMBAI 26/11 TERROR ATTACK
WE DEMAND A NATIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
WE DEMAND A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF SHRI HEMANT KARKARE-CAMA INCIDENT.
WE STATE THAT DAVID COLEMAN HEADLEY IS A CIA AGENT & THUS THE AMERICAN CIA-FBI / ISRAELI MOSSAD / PAKISTANI ISI-LeT,
WERE ALL INVOLVED IN THE TERROR ATTACK.
WE THUS DEMAND THAT HEADLEY BE EXTRADITED TO INDIA FOR QUESTIONING & FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
VENUE: MARATHI PATRAKAR SANGH, CST, MUMBAI
DATE/TIME: 26TH DECEMBER (SATURDAY) / 3-4pm
SHRI MADHU SHETYE & SHRI DINU RANDIVE (VETERAN JOURNALISTS) HAVE BOTH EXTENDED THEIR SOLIDARITY.
THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SHRI SAGAR SARHADI (NOTED FILM MAKER / SOCIAL-HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST ), COMRADE PRAKASH REDDY (MUMBAI GEN. SEC., CPI), SHRI S. S. YADAV (IDEOLOGUE, RPI-ATHAVALE), COL SUDHIR SAWANT (EX-MP, COUNTER INSURGENCY OPS, PRESIDENT SHIVRAJYA PARTY), FEROZE MITHIBORWALA (PRESIDENT, AWAMI BHARAT), COM. ARUN VELASKAR (STATE COMMITTEE, CPI-ML), KISHORE JAGTAP (VICE-PRESIDENT, AWAMI BHARAT) JAGDISH NAGARKAR (PHULE-AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH), MULNIWASI MALA (INDIAN SOCIAL MOVEMENT), SUDHIR DHAWALE (REPUBLICAN PANTHER), RAVI JOSHI (INDIAN FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS), YAVAR ALI QAZI, AMOL MADAME, VILAS GAIKWAD, JYOTI BADEKAR (VIDYARTHI BHARTI) & ARIF KAPADIA.
PRESS CONFERENCE
MUMBAI 26/11 TERROR ATTACK
WE DEMAND A NATIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
WE DEMAND A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF SHRI HEMANT KARKARE-CAMA INCIDENT.
WE STATE THAT DAVID COLEMAN HEADLEY IS A CIA AGENT & THUS THE AMERICAN CIA-FBI / ISRAELI MOSSAD / PAKISTANI ISI-LeT,
WERE ALL INVOLVED IN THE TERROR ATTACK.
WE THUS DEMAND THAT HEADLEY BE EXTRADITED TO INDIA FOR QUESTIONING & FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
VENUE: MARATHI PATRAKAR SANGH, CST, MUMBAI
DATE/TIME: 26TH DECEMBER (SATURDAY) / 3-4pm
SHRI MADHU SHETYE & SHRI DINU RANDIVE (VETERAN JOURNALISTS) HAVE BOTH EXTENDED THEIR SOLIDARITY.
THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SHRI SAGAR SARHADI (NOTED FILM MAKER / SOCIAL-HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST ), COMRADE PRAKASH REDDY (MUMBAI GEN. SEC., CPI), SHRI S. S. YADAV (IDEOLOGUE, RPI-ATHAVALE), COL SUDHIR SAWANT (EX-MP, COUNTER INSURGENCY OPS, PRESIDENT SHIVRAJYA PARTY), FEROZE MITHIBORWALA (PRESIDENT, AWAMI BHARAT), COM. ARUN VELASKAR (STATE COMMITTEE, CPI-ML), KISHORE JAGTAP (VICE-PRESIDENT, AWAMI BHARAT) JAGDISH NAGARKAR (PHULE-AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH), MULNIWASI MALA (INDIAN SOCIAL MOVEMENT), SUDHIR DHAWALE (REPUBLICAN PANTHER), RAVI JOSHI (INDIAN FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS), YAVAR ALI QAZI, AMOL MADAME, VILAS GAIKWAD, JYOTI BADEKAR (VIDYARTHI BHARTI) & ARIF KAPADIA.
Friday, December 25, 2009
THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE
by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore
Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.
If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters [¼].
Courtesy: Covert Magazine
Thursday, December 24, 2009
"FREE VIKRAM BUDDHI"
BHARAT- BACHAO -ANDOLAN
"FREE VIKRAM BUDDHI"
PRESS CONFERENCE
THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY MR. B.K. SUBBARAO, THE FATHER OF VIKRAM BUDDHI.
VENUE: MARATHI PATRAKAR SANGH, AZAD MAIDAN, CST, MUMBAI.
DATE / TIME: 24th DECEMBER '09 (WEDNESDAY) / 3pm to 4pm
WE APPEAL TO INDIAN CITIZENS TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH VIKRAM & HIS FAMILY.
WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED TO WAGE A CONCERTED STRUGGLE TILL VIKRAM IS FREED FROM HIS AMERICAN CAPTORS.
FEROZE MITHIBORWALA, KISHORE JAGTAP, ASLAM GHAZI, VARSHA V V, VILAS GAIKWAD, SAYEED KHAN, ARIF KAPADIA, YAVAR ALI KAZI, MUNAWAR KHAN, SUDHIR DHAWLE, SHYAM SONAR, JAGDISH NAGARKAR, MULNIWASI MALA, JYOTI BADEKAR, GHAZALA AZAD, SHADAB SHAIKH, MUNAWAR AZAD & TITO EAPEN, IRFAN MULLA.
98208 97517 / 93245 14101
Introduction
Vikram Buddhi, an Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University at West Lafayette, Indiana State of United States has been placed in federal prosecution since April 2006. He continues to be in US Federal Prison at Chicago without a sentencing being pronounced so far.
Vikram was a National Science Talent Scholar during his school days in India.
Graduated in mathematics with M.Sc degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, stood first in the class and received silver medal from IIT, Bombay.
Worked for a year at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay
Joined the mathematics department of Purdue University, in the year 1996.
At Purdue he received MS degree in mathematics and thereafter has been pursuing Ph.D degrees simultaneously in pure and applied mathematics.
His work in pure mathematics is in algebraic geometry and in applied mathematics the work is in the area of noninvasive techniques for cancer detection.
At Purdue University Vikram received two times Best Teaching Award from the Department of Mathematics.
Vikram’s father, Buddhi Kota Subbarao is former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, in nuclear technology, and an advocate of Supreme Court of India. Vikram’s mother Smt.Buddhi Syamala is a science graduate and a former Secretary of Indian Women Scientists Association (IWSA).
Root Cause.
The root cause of the prosecution against Vikram Buddhi was a letter Vikram Buddhi wrote sometime prior to December 2005 to the then President of Purdue University Dr.Martin C. Jischke bringing to Dr. Jischke’s notice that an African American student Mr. Kendal Deas had been expelled from Purdue University for allegedly copying in an examination, but subsequently no action was taken against three non-African students who were similarly caught copying in examination. The administrators of Purdue University were annoyed at the ‘audacity’ of an Indian Graduate Student writing such a letter to the President of Purdue University.
The Indictment (Charge) is ill founded
The prosecution is supposed to be based on some Internet Messages on Yahoo Business Discussion Forum which appeared in December 2005 and January 2006 calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to do tit-for-tat. But in the Indictment (Charge), there is not even a whisper about the Internet Messages. Thus the Indictment is arbitrary, ill founded and false.
Prosecution failed to establish that the Internet Messages were posted by Vikram Buddhi. Yahoo management merely informed the US Secret Service that the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of Purdue University were used to post the Messages on the Internet. The person at Purdue University Mr. Scot Ksander who made crude guesses on the origin of those Internet Messages had admitted in the trial that he did not know the methods and means with which hacking of computer networks takes place. Please see pages 329 and 330 of Trial Transcript Volume II, June 26, 2007. The fact that Scot Ksander admitted to US Secret Service that the Address Resolution Protocol Table (ARP Table) was poisoned, strongly suggests that the computer network of Purdue University was hacked. Furthermore, it is well known there is a hacking history of Purdue Computer Networks.
One can see on Internet the details of one such hacking in the year 2004 at the internet sites http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2004/10/0074.htmlhttp://seclists.org/isn/2004/Oct/0074.html
Admitted To Posting?
The initial publicity through media that Vikram Buddhi admitted to posting the Internet Messages proved to be false and without any foundation. During interrogation by US Secret Service in mid January 2006, along with others Vikram Buddhi was also interrogated and his written opinion on the Internet Messages was obtained. In that written opinion, Vikram only stated that it was a ‘political banter’ and a reflection of rivalry between Republicans and Democrats. There was no admission by Vikram in that written note. The US Secret Service admitted during cross examination in the jury trial that in the room where interrogation took place there was fully functioning audio and video equipment. The Secret Service could have easily resorted to audio/video recording of ‘admission’, if any, by Vikram. But no proof of ‘admission’ by Vikram was produced in the Court. Therefore, there was no ‘admission’ by Vikram Buddhi.
The case proceeded to jury trial only because the defendant Vikram Buddhi pleaded ‘not guilty’. There was no need for jury trial if Vikram ‘admitted.’
During jury trial, the Defense Attorney John E. Martin advised defendant Vikram Buddhi not to testify and to remain silent as the defendant has a constitutional right under Fifth Amendment to remain silent and there is an obligation on the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. Government failed completely to prove Vikram Buddhi committed any offence let alone posting any Internet Messages.
Author Immaterial
Whoever might be their author (not known till now), the Internet Messages reasoned that the Iraq war launched by President G W Bush and killing 312,769 IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAQ by that time, making millions of Iraqis refugees in other countries and destroying vast infrastructure in Iraq. Those Internet Messages appeared after the horrible sexual abuses committed by American Armed Forces Personnel and after the lurid details in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became known to the world. The "Taguba Report" on Treatment of Abu Ghraib Prisoners in Iraq (Feb. 26, 2004), can be seen at,
http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf;
It is more than clear that someone deeply affected by those events posted those Internet Messages in December 2005 and January 2006. Till to date, the origin of those Internet Messages could not be established conclusively. The history of hacking of Purdue Computer network is a relevant fact in Vikram’s case. The only legal question that can be raised in Vikram Buddhi’s case, even if the Prosecution is illegally permitted to raise (illegal because the Indictment as it exists cannot permit raising such a question), the legal question will be, whether the contents of the Internet Messages under reference would amount to an offense under the law of any land on earth, let alone the land of the United States of America, which prides itself in rule of law and freedom of speech. Right in the beginning, Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh characterized Iraq War as ‘Wrong War’. There is no doubt that Iraq war is in violation of International Law and it is also in violation of Chapter V of United Nations Charter. The Bush Doctrine of ‘peremptory strike’ is nothing but an invitation to ‘Jungle Law’ amongst the sovereign nations of the world.
