Ananth Venkatesh

I profess that there is immense admiration and fascination in me for Hinduism and for the many divinities that epitomize this faith.

The sacred books such as the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and many others provide this religion with its seductively cerebral foundations. The duration of the survival of these pious treatises illustrates their attachment to the psychology and mentality of the Indian State.

The gorgeousness of Hindu treatises is that their applicabilities is not confined to the Hindus alone. Sage standpoints are enshrined in the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, etc., which offer suggestions to the individual humans as regards apt and judicious fashions of administering and directing any human life. The advices of these visionary Hindu tomes are not exclusivist. None of these books have been awarded the most paramount position in the Hindu scriptural hierarchy.

The Bhagavad Gita is not exclusivist and does not speak ill of other religions. Photo Source

Christian and Islamic sacred books are defined, at times, by their inferences linking foreign religions to heathenism or incivility or unenlightenment or primitivism. The connotation – displeasingly – in certain pages of these books is that these uncouth foreign religions have to be Muslimized or Christianized with muscularity if necessary. One will struggle to find the same sinful intolerance in the Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas and even the monumental Hindu epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

Also, the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent sundry stories, lives and messages that have ample relevance for humankind today. The multifarious stories of Hindu deities thrill me to a beefy extent and are so pertinent in the modern world. Their pertinence will always remain.

My respect for Hinduism is unordinary probably as I have never really felt any attachment to the ‘specialty of the purity’ of Brahmanism. I never will.

I have regarded Brahmanic preeminence in ritualistic Hinduism as a concept that wholly mars the vast intellectual extraordinariness of Hinduism. Brahmanic absolute supremacy should be a concept that should be abolished by the Hindu society itself. The theological, cerebral and scriptural richness of Hinduism can survive even in the absence of outright Brahmanic ascendancy.

Brahmin: A person who is literate in Vedas and Vedic Science

Kshatriya – A person who protects and fight for the a kingdom/country

Vaishya – A person involved in running in trade, agriculture.

Shudra – A person who works for others.

From Here.

My cherished mission is to see comprehensive Hindu unity in India, which covers politics, culture and social order. This goal of unity cannot afford senseless, pejorative and preposterous caste hierarchies in Hindu society, which only assist the internal and external foes of Hinduism.

Thus, while I will unendingly venerate and propagate the mammoth knowledgeableness and visionariness of the Hindu faith, its epics, its books, its scriptures, etc, I will never be able to associate myself with the Brahmanic stream of Hinduism. Brahmanic presence may be kept at the same social level as that of other communities.

Vishwamitra (bearded) was not born as a Brahmin. His Brahminism was a result of his work. Photo Source  

On a more lighthearted note, another Hindu issue, which appeals to me immensely, is the issue of Hindu interlingual matrimony. The idea of a Rajasthani Hindu male wedding a Malayalam Hindu female seems such an enticing one. Of course, the Rajasthani man needs to be in a condition of romance for the Malayalam female and vice versa.

I visualize that it would be idyllic socially if interlingual matrimonies were run-of-the-mill affairs in India. But there is strong resistance in some Hindu quarters to the thought of interlingual/intercaste marriages between Hindus. This is simply detrimental to the extraordinary status of Hinduism in the Indian soul.

We need to reach a point where interlingual nuptial ceremonies between Hindus are par for the course. Even now, lamentably, there are Hindu parents, who hesitate to wed their daughters and sons to Hindus of another language. Isn’t this inexcusably senseless?

There are Hindu parents, who are unnerved on realizing that their daughter or son is in a romantic state for a Hindu of another linguistic community. For example, there would be some Hindu parents in Gujarat, who would baulk at the idea of making their son marry a Hindu Telugu female. The hesitation would be not because of the personality of the girl, which may be delightful, but because of her ‘Teluguness’.

Similarly, Tamil parents may worry on comprehending that their daughter has been smitten by a Punjabi Hindu male. The Punjabi boy may be a topaz as regards personality i.e. he may be a pleasant and responsible man. His parents may be immensely lovable. The Tamil girl and the Punjabi boy may have steady compatibility and will want to tie the knot. But the Tamil parents may exhibit procrastination as regards the marriage because of the Punjabiness of the boy. That he is also a part of the miscellaneous Hindu community is overlooked.

Such parents exist in every linguistic Hindu community. I hope that this nervousness about Hindu interlingual marriage vanishes one day in the future.