Greatest Irony The greatest irony in Vikram Buddhi’s case is that at the time of launching federal prosecution against him, the media was made to publicise that the prosecution was on account of the Internet Messages, but the eleven count Indictment (Charge) with which Vikram was made to face Jury Trial does not contain even a whisper about Internet Messages in any of those eleven counts of charge. US Government during Bush administration persuaded Grand Jury in April 2006 to pass Indictment and that too after US Secret Service having interrogated in mid January 2006 and let Vikram Buddhi to remain free and after the Secret Service having rendered a formal report on February 3, 2006 that Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or to any of the US Secret Service Protectees. Indictment shows eleven count charge under Title 18 United States Code Sections 871(a) (threat to President G W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), 879(a) (threat to Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney) , 875(c) (threat to the then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). All the eleven counts of charge are, more or less, identically worded. It is enough to look at Count No.1 of the charge which reads:
Greatest Irony The greatest irony in Vikram Buddhi’s case is that at the time of launching federal prosecution against him, the media was made to publicise that the prosecution was on account of the Internet Messages, but the eleven count Indictment (Charge) with which Vikram was made to face Jury Trial does not contain even a whisper about Internet Messages in any of those eleven counts of charge. US Government during Bush administration persuaded Grand Jury in April 2006 to pass Indictment and that too after US Secret Service having interrogated in mid January 2006 and let Vikram Buddhi to remain free and after the Secret Service having rendered a formal report on February 3, 2006 that Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or to any of the US Secret Service Protectees. Indictment shows eleven count charge under Title 18 United States Code Sections 871(a) (threat to President G W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), 879(a) (threat to Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney) , 875(c) (threat to the then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). All the eleven counts of charge are, more or less, identically worded. It is enough to look at Count No.1 of the charge which reads:
“On or about December 13, 2005, in the Northern District of Indiana and elsewhere, the defendant, Vikram S. Buddhi did knowingly and willfully threaten to kill the President of the United States, George Bush; All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871(a).” All other Counts of the indictment (charge) are also similarly worded- “did threaten to kill or bomb”. They all, merely tracked the statutory language and left out the essential facts that constitute the offense charged. There is not even a whisper in any of the eleven count charge in the Indictment about the Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq on moral grounds. There is nothing in the Internet Messages, whoever the author might be, to show that the author would himself or herself would do the things. Whoever it might be, the author on moral grounds merely gave a call to the Iraqis to act in retaliation of perceived unjust Iraq war. Yet the Indictment in all eleven counts has been worded to convey that the Defendant threatened to do the things himself which is patently false. In a meditated way, the Indictment is worded, the way it is worded, only to avoid it being quashed by the Courts for there is only an abstract advocacy of violence with no imminent danger from the advocacy. Profane, abusive and vituperative words (a few such words are there in the Internet Messages) do not constitute offense elements under any of the Sections mentioned in the Indictment. Moreover, the US Supreme Court repeatedly made it clear that such words should be ignored in speech threat cases to know if the threat is a ‘true threat’.
Indictment is defective if one goes by the mandatory provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) which provides, “The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”. In Vikram Buddhi’s case, the Indictment merely tracked the statutory language in the Sections 871(a), 879(a), 875(c) and 844(e) and failed to include the essential facts constituting the offense. Therefore, the Indictment is in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ). It amounts to denying due process to Vikram Buddhi. It also shows Vikram Buddhi was discriminated and deprived of Constitutional protections available under Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to US Constitution. US Supreme Court made it clear that the defect arising from the failure to include in the Indictment the essential facts constituting the offense cannot be cured by attaching subsequently additional documents to the Indictment. More specifically, the US Supreme Court ruled,“The Indictment must stand or fall on its own. Neither a bill of particulars nor any discovery provided by the government can cure a defective indictment.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962).
The plain meaning flowing from all the eleven counts of charge in the indictment is what matters and the plain meaning flowing from all the eleven counts of charge is that the defendant Vikram Buddhi himself is going to kill or bomb which is patently false as the defendant never gave any such threat.
Since the essential facts constituting the offenses under Sections 871(a), 879(a), 875(c), and 844(e) have not been mentioned in the Indictment, it gave unfettered powers to the Government to choose facts of its choice and give colours to the case of its liking during the trial. To meet the ends of justice, the Indictment is required to be quashed. The jury trial conducted on the basis of such an illegal Indictment is in contravention of the statutory law of the United States and it also makes a mockery of the Amendments to the US Constitution. The US Department of Justice must examine this matter seriously, lest it should land the administration of justice in United States into disrepute.
Unfair Jury Trial
In June 2007, Vikram Buddhi was subjected to jury trial before a twelve member Jury in which there were eight lady members. All the members of Jury were ordinary citizens of Indiana State. The jury trial took place before US District Court, Hammond Division, Northern District of Indiana, presided over by US District Judge James T. Moody. The case is registered as, United States v. Vikram Buddhi, Case No: 06 CR 63.
The jury trial in Vikram Buddhi case is unfair for the following reasons, apart from other reasons:
It was the duty of the presiding US District Judge James T. Moody to instruct the Jury on relevant law. But the Trial Transcripts clearly show that the Judge openly declared his resolve not to instruct the Jury on relevant law and he did not instruct the Jury on relevant law. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 2 & 3.
The Judge warned and directed the Defense Attorney John E. Martin not to link the evidence on record with relevant law while addressing the Jury during the closing address of the Defense to the Jury. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 4-6.
The Jury while in deliberations in closed door discussion, the Jury sent a Written Note to the Judge pointing out a contradiction in Judge’s Instructions to the Jury noticed by the members of Jury. But the Judge with his Written Reply to the Jury commanded the Jury stating that there was no contradiction and the Jury should continue its deliberations. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 91, 111, 115, 116.
In such facts and circumstances, the ill informed and insufficiently informed Jury delivered GUILTY verdict on June 28, 2007. It clearly shows that Vikram Buddhi was subjected to an unfair trial and was discriminated. These facts and such other facts in the Trial Transcripts do show the Judicial Misconduct of US District Judge James T. Moody. There is enough evidence on record to show that Judge Moody knowingly, willfully and deliberately ignored and neglected the established law in speech threat cases and subjected Vikram Buddhi to a special law devised by the Judge himself. This is an alarming situation that affects all the resident aliens in the United States.
Professional Misconduct of Prosecutor
Prosecutor Philip C. Benson named Vikram Buddhi’s father Buddhi Koasubbarao (former Indian Navy Captain with PhD from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, and an attorney of Supreme Court of India) as Government Witness. See, Trial Transcript Volume I, June 25, 2007, pages 8-9. To name father as a Government is a meditated plan to prevent the father from witnessing the jury trial. It is also a meditated plan to deny to the defendant the benefit of father’s technical knowledge on computer networks and legal knowledge in criminal trials. The fact is, though father was named as Government Witness, he was not served any Summons and he was not called to the Court to testify as Government Witness. To name him as a Government Witness was with the sole aim to keep him out of the Court till all the Witnesses of both sides were examined in the Court. Thus, though father waited for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial as the sole family member of Vikram Buddhi in the United States, father could not witness his son’s trial, all on account of the professional misconduct of Prosecutor Philip C. Benson.
Father Prevented From Helping Son
Retired Indian Navy Captain Buddhi Kota Subbarao, father of Vikram Buddhi, obtained at the end of May 2006 one year Emergency Visa from US Consulate, Mumbai to help his son and reached United States on June 7, 2006. At that time the jury trial of Vikram was fixed for June 26, 2006. But the trial was periodically continued (adjourned) up to June 2007.
On July 18, 2006, Federal Magistrate Andrew P. Rodovich granted bond (bail) to Vikram with several conditions, including the crucial condition that during the bond period till the commencement of the jury trial, the father should take custody of the son, reside in the United States and also ensure the attendance of the son at all pretrial proceedings of the Court. Failure to abide by the bond conditions would not only result in cancellation of the bond (bail) but also would make the father liable to pay $100,000 as fine and with attendant consequences.
When the jury trial commenced in June 2007, father was prevented to witness his son’s trial. Father was named as Government Witness and kept out of the Court during the trial. Father was not served any Summons to appear as Government Witness and father was not called to the Court as Government Witness during the trial. Naming father as Government Witness was a meditated and deliberate attempt to keep the father out of the Court during the trial. Thus, though father waited for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial, father could not witness his son’s trial, all on account of the professional misconduct of Prosecutor Philip C. Benson
Though, father duly applied well in time seeking extension of his Visa and stay in the United States to help his son, father was denied extension of Visa and stay. While father was trying to approach appropriate forum as per the provisions of US laws to seek extension of Visa and stay, father was prevented, his Passport was illegally taken away on August 21, 2007 and he was put in jail and moved in one week to three jails- Mariano County jail (Indianapolis), Grayson County Detention Center (Kentucky) and McHenry County jail (Chicago).
In due course, and well in time permitted by the US laws, the father approached US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago seeking review of the whole matter regarding extension of Visa and stay in the United States. When the Review Petition of the father is expected to come up for hearing, the US Authorities under Obama administration deported the father to India and landed him at Sahar International Airport, Mumbai on August 8, 2009. It was on August 8, 2009, the Indian Immigration Officers at Sahar Airport, Mumbai, handed over to the father his Indian Passport that was illegally taken away from him on August 21, 2007 at West Lafayette, Indiana, by the US Authorities and declining to return the passport all along. Now, the US Authorities say, since father has been deported, he cannot enter the United States for ten years.
If not to the affected citizens of India, at least to the people of the United States, the US Department of Justice has a lot to answer over such arbitrary and inhuman treatment to the resident aliens in the United States. What good are the laws of a country if the affected people cannot even agitate for justice under those laws?
Who all have been approached in USA and India ?
While in the United States, father of Vikram Buddhi formally represented the matter of Vikram Buddhi to successive US Attorney Generals, Alfred R. Gonzales, Michael B. Mukasey and Eric Holder and also to US President Barack Obama, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but all in vain as no one even bothered to acknowledge the representations let alone acting on them. Father even made representations to the Indian External Affairs Minister Sri.S.M.Krishna and others, mentioning clearly that the whole pursuit is for justice and not for mercy. All such pursuit remained in vain. Letters to Indian External Affairs Minister contained only two specific requests at the end, firstly for an official communication from Indian Government to the Government of the United States to ensure that rule of law is followed in Vikram Buddhi’s case and secondly the Indian Passport of Captain Buddhi Kota Subbarao, Indian Navy (Retd.) should be returned to him. But everything remains in vain so far.
Mother’s Attempts
Vikram’s mother Mrs.Syamala Buddhi all alone in India for over three years made several formal representations to Indian authorities including Indian President, Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh, Indian External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna and others requesting that the Indian Government should insist on the US Government to deal with her son according to the laws of the United States and not subject him to arbitrary measures to put false charge and to deny fair trial. Vikram’s mother even submitted a formal representation to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton paid official visit to India in July 2009 bringing to Hillary Clinton’s notice a comparison of the cases of Roxana Saberi and Vikram Buddhi.
Vikram’s mother also pointed out to all concerned quarters that on more or less identical accusation, Ken Haywood, an American citizen ran away to USA from India hoodwinking the Indian Investigating Agency, whereas her son Vikram Buddhi remained in the United States, answered all questions from US Secret Service and is now boldly facing the federal prosecution to prove his innocence, but Vikram is denied a fair trial and is discriminated.
External Affairs Minister Approached
In August 2009, public spirited persons including Shri Somnath Bharti, advocate of Supreme Court of India, Shri. Lella Anjaneyulu, a relative of Vikram Buddhi and others met External Affairs Minister Shri S. M. Krishna on August 17, 2009 and personally submitted Memorandums seeking appropriate action in Vikram’s matter. No clear picture is emerging as to what the External Affairs Ministry did in the matter, except some vague promises.
"FREE VIKRAM BUDDHI"
PRESS CONFERENCE
THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY MR. B.K. SUBBARAO, THE FATHER OF VIKRAM BUDDHI.
VENUE: MARATHI PATRAKAR SANGH, AZAD MAIDAN, CST, MUMBAI.
DATE / TIME: 24th DECEMBER '09 (WEDNESDAY) / 3pm to 4pm
WE APPEAL TO INDIAN CITIZENS TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH VIKRAM & HIS FAMILY.
WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED TO WAGE A CONCERTED STRUGGLE TILL VIKRAM IS FREED FROM HIS AMERICAN CAPTORS.
FEROZE MITHIBORWALA, KISHORE JAGTAP, ASLAM GHAZI, VARSHA V V, VILAS GAIKWAD, SAYEED KHAN, ARIF KAPADIA, YAVAR ALI KAZI, MUNAWAR KHAN, SUDHIR DHAWLE, SHYAM SONAR, JAGDISH NAGARKAR, MULNIWASI MALA, JYOTI BADEKAR, GHAZALA AZAD, SHADAB SHAIKH, MUNAWAR AZAD & TITO EAPEN, IRFAN MULLA.
98208 97517 / 93245 14101
Introduction
Vikram Buddhi, an Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University at West Lafayette, Indiana State of United States has been placed in federal prosecution since April 2006. He continues to be in US Federal Prison at Chicago without a sentencing being pronounced so far.
Vikram was a National Science Talent Scholar during his school days in India.
Graduated in mathematics with M.Sc degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, stood first in the class and received silver medal from IIT, Bombay.
Worked for a year at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay
Joined the mathematics department of Purdue University, in the year 1996.
At Purdue he received MS degree in mathematics and thereafter has been pursuing Ph.D degrees simultaneously in pure and applied mathematics.
His work in pure mathematics is in algebraic geometry and in applied mathematics the work is in the area of noninvasive techniques for cancer detection.
At Purdue University Vikram received two times Best Teaching Award from the Department of Mathematics.
Vikram’s father, Buddhi Kota Subbarao is former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, in nuclear technology, and an advocate of Supreme Court of India. Vikram’s mother Smt.Buddhi Syamala is a science graduate and a former Secretary of Indian Women Scientists Association (IWSA).
Root Cause.
The root cause of the prosecution against Vikram Buddhi was a letter Vikram Buddhi wrote sometime prior to December 2005 to the then President of Purdue University Dr.Martin C. Jischke bringing to Dr. Jischke’s notice that an African American student Mr. Kendal Deas had been expelled from Purdue University for allegedly copying in an examination, but subsequently no action was taken against three non-African students who were similarly caught copying in examination. The administrators of Purdue University were annoyed at the ‘audacity’ of an Indian Graduate Student writing such a letter to the President of Purdue University.
The Indictment (Charge) is ill founded
The prosecution is supposed to be based on some Internet Messages on Yahoo Business Discussion Forum which appeared in December 2005 and January 2006 calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to do tit-for-tat. But in the Indictment (Charge), there is not even a whisper about the Internet Messages. Thus the Indictment is arbitrary, ill founded and false.
Prosecution failed to establish that the Internet Messages were posted by Vikram Buddhi. Yahoo management merely informed the US Secret Service that the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of Purdue University were used to post the Messages on the Internet. The person at Purdue University Mr. Scot Ksander who made crude guesses on the origin of those Internet Messages had admitted in the trial that he did not know the methods and means with which hacking of computer networks takes place. Please see pages 329 and 330 of Trial Transcript Volume II, June 26, 2007. The fact that Scot Ksander admitted to US Secret Service that the Address Resolution Protocol Table (ARP Table) was poisoned, strongly suggests that the computer network of Purdue University was hacked. Furthermore, it is well known there is a hacking history of Purdue Computer Networks.
One can see on Internet the details of one such hacking in the year 2004 at the internet sites http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2004/10/0074.htmlhttp://seclists.org/isn/2004/Oct/0074.html
Admitted To Posting?
The initial publicity through media that Vikram Buddhi admitted to posting the Internet Messages proved to be false and without any foundation. During interrogation by US Secret Service in mid January 2006, along with others Vikram Buddhi was also interrogated and his written opinion on the Internet Messages was obtained. In that written opinion, Vikram only stated that it was a ‘political banter’ and a reflection of rivalry between Republicans and Democrats. There was no admission by Vikram in that written note. The US Secret Service admitted during cross examination in the jury trial that in the room where interrogation took place there was fully functioning audio and video equipment. The Secret Service could have easily resorted to audio/video recording of ‘admission’, if any, by Vikram. But no proof of ‘admission’ by Vikram was produced in the Court. Therefore, there was no ‘admission’ by Vikram Buddhi.
The case proceeded to jury trial only because the defendant Vikram Buddhi pleaded ‘not guilty’. There was no need for jury trial if Vikram ‘admitted.’
During jury trial, the Defense Attorney John E. Martin advised defendant Vikram Buddhi not to testify and to remain silent as the defendant has a constitutional right under Fifth Amendment to remain silent and there is an obligation on the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. Government failed completely to prove Vikram Buddhi committed any offence let alone posting any Internet Messages.
Author Immaterial
Whoever might be their author (not known till now), the Internet Messages reasoned that the Iraq war launched by President G W Bush and killing 312,769 IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAQ by that time, making millions of Iraqis refugees in other countries and destroying vast infrastructure in Iraq. Those Internet Messages appeared after the horrible sexual abuses committed by American Armed Forces Personnel and after the lurid details in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became known to the world. The "Taguba Report" on Treatment of Abu Ghraib Prisoners in Iraq (Feb. 26, 2004), can be seen at,
http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf;
It is more than clear that someone deeply affected by those events posted those Internet Messages in December 2005 and January 2006. Till to date, the origin of those Internet Messages could not be established conclusively. The history of hacking of Purdue Computer network is a relevant fact in Vikram’s case. The only legal question that can be raised in Vikram Buddhi’s case, even if the Prosecution is illegally permitted to raise (illegal because the Indictment as it exists cannot permit raising such a question), the legal question will be, whether the contents of the Internet Messages under reference would amount to an offense under the law of any land on earth, let alone the land of the United States of America, which prides itself in rule of law and freedom of speech. Right in the beginning, Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh characterized Iraq War as ‘Wrong War’. There is no doubt that Iraq war is in violation of International Law and it is also in violation of Chapter V of United Nations Charter. The Bush Doctrine of ‘peremptory strike’ is nothing but an invitation to ‘Jungle Law’ amongst the sovereign nations of the world.