Inter-caste marriages are becoming increasingly common. Photo Source 

As regards me, I say that, if I am involved in an interlingual (love) marriage with a Hindu female (who is of Punjab or Kashmir or AP or Kerala or Maharashtra or Gujarat or Rajasthan or Karnataka or of other non-Tamil blocks), it would give me copious contentment for several reasons. I would feel that (what I am going to say now may seem heavy…..) I have played a tiny part in strengthening interlingual Hindu unity.

Obviously, I would also be happy that I married the female, for whom I had romance and respect, and who had love and esteem for me. I would be contented that I wedded a woman with whom I had fair compatibleness.

Also, I have to voice this. If I am in a state of love for a female of my linguistic community and the same sentiment is experienced by that female, obviously, matrimony would be one of the next steps for all intents and purposes.

In any case, I firmly feel that certain Hindus will have to gradually stop giving regal status to terms like Brahman, Yadav, Kayastha, Jat, Iyer, Thakur, Iyengar, Nadar, Shetty and Patel among others. This regal status cannot come at the cost of injury to overall Hindu cohesion, especially politically and as regards marital intermingling.

 Sikh-Rajput weddings have strengthened ties between the cultures and helped national integrity. Source

The inward-looking Hindus need to embrace interlingual Hindu marriages for the solid preservation of Hindu structure in the future. Also, they need to embrace it for the sake of sanity.

Another attitudinal transformation wanted in some Hindu minds desperately is the stoppage of female feticide/infanticide. This is a grisly act not worthy of mercy, especially considering the powerfulness of Hindu female divinity and the venerable status that they have in our religion.

May be… may be…… the paucity of interlingual Hindu marriages was one reason behind a mainly Hindu India being molested and disfigured by foreign religious forces in the past. The more comprehensively unified Hindus in India become, the better it would be for Hinduism’s durability here and for its ability to combat effectively mortal perils to its existence.

Ananth Venkatesh

I was in a condition of emotionless disquiet on hearing the news of Roebuck’s suicide. When I became acquainted with the events triggering his suicide, my thought immediately revolved around the Hindu/Indian notion of ‘Kali Yuga.’

Eminent cricket writer Peter Roebuck’s suicide in a South African hotel in the paradisiacal city of Cape Town has been a source of copious astonishment for the cricketing society in general, which includes present and historical cricketers as well as writers of the game. Roebuck, whose wordsmithery about cricket was polished, thought-provoking, informative, and learnedwas present in South Africa recently in order to provide coverage for the Australian media of the ongoing exhilarating Test series of cricket between South Africa and Australia.

Suicide of such a prominent observer and communicator of cricket is, in itself, a development that rattles the mental steadiness of cricket followers. But what makes the suicide by Roebuck additionally sordid, unpalatable and tasteless is the circumstance allied to his suicide. Roebuck had been the recipient of an inquisition by the South African police over his supposed participation in an act of coercive carnal strike against the unwillingness of another male, whom Roebuck had supposedly befriended on Facebook. That Roebuck was, apparently, endeavoring to perpetrate homosexuality is not relevant here as that is a matter of personal preference. But what embitters the situation is the accusation of the South African police that Roebuck tried to implement carnal assault on the abovementioned Zimbabwean man despite the refusal of that man. This, of course, is tantamount to legal illegality, which is the source of his inquest by the South African detectives.

Roebuck seemingly couldn’t countenance the inquisitional sessions with the South African police force over his supposed forcible sexual strike on the abovementioned male. He probably deemed that the ramifications of the divulgement of his investigation would be acutely catastrophic for him and his career, which would be equal to an unwholesome public skinning of his personality. Hence, unable to countenance this possibility, he chose the path of suicide.

I was in a condition of emotionless disquiet on hearing the news of Roebuck’s suicide. When I became acquainted with the events triggering his suicide, my thought immediately revolved around the Hindu/Indian notion of ‘Kali Yuga.’ Roebuck’s demise and the bawdy determinant of his demise made my mind an even stronger proponent of ‘Kali Yuga.’ ‘Kali Yuga’ i.e. the epoch of behavioral impiousness, dissoluteness and contamination, is what exists today. Simply eye the case of Roebuck’s decease. ‘Kali Yuga’ also symbolises the capitulation of the civility in human persona to the malicious seductresses linked to behavioral pollution. Roebuck’s case epitomises this too from the looks of it.