Greatest Irony The greatest irony in Vikram Buddhi’s case is that at the time of launching federal prosecution against him, the media was made to publicise that the prosecution was on account of the Internet Messages, but the eleven count Indictment (Charge) with which Vikram was made to face Jury Trial does not contain even a whisper about Internet Messages in any of those eleven counts of charge. US Government during Bush administration persuaded Grand Jury in April 2006 to pass Indictment and that too after US Secret Service having interrogated in mid January 2006 and let Vikram Buddhi to remain free and after the Secret Service having rendered a formal report on February 3, 2006 that Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or to any of the US Secret Service Protectees. Indictment shows eleven count charge under Title 18 United States Code Sections 871(a) (threat to President G W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), 879(a) (threat to Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney) , 875(c) (threat to the then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). All the eleven counts of charge are, more or less, identically worded. It is enough to look at Count No.1 of the charge which reads:
Greatest Irony The greatest irony in Vikram Buddhi’s case is that at the time of launching federal prosecution against him, the media was made to publicise that the prosecution was on account of the Internet Messages, but the eleven count Indictment (Charge) with which Vikram was made to face Jury Trial does not contain even a whisper about Internet Messages in any of those eleven counts of charge. US Government during Bush administration persuaded Grand Jury in April 2006 to pass Indictment and that too after US Secret Service having interrogated in mid January 2006 and let Vikram Buddhi to remain free and after the Secret Service having rendered a formal report on February 3, 2006 that Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or to any of the US Secret Service Protectees. Indictment shows eleven count charge under Title 18 United States Code Sections 871(a) (threat to President G W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), 879(a) (threat to Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney) , 875(c) (threat to the then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). All the eleven counts of charge are, more or less, identically worded. It is enough to look at Count No.1 of the charge which reads:
“On or about December 13, 2005, in the Northern District of Indiana and elsewhere, the defendant, Vikram S. Buddhi did knowingly and willfully threaten to kill the President of the United States, George Bush; All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871(a).” All other Counts of the indictment (charge) are also similarly worded- “did threaten to kill or bomb”. They all, merely tracked the statutory language and left out the essential facts that constitute the offense charged. There is not even a whisper in any of the eleven count charge in the Indictment about the Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq on moral grounds. There is nothing in the Internet Messages, whoever the author might be, to show that the author would himself or herself would do the things. Whoever it might be, the author on moral grounds merely gave a call to the Iraqis to act in retaliation of perceived unjust Iraq war. Yet the Indictment in all eleven counts has been worded to convey that the Defendant threatened to do the things himself which is patently false. In a meditated way, the Indictment is worded, the way it is worded, only to avoid it being quashed by the Courts for there is only an abstract advocacy of violence with no imminent danger from the advocacy. Profane, abusive and vituperative words (a few such words are there in the Internet Messages) do not constitute offense elements under any of the Sections mentioned in the Indictment. Moreover, the US Supreme Court repeatedly made it clear that such words should be ignored in speech threat cases to know if the threat is a ‘true threat’.
Indictment is defective if one goes by the mandatory provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) which provides, “The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”. In Vikram Buddhi’s case, the Indictment merely tracked the statutory language in the Sections 871(a), 879(a), 875(c) and 844(e) and failed to include the essential facts constituting the offense. Therefore, the Indictment is in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ). It amounts to denying due process to Vikram Buddhi. It also shows Vikram Buddhi was discriminated and deprived of Constitutional protections available under Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to US Constitution. US Supreme Court made it clear that the defect arising from the failure to include in the Indictment the essential facts constituting the offense cannot be cured by attaching subsequently additional documents to the Indictment. More specifically, the US Supreme Court ruled,“The Indictment must stand or fall on its own. Neither a bill of particulars nor any discovery provided by the government can cure a defective indictment.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962).
The plain meaning flowing from all the eleven counts of charge in the indictment is what matters and the plain meaning flowing from all the eleven counts of charge is that the defendant Vikram Buddhi himself is going to kill or bomb which is patently false as the defendant never gave any such threat.
Since the essential facts constituting the offenses under Sections 871(a), 879(a), 875(c), and 844(e) have not been mentioned in the Indictment, it gave unfettered powers to the Government to choose facts of its choice and give colours to the case of its liking during the trial. To meet the ends of justice, the Indictment is required to be quashed. The jury trial conducted on the basis of such an illegal Indictment is in contravention of the statutory law of the United States and it also makes a mockery of the Amendments to the US Constitution. The US Department of Justice must examine this matter seriously, lest it should land the administration of justice in United States into disrepute.
Unfair Jury Trial
In June 2007, Vikram Buddhi was subjected to jury trial before a twelve member Jury in which there were eight lady members. All the members of Jury were ordinary citizens of Indiana State. The jury trial took place before US District Court, Hammond Division, Northern District of Indiana, presided over by US District Judge James T. Moody. The case is registered as, United States v. Vikram Buddhi, Case No: 06 CR 63.
The jury trial in Vikram Buddhi case is unfair for the following reasons, apart from other reasons:
It was the duty of the presiding US District Judge James T. Moody to instruct the Jury on relevant law. But the Trial Transcripts clearly show that the Judge openly declared his resolve not to instruct the Jury on relevant law and he did not instruct the Jury on relevant law. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 2 & 3.
The Judge warned and directed the Defense Attorney John E. Martin not to link the evidence on record with relevant law while addressing the Jury during the closing address of the Defense to the Jury. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 4-6.
The Jury while in deliberations in closed door discussion, the Jury sent a Written Note to the Judge pointing out a contradiction in Judge’s Instructions to the Jury noticed by the members of Jury. But the Judge with his Written Reply to the Jury commanded the Jury stating that there was no contradiction and the Jury should continue its deliberations. See, Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007, pages 91, 111, 115, 116.
In such facts and circumstances, the ill informed and insufficiently informed Jury delivered GUILTY verdict on June 28, 2007. It clearly shows that Vikram Buddhi was subjected to an unfair trial and was discriminated. These facts and such other facts in the Trial Transcripts do show the Judicial Misconduct of US District Judge James T. Moody. There is enough evidence on record to show that Judge Moody knowingly, willfully and deliberately ignored and neglected the established law in speech threat cases and subjected Vikram Buddhi to a special law devised by the Judge himself. This is an alarming situation that affects all the resident aliens in the United States.
Professional Misconduct of Prosecutor
Prosecutor Philip C. Benson named Vikram Buddhi’s father Buddhi Koasubbarao (former Indian Navy Captain with PhD from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, and an attorney of Supreme Court of India) as Government Witness. See, Trial Transcript Volume I, June 25, 2007, pages 8-9. To name father as a Government is a meditated plan to prevent the father from witnessing the jury trial. It is also a meditated plan to deny to the defendant the benefit of father’s technical knowledge on computer networks and legal knowledge in criminal trials. The fact is, though father was named as Government Witness, he was not served any Summons and he was not called to the Court to testify as Government Witness. To name him as a Government Witness was with the sole aim to keep him out of the Court till all the Witnesses of both sides were examined in the Court. Thus, though father waited for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial as the sole family member of Vikram Buddhi in the United States, father could not witness his son’s trial, all on account of the professional misconduct of Prosecutor Philip C. Benson.
Father Prevented From Helping Son
Retired Indian Navy Captain Buddhi Kota Subbarao, father of Vikram Buddhi, obtained at the end of May 2006 one year Emergency Visa from US Consulate, Mumbai to help his son and reached United States on June 7, 2006. At that time the jury trial of Vikram was fixed for June 26, 2006. But the trial was periodically continued (adjourned) up to June 2007.
On July 18, 2006, Federal Magistrate Andrew P. Rodovich granted bond (bail) to Vikram with several conditions, including the crucial condition that during the bond period till the commencement of the jury trial, the father should take custody of the son, reside in the United States and also ensure the attendance of the son at all pretrial proceedings of the Court. Failure to abide by the bond conditions would not only result in cancellation of the bond (bail) but also would make the father liable to pay $100,000 as fine and with attendant consequences.
When the jury trial commenced in June 2007, father was prevented to witness his son’s trial. Father was named as Government Witness and kept out of the Court during the trial. Father was not served any Summons to appear as Government Witness and father was not called to the Court as Government Witness during the trial. Naming father as Government Witness was a meditated and deliberate attempt to keep the father out of the Court during the trial. Thus, though father waited for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial, father could not witness his son’s trial, all on account of the professional misconduct of Prosecutor Philip C. Benson
Though, father duly applied well in time seeking extension of his Visa and stay in the United States to help his son, father was denied extension of Visa and stay. While father was trying to approach appropriate forum as per the provisions of US laws to seek extension of Visa and stay, father was prevented, his Passport was illegally taken away on August 21, 2007 and he was put in jail and moved in one week to three jails- Mariano County jail (Indianapolis), Grayson County Detention Center (Kentucky) and McHenry County jail (Chicago).
In due course, and well in time permitted by the US laws, the father approached US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago seeking review of the whole matter regarding extension of Visa and stay in the United States. When the Review Petition of the father is expected to come up for hearing, the US Authorities under Obama administration deported the father to India and landed him at Sahar International Airport, Mumbai on August 8, 2009. It was on August 8, 2009, the Indian Immigration Officers at Sahar Airport, Mumbai, handed over to the father his Indian Passport that was illegally taken away from him on August 21, 2007 at West Lafayette, Indiana, by the US Authorities and declining to return the passport all along. Now, the US Authorities say, since father has been deported, he cannot enter the United States for ten years.
If not to the affected citizens of India, at least to the people of the United States, the US Department of Justice has a lot to answer over such arbitrary and inhuman treatment to the resident aliens in the United States. What good are the laws of a country if the affected people cannot even agitate for justice under those laws?
Who all have been approached in USA and India ?
While in the United States, father of Vikram Buddhi formally represented the matter of Vikram Buddhi to successive US Attorney Generals, Alfred R. Gonzales, Michael B. Mukasey and Eric Holder and also to US President Barack Obama, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but all in vain as no one even bothered to acknowledge the representations let alone acting on them. Father even made representations to the Indian External Affairs Minister Sri.S.M.Krishna and others, mentioning clearly that the whole pursuit is for justice and not for mercy. All such pursuit remained in vain. Letters to Indian External Affairs Minister contained only two specific requests at the end, firstly for an official communication from Indian Government to the Government of the United States to ensure that rule of law is followed in Vikram Buddhi’s case and secondly the Indian Passport of Captain Buddhi Kota Subbarao, Indian Navy (Retd.) should be returned to him. But everything remains in vain so far.
Mother’s Attempts
Vikram’s mother Mrs.Syamala Buddhi all alone in India for over three years made several formal representations to Indian authorities including Indian President, Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh, Indian External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna and others requesting that the Indian Government should insist on the US Government to deal with her son according to the laws of the United States and not subject him to arbitrary measures to put false charge and to deny fair trial. Vikram’s mother even submitted a formal representation to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton paid official visit to India in July 2009 bringing to Hillary Clinton’s notice a comparison of the cases of Roxana Saberi and Vikram Buddhi.
Vikram’s mother also pointed out to all concerned quarters that on more or less identical accusation, Ken Haywood, an American citizen ran away to USA from India hoodwinking the Indian Investigating Agency, whereas her son Vikram Buddhi remained in the United States, answered all questions from US Secret Service and is now boldly facing the federal prosecution to prove his innocence, but Vikram is denied a fair trial and is discriminated.
External Affairs Minister Approached
In August 2009, public spirited persons including Shri Somnath Bharti, advocate of Supreme Court of India, Shri. Lella Anjaneyulu, a relative of Vikram Buddhi and others met External Affairs Minister Shri S. M. Krishna on August 17, 2009 and personally submitted Memorandums seeking appropriate action in Vikram’s matter. No clear picture is emerging as to what the External Affairs Ministry did in the matter, except some vague promises.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
National Conference
National Conference
In Solidarity with
Palestinian Liberation Movement
23rd December 09, 10 am onwards, at Constitution Club, New Delhi
Speakers
Shree Mulayam Singh Yadav, President, Samajwadi Party
Shree Ramvilas Paswan, President, Lok Janshakti Party
Comrade A B Bardhan, Secretary, CPI
Comrade Sitaram Yechury, CPM
Comrade Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary , CPI-ML, Liberation
Shree Natwar Singh, Former Cabinet Minister
Mr. Prafful Bidwai, Activist and Senior Journalist
Dr. S Q R Ilyas, Editor, Afkar-e-Milli, New Delhi
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chinoy, JNU
Mr. Prabeer Prakashaith, Noted Social Activist
Mr. Feroze Mithiborwala, President, Awami Bharat
Maulana Mahmood Madani, General Secretary, Jamiat ul Ulema Hind
Mr. Salman Haider, Former Foreign Secretary
Mr. Shahid Siddiqi, General Secretary, Bahujan Samaj Party
Janab Nusrat Ali, General Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
Maulana Ameeduzamman Keranawai, General Secretary, Muslim Majlis Mushawarat
Maualana, Sami Salamani, Former Chairman, Delhi State Hajj Committee and many others
Chaired by:
Maulana Abdul Wahab Khilji, President, Muslim Islahi Movement
In Solidarity,
Dr. Tasleem Rahmani, Convener, Preparatory Committee and President, Muslim Political Council of India
Aslam Khan, Vice President, All India Students’ Association (AISA), Delhi State
Gauhar Iqbal, Palestine Solidarity Movement, Delhi
Farha Iman, Social Activist
For Details Contact:
9350104083, 9990748079, 9953977097
PLEASE DO COME and BRING OTHERS
In Solidarity with
Palestinian Liberation Movement
23rd December 09, 10 am onwards, at Constitution Club, New Delhi
Speakers
Shree Mulayam Singh Yadav, President, Samajwadi Party
Shree Ramvilas Paswan, President, Lok Janshakti Party
Comrade A B Bardhan, Secretary, CPI
Comrade Sitaram Yechury, CPM
Comrade Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary , CPI-ML, Liberation
Shree Natwar Singh, Former Cabinet Minister
Mr. Prafful Bidwai, Activist and Senior Journalist
Dr. S Q R Ilyas, Editor, Afkar-e-Milli, New Delhi
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chinoy, JNU
Mr. Prabeer Prakashaith, Noted Social Activist
Mr. Feroze Mithiborwala, President, Awami Bharat
Maulana Mahmood Madani, General Secretary, Jamiat ul Ulema Hind
Mr. Salman Haider, Former Foreign Secretary
Mr. Shahid Siddiqi, General Secretary, Bahujan Samaj Party
Janab Nusrat Ali, General Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
Maulana Ameeduzamman Keranawai, General Secretary, Muslim Majlis Mushawarat
Maualana, Sami Salamani, Former Chairman, Delhi State Hajj Committee and many others
Chaired by:
Maulana Abdul Wahab Khilji, President, Muslim Islahi Movement
In Solidarity,
Dr. Tasleem Rahmani, Convener, Preparatory Committee and President, Muslim Political Council of India
Aslam Khan, Vice President, All India Students’ Association (AISA), Delhi State
Gauhar Iqbal, Palestine Solidarity Movement, Delhi
Farha Iman, Social Activist
For Details Contact:
9350104083, 9990748079, 9953977097
PLEASE DO COME and BRING OTHERS
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Moment Of Truth
By Fidel Castro
18 December, 2009
Cuba.cu
The news from the Danish capital gives a picture of chaos. After planning a conference with about 40 thousand people in attendance, the hosts find it impossible to honor their promise. Evo, the first of the two presidents of ALBA-member countries to arrive, stated some truths derived from the millennium-old culture of his people.
According to press agencies he said that he had received a mandate from the Bolivian people to oppose any agreement that does not meet the expectations. He explained that climate change is not the cause but the effect, and that we all have an obligation to defend the rights of Mother Earth vis-à-vis a capitalist development model; to defend the culture of life vis-à-vis the culture of death. He also addressed the climate debt that the rich countries should pay to the poor countries and the return of the atmospheric space taken from the latter.
He considered ridiculous the annual figure of 10 billion USD offered until the year 2012 while the yearly needs amount to hundreds of billions. At the same time, he accused the United States of spending trillions to export terrorism to Iraq and Afghanistan and to set up military bases in Latin America.
The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela addressed the Summit on the 16th, at 8:40 a.m. Cuban time. He made a brilliant speech that was much applauded. His phrases were remarkable.
He challenged a document proposed to the Summit by the Danish minister chairing the conference. He said:
“…this text has come out of the blue; we shall not accept any text that has not been produced by the working groups, I mean, the legitimate texts that have been the subject of negotiations for the past two years.”
“There is a group of nations that feel above us in the South, in the Third World…”
“…it’s not a surprise, there is no democracy, we are facing a dictatorship.”
“…I was reading some slogans painted in the streets by the youths… one read: ‘don’t change the climate, change the system,’ and another: “if the climate had been a bank it would have been bailed out.’”
“Obama […] received the Nobel Peace Prize the same day he sent 30 thousand troops to kill innocent people in Afghanistan.”
“I support the view of the representatives of Brazil, Bolivia and China, I only wanted to express my support […] but I was not given the floor…”
“The rich are destroying the planet, could it be they are planning to move to another when this one is destroyed?”
“…there is no doubt that climate change is the most devastating environmental issue of this century.”
“…the United States’ population is barely 300 million; China’s is almost five times that. The United States’ oil consumption exceeds 20 million barrels a day; China’s is hardly 5 or 6 million barrels a day. Thus, the same cannot be asked from the United States and from China.”
“…the reduction of unfriendly gas emissions and the acceptance of a long-term agreement on cooperation […] seem to have failed, for now. Why? […] the irresponsible attitude and the lack of political will of the most powerful nations on Earth.”
“…the gap between the rich and the poor countries has continued to widen despite all of the summits and the unfulfilled promises, and the world continues its destructive march.”
“…the total income of the wealthiest 500 persons in the world is higher than the income of the 416 million poorest persons.”
“Infant mortality amounts to 47 per 1000 live births, but in the rich countries it is only 5/1000.”
“…how much longer can we let millions of children die from curable diseases?”
“Actually, 2.6 billion have no access to health services.”
“The Brazilian author Leornardo Boff has written: ‘The strongest survive on the ashes of the weakest.’”
“Jean Jacob Rousseau said that ‘Between the strong and the weak freedom oppresses.’ That’s why the empire talks of freedom; freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate and to exploit: that’s their freedom. And then Rousseau added the saving phrase: ‘Only the Law can make us free.’”
“How much longer are we going to tolerate armed conflicts that massacre millions of innocent people so that the powerful can grab the resources of others?
“Nearly two centuries back a universal liberator, Simon Bolivar, said: ‘If nature opposes, we shall fight it and force it to obey.’”
“This planet lived for billions of years without us, without human beings; it doesn’t need us to exist, but we can’t live without Earth…”
Evo addressed the conference in the morning of today, Thursday. His speech will also be treasured.
He very candidly opened his remarks by saying: “I wish to say how upset we are over the lack of organization and the delays in this international gathering…”
His basic ideas were the following:
“When we ask what is it with the hosts, […] we are told it’s the United Nations; when we ask what is it with the United Nations, they say it’s Denmark, so we don’t know who is the disorganizer of this international meeting…”
“…I’m amazed because only the effects and not the causes of climate change are being discussed.”
“If we fail to identify where the destruction of the environment comes from […] we will never be able to solve this problem…”
“…two cultures are antagonizing: the culture of life and the culture of death; the culture of death is capitalism, which the indigenous peoples identify with those who want to live better at the expense of others.”
“…exploiting others, plundering their natural resources, assaulting Mother Earth, privatizing basic services…”
“…living well is living in solidarity, in equality, in complementation, in reciprocity…”
“When it comes to climate change, these two ways of life, these two cultures of life are antagonizing, and if we don’t decide which is the best way of life, we will not be able to solve it, because we have problems with life: luxury and consumerism hurt society, and sometimes in this kind of international meeting we avoid telling the truth.”
“…in our way of life being truthful is sacred, and that is not being observed here.”
“…in our Constitution it reads ama sua, ama llulla, ama quella, which means don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t be weak.”
“…Mother Earth or Nature exist and will exist without the human being, but human beings can’t live without planet Earth, therefore, we have the obligation to defend the right of Mother Earth.”
“…I applaud the United Nations because finally this year it has established the International Day of Mother Earth.”
“…our mother is sacred, our mother is our life; a mother cannot be rented, cannot be sold or assaulted, a mother must be respected.”
“We have profound differences with the Western model, and that is under discussion at this moment.”
“We are in Europe now, and you know that many Bolivian families, many Latin American families come to Europe, why do they come here? They come to improve their living conditions. In Bolivia, they could be earning 100 or 200 dollars a month, but that family or that person comes here to care for a European grandmother or grandfather, and he earns 1,000 Euros a month.”
“Such are the asymmetries we have from one continent to another, and it is our obligation to discuss the ways to achieve a certain balance, […] cutting down the deep asymmetries between families, between countries and, especially, between continents.”
“When […] our brothers and sisters come here to survive or improve their living conditions they are expelled, with those papers known as expatriation documents […] but when a long time ago the European grandfathers arrived in Latin America, they were not expelled. My families, my brothers and sisters are not coming here to own mines, nor are they landowners with thousands of hectares of land. In the past, no passports or visas were needed to get to Abya Yala, that is, to the Americas.”
“…if the rights of Mother Earth are not recognized, it will be useless to speak of 10 billions or 100 billions, which is an offense to humanity.”