The murders of the blameless individuals by their ungodly kith and kin over frivolous issues, promiscuous terrorism mutilating innocents as manifested by the poisons of terrorist outfits, unmitigated carnal crimes (in certain corners of India) committed mostly by persons known to the victims, carnal maltreatment and battering of bodily impaired children, traitorousness, etc. that exist in the world today are reflective of the liquid of malevolence that has seeped into human behavior. These behavioral corruptions in humans have existed ever since the era of the fascinatingly complex ‘Mahabharata’, a vital event in the Hindu/Indian history. ‘Kali Yuga’ has definitely existed since the time of the ‘Mahabharata’ and, perhaps, even before that. As per the accounts of several evaluators of Hindu scriptures, we are living in the ‘Kali Yuga.’

‘CWG Scam’, ‘2G Scam’, ‘Cash-For-Votes Scam’, demonisation of Hinduism that is labeled as ‘intellectual modernity’, sympathising with foxily hideous terror in the name of human rights, persistent vilification of the national armed forces that safeguard our national borders from the toxic fangs of national neighbors, etc. are all embodiments of the ‘Kali Yuga’ in India. This depravity in India today, which can be seen in newspapers and news channels, is in addition to the outright degeneracy that exists in certain quarters of the entertainment community. This degenerateness is provided to the audience here as entertainment, which can only serve as the contaminator and corruptor of the popular psyche here.

Globally also, the genocidal behavior in history commanded by national autocrats such as the Holocaust, the Stalinist genocide in the USSR, the Ottoman extermination of millions of Armenians in the 20th century, etc. suggest the operational efficiency of the ‘Kali Yuga.’ WW 1, WW 2, countless other barbaric international wars, invidious ethnic depopulation, etc. that were features of the 20th century also indicate the potency of the ‘Kali Yuga.’ The wicked ethnic depopulation affected badly the Kashmiri Hindus due to the barbarousness of Islamist terror while ethnic cleansing also bloodied the Bosnian Muslims because of the poisonous zealousness of Christian Serbia. 9/11, the savageness of Islamist terrorism, the gory tribal warfare, horrendous atomization of Japan in August 1945, the nuclearization of certain nations, etc are examples of the hardship and devastation that the belligerence of ‘Kali Yuga’ has caused.

Roebuck was an able English cricketer, who represented the Somerset cricket squad in English county cricket in the 1980s. He had residence subsequently in Australia. His slimy personal past may or may not be revealed in the coming days. But, already, a radio jockey named Gus Worland, who was a younger teammate of Roebuck in the 1980s in the Somerset squad, has stated that Roebuck’s behavior with him was highly unbecoming and unpleasing on one occasion. It is still difficult to accept that Roebuck has been accused of carnal assault. But the assertions of the South African police seem to be based on credibleness. Roebuck seemingly became a prisoner of the perilous deficiency of uncontrollable lustfulness.

So, the belief in ‘Kali Yuga’ continues to grow for me.

Ananth Venkatesh

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended. 
Ananth Venkatesh gives us a brief account of Tamil-Sinhalese conflict that has plagued Sri Lanka.

The inability of the Indian state to execute the convicted assassinators of Rajiv Gandhi, despite the repeated judicial green signals, is a perilous and worrisome indicator of the political irresoluteness that exists in the national government.

Rajiv was an ex-PM at night on May 21, 1991, when he was pulped by the ferocious explosives triggered by the LTTE’s hardened female suicide bomber, Dhanu. Rajiv, of the Indian National Congress Party (INC), had arrived in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu that month to participate in the national electoral campaigns, during which it was broadly predicted by political observers that he would reoccupy the Prime Ministerial position after the electoral results were announced. The national coalition governments, after the electoral ouster in 1989 of INC’s Rajiv from the national political arena, were headed by the impactful VP Singh, and, then, by the rustic pragmatist, Chandra Shekhar.

Rajiv’s handling, as PM, of some significant subjects such as the national religious situation related to Ayodhya and the administrative corruption personified by Bofors was dangerously mediocre. The overturning of the secular Supreme Court (SC) verdict on the Shah Bano case by his administration in 1986 riled several segments of even the moderate Hindu population, apart from giving teeth to the campaign of the ultraconservative Hindu outfits. Rajiv’s subsequent surrender to the unrighteous demands of Islamic fundamentalists by additionally constitutionalising Islamic personal laws only partitioned the public opinion in India further on communal lines

The monumental Bofors scandal, which had created questions over the integrity of the Gandhi family, had generated a political wave against the INC, which led to its defeat in the 1989 general elections.