“…the wealthy nations should welcome all the immigrants affected by climate change instead of forcing them to return to their countries as they are doing now…”
“…our obligation is to save all of humanity and not half of humanity.”
“…the FTAA, Free Trade Area of the Americas, […] is not a Free Trade Area of the Americas, but a free colonization area of the Americas…”
Evo suggested the following questions, among others, for a worldwide referendum on climate change:
“..Do you agree to restore a harmonious relationship with Nature recognizing the rights of Mother Earth...?”
“…Do you agree to change this excessively consumerist and wasting model, that is, the capitalist system...?”
“…Do you agree that the developed countries should reduce and reabsorb their greenhouse effect gas emissions…?”
“…Do you agree on transferring everything that is currently being spent in wars to create a budget higher than the defense budget to tackle the problem of climate change..?.”
As it is widely known, the UN Agreement on Climate Change was signed in Kyoto in 1997. This instrument bound 38 industrial nations to cut down their greenhouse effect gas emissions to a certain percentage in comparison with those of 1990. The European Union countries committed to an 8% as of 2005, the year when most of the signatories had already ratified it. George W. Bush, then President of the United States, --the largest greenhouse effect gas producer country which is responsible for one-fourth of such emissions—had rejected the agreement since the midst of 2001.
The other UN members continued their efforts. The research centers proceeded with their work. It is evident by now that a major catastrophe is threatening our species. Perhaps the worst could be that the blind selfishness of a privileged wealthy minority tries to bring the burden of the necessary sacrifices to weigh heavily on the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the planet.
That contradiction can be perceived in Copenhagen where thousands of people are standing firm by their views.
The Danish police are resorting to brutal methods to crush resistance; many protesters are being preventively arrested. I spoke over the phone with our Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, who was at a solidarity rally in Copenhagen with Chavez, Evo, Lazo and other representatives of ALBA. I asked him who those people were that the Danish police suppressed with such hate, twisting their arms and beating their backs repeatedly. He said they were Danish citizens and people from other European nations as well as members of the social movements who were demanding from the Summit a real solution now to deal with climate change. He also told me that debates in the Summit would continue at midnight. It was already night in Copenhagen as I spoke with him. The time difference is six hours.
Our comrades have reported from the Danish capital that a worse situation is expected tomorrow, Thursday. At 10 in the morning, the UN Summit will be adjourned for two hours as the Danish Head of Government meets with 20 Heads of Government he has invited to talk “global problems” with Obama. That’s what they have called the meeting whose objective it is to impose an agreement on climate change.
Even though all of the official delegations will take part, only “the invitees” will be allowed to offer their views. Of course, neither Chavez nor Evo are counted among those entitled to express their opinions. The idea is to give an opportunity to the Nobel Laureate to read a previously elaborated speech, after the decision has been made in that meeting to postpone the agreement until the end of next year in Mexico City. The social movements will not be allowed to attend. After that show, the “Summit” will resume its works in the plenary hall until its inglorious closing.
Since television has carried the images, the world has seen the fascist methods used against the people in Copenhagen. The protesters, most of them young people, have won the solidarity of the peoples.
Despite the maneuvers and deception of the leaders of the empire, their moment of truth is drawing closer. Their own allies are losing confidence in them. In Mexico, the same as in Copenhagen or elsewhere in the world, they will be met by the growing resistance of the peoples that have not renounced the hope to survive.
Fidel Castro Ruz
December 17, 2009
6:46 p.m.
18 December, 2009
Cuba.cu
The news from the Danish capital gives a picture of chaos. After planning a conference with about 40 thousand people in attendance, the hosts find it impossible to honor their promise. Evo, the first of the two presidents of ALBA-member countries to arrive, stated some truths derived from the millennium-old culture of his people.
According to press agencies he said that he had received a mandate from the Bolivian people to oppose any agreement that does not meet the expectations. He explained that climate change is not the cause but the effect, and that we all have an obligation to defend the rights of Mother Earth vis-à-vis a capitalist development model; to defend the culture of life vis-à-vis the culture of death. He also addressed the climate debt that the rich countries should pay to the poor countries and the return of the atmospheric space taken from the latter.
He considered ridiculous the annual figure of 10 billion USD offered until the year 2012 while the yearly needs amount to hundreds of billions. At the same time, he accused the United States of spending trillions to export terrorism to Iraq and Afghanistan and to set up military bases in Latin America.
The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela addressed the Summit on the 16th, at 8:40 a.m. Cuban time. He made a brilliant speech that was much applauded. His phrases were remarkable.
He challenged a document proposed to the Summit by the Danish minister chairing the conference. He said:
“…this text has come out of the blue; we shall not accept any text that has not been produced by the working groups, I mean, the legitimate texts that have been the subject of negotiations for the past two years.”
“There is a group of nations that feel above us in the South, in the Third World…”
“…it’s not a surprise, there is no democracy, we are facing a dictatorship.”
“…I was reading some slogans painted in the streets by the youths… one read: ‘don’t change the climate, change the system,’ and another: “if the climate had been a bank it would have been bailed out.’”
“Obama […] received the Nobel Peace Prize the same day he sent 30 thousand troops to kill innocent people in Afghanistan.”
“I support the view of the representatives of Brazil, Bolivia and China, I only wanted to express my support […] but I was not given the floor…”
“The rich are destroying the planet, could it be they are planning to move to another when this one is destroyed?”
“…there is no doubt that climate change is the most devastating environmental issue of this century.”
“…the United States’ population is barely 300 million; China’s is almost five times that. The United States’ oil consumption exceeds 20 million barrels a day; China’s is hardly 5 or 6 million barrels a day. Thus, the same cannot be asked from the United States and from China.”
“…the reduction of unfriendly gas emissions and the acceptance of a long-term agreement on cooperation […] seem to have failed, for now. Why? […] the irresponsible attitude and the lack of political will of the most powerful nations on Earth.”
“…the gap between the rich and the poor countries has continued to widen despite all of the summits and the unfulfilled promises, and the world continues its destructive march.”
“…the total income of the wealthiest 500 persons in the world is higher than the income of the 416 million poorest persons.”
“Infant mortality amounts to 47 per 1000 live births, but in the rich countries it is only 5/1000.”
“…how much longer can we let millions of children die from curable diseases?”
“Actually, 2.6 billion have no access to health services.”
“The Brazilian author Leornardo Boff has written: ‘The strongest survive on the ashes of the weakest.’”
“Jean Jacob Rousseau said that ‘Between the strong and the weak freedom oppresses.’ That’s why the empire talks of freedom; freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate and to exploit: that’s their freedom. And then Rousseau added the saving phrase: ‘Only the Law can make us free.’”
“How much longer are we going to tolerate armed conflicts that massacre millions of innocent people so that the powerful can grab the resources of others?
“Nearly two centuries back a universal liberator, Simon Bolivar, said: ‘If nature opposes, we shall fight it and force it to obey.’”
“This planet lived for billions of years without us, without human beings; it doesn’t need us to exist, but we can’t live without Earth…”
Evo addressed the conference in the morning of today, Thursday. His speech will also be treasured.
He very candidly opened his remarks by saying: “I wish to say how upset we are over the lack of organization and the delays in this international gathering…”
His basic ideas were the following:
“When we ask what is it with the hosts, […] we are told it’s the United Nations; when we ask what is it with the United Nations, they say it’s Denmark, so we don’t know who is the disorganizer of this international meeting…”
“…I’m amazed because only the effects and not the causes of climate change are being discussed.”
“If we fail to identify where the destruction of the environment comes from […] we will never be able to solve this problem…”
“…two cultures are antagonizing: the culture of life and the culture of death; the culture of death is capitalism, which the indigenous peoples identify with those who want to live better at the expense of others.”
“…exploiting others, plundering their natural resources, assaulting Mother Earth, privatizing basic services…”
“…living well is living in solidarity, in equality, in complementation, in reciprocity…”
“When it comes to climate change, these two ways of life, these two cultures of life are antagonizing, and if we don’t decide which is the best way of life, we will not be able to solve it, because we have problems with life: luxury and consumerism hurt society, and sometimes in this kind of international meeting we avoid telling the truth.”
“…in our way of life being truthful is sacred, and that is not being observed here.”
“…in our Constitution it reads ama sua, ama llulla, ama quella, which means don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t be weak.”
“…Mother Earth or Nature exist and will exist without the human being, but human beings can’t live without planet Earth, therefore, we have the obligation to defend the right of Mother Earth.”
“…I applaud the United Nations because finally this year it has established the International Day of Mother Earth.”
“…our mother is sacred, our mother is our life; a mother cannot be rented, cannot be sold or assaulted, a mother must be respected.”
“We have profound differences with the Western model, and that is under discussion at this moment.”
“We are in Europe now, and you know that many Bolivian families, many Latin American families come to Europe, why do they come here? They come to improve their living conditions. In Bolivia, they could be earning 100 or 200 dollars a month, but that family or that person comes here to care for a European grandmother or grandfather, and he earns 1,000 Euros a month.”
“Such are the asymmetries we have from one continent to another, and it is our obligation to discuss the ways to achieve a certain balance, […] cutting down the deep asymmetries between families, between countries and, especially, between continents.”
“When […] our brothers and sisters come here to survive or improve their living conditions they are expelled, with those papers known as expatriation documents […] but when a long time ago the European grandfathers arrived in Latin America, they were not expelled. My families, my brothers and sisters are not coming here to own mines, nor are they landowners with thousands of hectares of land. In the past, no passports or visas were needed to get to Abya Yala, that is, to the Americas.”
“…if the rights of Mother Earth are not recognized, it will be useless to speak of 10 billions or 100 billions, which is an offense to humanity.”
“…the wealthy nations should welcome all the immigrants affected by climate change instead of forcing them to return to their countries as they are doing now…”
“…our obligation is to save all of humanity and not half of humanity.”
“…the FTAA, Free Trade Area of the Americas, […] is not a Free Trade Area of the Americas, but a free colonization area of the Americas…”
Evo suggested the following questions, among others, for a worldwide referendum on climate change:
“..Do you agree to restore a harmonious relationship with Nature recognizing the rights of Mother Earth...?”
“…Do you agree to change this excessively consumerist and wasting model, that is, the capitalist system...?”
“…Do you agree that the developed countries should reduce and reabsorb their greenhouse effect gas emissions…?”
“…Do you agree on transferring everything that is currently being spent in wars to create a budget higher than the defense budget to tackle the problem of climate change..?.”
As it is widely known, the UN Agreement on Climate Change was signed in Kyoto in 1997. This instrument bound 38 industrial nations to cut down their greenhouse effect gas emissions to a certain percentage in comparison with those of 1990. The European Union countries committed to an 8% as of 2005, the year when most of the signatories had already ratified it. George W. Bush, then President of the United States, --the largest greenhouse effect gas producer country which is responsible for one-fourth of such emissions—had rejected the agreement since the midst of 2001.
The other UN members continued their efforts. The research centers proceeded with their work. It is evident by now that a major catastrophe is threatening our species. Perhaps the worst could be that the blind selfishness of a privileged wealthy minority tries to bring the burden of the necessary sacrifices to weigh heavily on the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the planet.
That contradiction can be perceived in Copenhagen where thousands of people are standing firm by their views.
The Danish police are resorting to brutal methods to crush resistance; many protesters are being preventively arrested. I spoke over the phone with our Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, who was at a solidarity rally in Copenhagen with Chavez, Evo, Lazo and other representatives of ALBA. I asked him who those people were that the Danish police suppressed with such hate, twisting their arms and beating their backs repeatedly. He said they were Danish citizens and people from other European nations as well as members of the social movements who were demanding from the Summit a real solution now to deal with climate change. He also told me that debates in the Summit would continue at midnight. It was already night in Copenhagen as I spoke with him. The time difference is six hours.
Our comrades have reported from the Danish capital that a worse situation is expected tomorrow, Thursday. At 10 in the morning, the UN Summit will be adjourned for two hours as the Danish Head of Government meets with 20 Heads of Government he has invited to talk “global problems” with Obama. That’s what they have called the meeting whose objective it is to impose an agreement on climate change.
Even though all of the official delegations will take part, only “the invitees” will be allowed to offer their views. Of course, neither Chavez nor Evo are counted among those entitled to express their opinions. The idea is to give an opportunity to the Nobel Laureate to read a previously elaborated speech, after the decision has been made in that meeting to postpone the agreement until the end of next year in Mexico City. The social movements will not be allowed to attend. After that show, the “Summit” will resume its works in the plenary hall until its inglorious closing.
Since television has carried the images, the world has seen the fascist methods used against the people in Copenhagen. The protesters, most of them young people, have won the solidarity of the peoples.
Despite the maneuvers and deception of the leaders of the empire, their moment of truth is drawing closer. Their own allies are losing confidence in them. In Mexico, the same as in Copenhagen or elsewhere in the world, they will be met by the growing resistance of the peoples that have not renounced the hope to survive.
Fidel Castro Ruz
December 17, 2009
6:46 p.m.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Role of Mossad in Mumbai Attacks
to read click below:
THE MOSSAD STRIKES IN MUMBAI?
By Brother Nathanael Kapner Real Jew News
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/role-mossad-mumbai-attacks
THE MOSSAD STRIKES IN MUMBAI?
By Brother Nathanael Kapner Real Jew News
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/role-mossad-mumbai-attacks
Qur'an, Democracy and Global Ethics
By Arnold Yasin Mol
to read click below:
http://arnoldyasinmol.blogspot.com/2009/12/quran-democracy-and-global-ethics.html
to read click below:
http://arnoldyasinmol.blogspot.com/2009/12/quran-democracy-and-global-ethics.html
our inspiration, Mahatma Phule
Slavery
DEDICATED TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
AS A TOKEN OF ADMIRATION FOR THEIR
SUBLIME DISINTERESTED AND
SELF SACRIFICING DEVOTION
in the cause of Negro slavery;
and with an earnest desire,
that my countrymen may take their noble
examples as their guide in the emancipation
of their Sudra Brethren from
the trammels of Brahmin thraldom.
Mahatma Phule
Poems
By Mahatma Phule
A Paean (song Of Praise ) for Eternal Truth
(a Helleluiah for Eternal Truth)
Victory, eternal Victory, to our Eternal Truth ! Let us search for our Creator with the help of your strength (power). when the Aryan Brahmins were victorious they condemned and humiliated the Kshatriyas (the heroic original inhabitants of Inida). They further reduced them to the plight of non-entities by forbidding them any access to education (learning). The Aryan Brahmins treated the Kshatriyas as worse than beasts and compelled them to worshhip their feet, while claiming to be earth-gods themselves. Putting on the airs of tyrants and despots, they robbed the igonorant masses. They were never bothered (frightened ) by the prickings of their conscience. the Brahmins enjoyed sumptuos fests, and in this they surpassed (excelled) Brahma the Demon (Brahma-Rakshas). they (gladly) accpet alms in the name of deceased persons (from their relation), and the shameless rascals that they are, enjoy those alms to their heart's content. It never occured to them to allow the toiling Shudra or the blind and the halt or the orphan to enjoy good food. the (powerful) Vedic lore hollowness (untruthful nature) is thoroughly exposed on a close scrutiny. When the (spurious) Scriptures hear (realise) the grandeur and nobility of the Eternal Truth, they are completely mortified as if their faces are plastered with black oily pigments.The heretics are completelyworsted when they see your visage, O truth , and hang down their heads in great shame. when you treat the ignorant shudras with due compassion and kindness, O Truth ! the (so-called) earth-gods (the Brahmins) tremble with trepidation. O Truth! you are verily an ocean of compassion (for us the Shudras) and you have emancipated us from the trammels of Brahmin thraldom . Through your blessed grace, we have understood (relised) the (right) path in life, and have begun to serve (diligently) our parents (or the ignorant Shudras)?
Victory, eternal Victory, to our Eternal Truth !
(2) Halleluiah for Eternal Truth -
Let us serve the King of Truth whi is an embodiment of pure radiance and great integrity (rectitude). (Saints and seers) search for it in the state of Eternal Bliss (Nirvana). It attracts our minds to the first Cause (Creation). This (Truth) has disapperared in the world. Nobody knows which is the Summum bonum(of life).The Aryan Brahmins have invented many (fictitious, spurious) religions, the better to serve their own interests. While searching for the Truth, I came to realise the final (essential) Secret. I am fed up with the spurious religion, and hence have abjured mean(false) practices.I exhort all Shudras to remember GOD (gratefully), to embrace the doctrine of Truth, to abjure the spurious religious practices and to treat all human beings with fraternal love. do not spurn the poor and helpless persons by assuming overweening pride, and do not assume airs by being taboo-ridden. Overcome all evil, and serve (follow). King Bali (serve the tiller of the soil who is the authentic King). Maintain the members of your family by dint of (your) hard labour. Always speak the Truth.Abjure the wicked religious dogma, and put the earth-gods (the Brahmins) to shame by educating the Shudras and (Ati-Shudras). dedicate the service of the down-trodden to god. Vanquishing all spurious (heretic) religions, Joti bows hown before God.
The Poems (Akhands) given at the end of the book-
"The Universal Religion of Truth"
An earnest request (prayer) by the author of this book to all men and women.
The Creator has created this earth (the Universe) which sustains (bears the weight of) us all. It is adorned with different kinds of grass(bushes) and trees. the trees bear many luscious fruits. These fruits and the kindly shade of the trees bear many luscious fruits. These fruits and the kindly shade of the trees are meant for our comfort. Night and day the earth moves ceaselessly (on its axis) for our comforts, and (fondly) looks after us all. there should not be different religions for different human beings, as our Creator is one, says Joti.
(2)
The rains and rivers are created (provided) by our Creator for the convenience and comforts of animate and inanimate life ( on this earh). The rivers flow rapidly and majestically and supply all beings with plentiful water. the human beings are able to sail in ships on the oceans for trade and commerce and are able to make themselves happy. how is it that there are different religions for different people ? Why have you gone mad (lost your reason) ? asks Joti .
(3)
The one and only sum provides light(illumination) for us all and enables us to engage ourselves in different activites. The Sun endows all animate and inanimate existence with (vibrant ) life and also sustains us all. He never discriminate among human beings, abd like a kind father, makes us all quite happy and contented. There should be only one religion for all human beings and they should always follow the path of Truth, says Joti.
(4)
The one and only Moon traverses the sky ceaselessly, night and day, and delights the hearts of all. The ebb and flow of the ocean (its low and high tides) are caused by her. She also governs the waves and the breakers of the saline ocean. The rain clouds convert the same saline water into sweet(potable) water which satisfies and delights all beings (by quenching their thirst).How is that there are different religions for different people ? Why have you gone mad (lost your reason)? asks joti
(5)
(The Creator) has created the wind specially and hence all beings can breathe (inhale and exhale) freely. It nourishes and protects all beings as also Nature (plants and trees) in the world. It is the wind which keeps the atmosphere pure and makes all human beings follow the Universal Religion of Truth and sing the praises of God , says Joti.
(6)
The Creator has endowed all beings with eyes (eye-sight) with which they are able to see one another. He has also equipped them with the rational faculty with which they can search for the (real) Truth, and lead the ignorant to the (right) path. The Creator has ordained One Universal Religion of Truth(( for us all). What is the propriety of the people quarelling (among themselves) on various counts ? Let all human beings conduct, themselves in awe and fear of the Creator, and thus lead happy lives, says Joti.
(7)
Let all men and women labour honestly, maintain all the members of their own families honourably and thus live in joy and contenment. you should send all your children (sons and daughters ) to school, and feed (helpless) students gratis. you should practise the dictates of the Sovereign Truth in your daily lives, and treat the handicapped persons with consideration and compassion. By such conduct you will not only make other happy and contented, but you will yourselves also be happy and contented, says joti.
(8)
He who is addicted to vices does not deserve to receive any alms (from others) . A liar is (as bad as ) but a drunkard, as he cannot control irrational (illogical) behaviour. all human beings are(dear to one another) as brothers and sisters, and you are greatest among them all. You should use, your intellectual capabilities to make one another (quite) happy and should take care of the helpless, says Joti.
(9)
The Creator of us all is the supreme Master os us all, and all human beings should hold Him in awe. All of us should enjoy (share ) the property (good things in life) in an equitable manner, should live in peace and amity, and should never resort to quarrels. Human beings should not observe any distinctions or discriminations on the score of religion or administration (nationality) and should always behave truthfully, as desired by the Creator (as per the dictates of the Creator). I beg of you all to be happy and properous. This is my exhortation to all human beings, says Joti.
(10)
The operation (movement) of the Solar system (in space) is so wonderful that it defies human rationality or imagination (it is beyond them). so many other satellites gravitate around the Solar System. (the earth is) peopled by myriads of living organisations(beings). The Creator has created all human being, and He protects them as his Children.Do unto others as you would be done by' and set everyone at peace and harmony, says Joti.
The desires of the hypocritical Brahmins and the cunning exertions of the Bhat (priests) are actuated (by an intention to fleece the Shudras). They (unashamedly) say that God provides (the wherewithal) to them, and hence they presume to instruct the Shudras. They caricature God as a happy-go-lucky person, and deceive the Shudras in his name. Sloth (idleness) is man's enemy and hence men should perform manual labour (for their livelihood). The cunning Brahmin, on the other hand, desires to maintain himself by unethical means. He holds his nose with his hand (fingers) and recites the name of God ceaselessy (by himself) and expects the Shudras to toil in the fields and maintain (feed) the Brahmins (with the fruits of their labour).They enjoy sumptuous feasts and rest on softs beds (at night). They occupy many high (Government) posts only to exploit the Shudras (in various ways). The Brahmins wish, in their heart to hearts, that only the Brahmins should be appointed as teachers (in the schools) so that can criminally neglect their duty (of teaching) the Shudra who will, thus, remain their duty (of teaching) the Shudras who will, thus remain ignorant.
DEDICATED TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
AS A TOKEN OF ADMIRATION FOR THEIR
SUBLIME DISINTERESTED AND
SELF SACRIFICING DEVOTION
in the cause of Negro slavery;
and with an earnest desire,
that my countrymen may take their noble
examples as their guide in the emancipation
of their Sudra Brethren from
the trammels of Brahmin thraldom.
Mahatma Phule
Poems
By Mahatma Phule
A Paean (song Of Praise ) for Eternal Truth
(a Helleluiah for Eternal Truth)
Victory, eternal Victory, to our Eternal Truth ! Let us search for our Creator with the help of your strength (power). when the Aryan Brahmins were victorious they condemned and humiliated the Kshatriyas (the heroic original inhabitants of Inida). They further reduced them to the plight of non-entities by forbidding them any access to education (learning). The Aryan Brahmins treated the Kshatriyas as worse than beasts and compelled them to worshhip their feet, while claiming to be earth-gods themselves. Putting on the airs of tyrants and despots, they robbed the igonorant masses. They were never bothered (frightened ) by the prickings of their conscience. the Brahmins enjoyed sumptuos fests, and in this they surpassed (excelled) Brahma the Demon (Brahma-Rakshas). they (gladly) accpet alms in the name of deceased persons (from their relation), and the shameless rascals that they are, enjoy those alms to their heart's content. It never occured to them to allow the toiling Shudra or the blind and the halt or the orphan to enjoy good food. the (powerful) Vedic lore hollowness (untruthful nature) is thoroughly exposed on a close scrutiny. When the (spurious) Scriptures hear (realise) the grandeur and nobility of the Eternal Truth, they are completely mortified as if their faces are plastered with black oily pigments.The heretics are completelyworsted when they see your visage, O truth , and hang down their heads in great shame. when you treat the ignorant shudras with due compassion and kindness, O Truth ! the (so-called) earth-gods (the Brahmins) tremble with trepidation. O Truth! you are verily an ocean of compassion (for us the Shudras) and you have emancipated us from the trammels of Brahmin thraldom . Through your blessed grace, we have understood (relised) the (right) path in life, and have begun to serve (diligently) our parents (or the ignorant Shudras)?
Victory, eternal Victory, to our Eternal Truth !
(2) Halleluiah for Eternal Truth -
Let us serve the King of Truth whi is an embodiment of pure radiance and great integrity (rectitude). (Saints and seers) search for it in the state of Eternal Bliss (Nirvana). It attracts our minds to the first Cause (Creation). This (Truth) has disapperared in the world. Nobody knows which is the Summum bonum(of life).The Aryan Brahmins have invented many (fictitious, spurious) religions, the better to serve their own interests. While searching for the Truth, I came to realise the final (essential) Secret. I am fed up with the spurious religion, and hence have abjured mean(false) practices.I exhort all Shudras to remember GOD (gratefully), to embrace the doctrine of Truth, to abjure the spurious religious practices and to treat all human beings with fraternal love. do not spurn the poor and helpless persons by assuming overweening pride, and do not assume airs by being taboo-ridden. Overcome all evil, and serve (follow). King Bali (serve the tiller of the soil who is the authentic King). Maintain the members of your family by dint of (your) hard labour. Always speak the Truth.Abjure the wicked religious dogma, and put the earth-gods (the Brahmins) to shame by educating the Shudras and (Ati-Shudras). dedicate the service of the down-trodden to god. Vanquishing all spurious (heretic) religions, Joti bows hown before God.
The Poems (Akhands) given at the end of the book-
"The Universal Religion of Truth"
An earnest request (prayer) by the author of this book to all men and women.
The Creator has created this earth (the Universe) which sustains (bears the weight of) us all. It is adorned with different kinds of grass(bushes) and trees. the trees bear many luscious fruits. These fruits and the kindly shade of the trees bear many luscious fruits. These fruits and the kindly shade of the trees are meant for our comfort. Night and day the earth moves ceaselessly (on its axis) for our comforts, and (fondly) looks after us all. there should not be different religions for different human beings, as our Creator is one, says Joti.
(2)
The rains and rivers are created (provided) by our Creator for the convenience and comforts of animate and inanimate life ( on this earh). The rivers flow rapidly and majestically and supply all beings with plentiful water. the human beings are able to sail in ships on the oceans for trade and commerce and are able to make themselves happy. how is it that there are different religions for different people ? Why have you gone mad (lost your reason) ? asks Joti .
(3)
The one and only sum provides light(illumination) for us all and enables us to engage ourselves in different activites. The Sun endows all animate and inanimate existence with (vibrant ) life and also sustains us all. He never discriminate among human beings, abd like a kind father, makes us all quite happy and contented. There should be only one religion for all human beings and they should always follow the path of Truth, says Joti.
(4)
The one and only Moon traverses the sky ceaselessly, night and day, and delights the hearts of all. The ebb and flow of the ocean (its low and high tides) are caused by her. She also governs the waves and the breakers of the saline ocean. The rain clouds convert the same saline water into sweet(potable) water which satisfies and delights all beings (by quenching their thirst).How is that there are different religions for different people ? Why have you gone mad (lost your reason)? asks joti
(5)
(The Creator) has created the wind specially and hence all beings can breathe (inhale and exhale) freely. It nourishes and protects all beings as also Nature (plants and trees) in the world. It is the wind which keeps the atmosphere pure and makes all human beings follow the Universal Religion of Truth and sing the praises of God , says Joti.
(6)
The Creator has endowed all beings with eyes (eye-sight) with which they are able to see one another. He has also equipped them with the rational faculty with which they can search for the (real) Truth, and lead the ignorant to the (right) path. The Creator has ordained One Universal Religion of Truth(( for us all). What is the propriety of the people quarelling (among themselves) on various counts ? Let all human beings conduct, themselves in awe and fear of the Creator, and thus lead happy lives, says Joti.
(7)
Let all men and women labour honestly, maintain all the members of their own families honourably and thus live in joy and contenment. you should send all your children (sons and daughters ) to school, and feed (helpless) students gratis. you should practise the dictates of the Sovereign Truth in your daily lives, and treat the handicapped persons with consideration and compassion. By such conduct you will not only make other happy and contented, but you will yourselves also be happy and contented, says joti.
(8)
He who is addicted to vices does not deserve to receive any alms (from others) . A liar is (as bad as ) but a drunkard, as he cannot control irrational (illogical) behaviour. all human beings are(dear to one another) as brothers and sisters, and you are greatest among them all. You should use, your intellectual capabilities to make one another (quite) happy and should take care of the helpless, says Joti.
(9)
The Creator of us all is the supreme Master os us all, and all human beings should hold Him in awe. All of us should enjoy (share ) the property (good things in life) in an equitable manner, should live in peace and amity, and should never resort to quarrels. Human beings should not observe any distinctions or discriminations on the score of religion or administration (nationality) and should always behave truthfully, as desired by the Creator (as per the dictates of the Creator). I beg of you all to be happy and properous. This is my exhortation to all human beings, says Joti.
(10)
The operation (movement) of the Solar system (in space) is so wonderful that it defies human rationality or imagination (it is beyond them). so many other satellites gravitate around the Solar System. (the earth is) peopled by myriads of living organisations(beings). The Creator has created all human being, and He protects them as his Children.Do unto others as you would be done by' and set everyone at peace and harmony, says Joti.
The desires of the hypocritical Brahmins and the cunning exertions of the Bhat (priests) are actuated (by an intention to fleece the Shudras). They (unashamedly) say that God provides (the wherewithal) to them, and hence they presume to instruct the Shudras. They caricature God as a happy-go-lucky person, and deceive the Shudras in his name. Sloth (idleness) is man's enemy and hence men should perform manual labour (for their livelihood). The cunning Brahmin, on the other hand, desires to maintain himself by unethical means. He holds his nose with his hand (fingers) and recites the name of God ceaselessy (by himself) and expects the Shudras to toil in the fields and maintain (feed) the Brahmins (with the fruits of their labour).They enjoy sumptuous feasts and rest on softs beds (at night). They occupy many high (Government) posts only to exploit the Shudras (in various ways). The Brahmins wish, in their heart to hearts, that only the Brahmins should be appointed as teachers (in the schools) so that can criminally neglect their duty (of teaching) the Shudra who will, thus, remain their duty (of teaching) the Shudras who will, thus remain ignorant.
Awami Bharat: "TOWARDS AN INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM, ZIONISM & BRAHMANISM"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)