As the King of the INC, one of India’s oldest political entities, Rajiv made no substantial effort to stem the unpalatable sycophancy that had penetrated the members of the INC during the headship of Indira Gandhi.

However, in my view, one of his few achievements as PM was his assertive and hard-nosed foreign policy, which was evident in his authorization of a military intercession by India to undo the coup in Maldives in 1988 against the Maldivian President, Abdul Gayoom. The coup was backed by the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgent organization, PLOTE. Rajiv always believed that South Asia was a zone, in which no foreign power can be allowed to wield disproportionate influence. It was his opinion that India, being the largest country in South Asia, must take the initiative in resolving political disputes in this region instead of allowing the foreign armies to enter South Asia to end the standoffs here. As per Rajiv, an inept and lethargic India, uninterested in its immediate neighbourhood, would only lead to foreign nations acquiring a strategic toehold in this region, which could then, at a later date, have put India under discomfort.

His foreign policy as regards the ethnic disorderliness in the gorgeous Sri Lankan island was a balanced one. The civil strife between the minority Tamils and the majority Sinhalese had grilled Sri Lanka ever since Ceylonese liberation from British colonialism [Photo: Tamil population in blue]. The secessionist Tamil outfits (PLOTE, LTTE, EROS, TELO, etc.) were recognized for their efficient barbarousness in their pursuit of their primary objective: the secession of northern and eastern Sri Lanka and the formation of a sovereign Tamil nation, Tamil Eelam, there. The north and east were sectors of Sri Lanka that were inhabited by Tamils conventionally.

The response of the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lankan state’ to the Tamil secessionism was largely domineering, which produced ghoulish repercussions. For the Sinhalese, the oneness of Sri Lanka had to be maintained at any cost as surrender to Tamil terrorism would inevitably have meant the breakup of Sri Lanka. The possibility of Sri Lankan division infuriated the ordinary Sinhalese nationalists, who were endorsed by the two prominent Sinhalese opposition parties, the SLFP and the UNP. As terrorism become deadlier gradually in the 1970s and 1980s with clandestine international branches opening up for acquisition of weapons, Sinhalese Sri Lanka responded even more domineeringly.

The roots of this burning ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka had begun during the era of British administration of Sri Lanka. The unilateralism of Britain in colonial Ceylon, absence of meaningful British consultation with the locals and shortage of adequate British understanding of the potential inflammability of the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka made Britain adopt some measures, which were deeply disliked by several Sinhalese. One such measure was the transfer of millions of Indian Tamils to Sri Lanka by Britain to work in the Sri Lankan coffee and tea plantations. This measure increased the Tamil presence in Sri Lanka and strengthened their clout. For the average Sinhalese, however, the Indian Tamil was nothing but an alien colonizer of Sri Lankan land. However, the economic, administrative, political and educational welfare of numerous Indian Tamils, due to their realistic cooperation with British colonialism in Ceylon, were looked at unfavourably and unkindly by the Sinhalese.

Also, the native Sri Lankan Tamils were able to stitch up a favourable relationship with the colonial British that led to the Tamils filling up several seats in the Ceylonese civil service and in other departments of the Ceylonese state.
In addition, the wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kingdoms had been occurring for ages in Sri Lanka, with each side claiming righteousness was on their side.

Yes, after Ceylonese independence in 1948, the Sinhalese were able to organize and unite themselves effectively to espouse the Sinhalese cause. There was cohesiveness between the Sinhalese politicians on issues central to the Sinhalese identity and its preservation in a self-governing Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese had no Tamil kingdoms, with which they had to deal. The Sinhalese could utilize their numerical dominance to push through legislations to institutionalize Sinhalese domination of the state. That is what happened. The SLFP and the UNP, during their control of Sri Lanka respectively, after being mandated by the Sri Lankan electorate, ratified several legislations that alienated sections of the Tamils. Sinhalese was made the solitary official language of Sri Lanka, with Buddhism being pronounced as the official religion. The Sri Lankan Tamils, of course, were predominantly Hindus.

Tamil Settlement in Central Sri Lanka

Considerable Indian Tamils were disenfranchised politically by contentious legislations that had the unspoken support of some native Sri Lankan Tamils besides the vocal backing of Sinhalese political parties. Reservations in higher academic institutions designed to favour Sinhalese students agitated the Tamils, who interpreted these reservations as a malicious Sinhalese tactic to undercut the Tamil dominance in the Sri Lankan public sector. Even the native Sri Lankan Tamils slowly began to view the electoral disempowerment of the Indian Tamils as a signal from Sinhalese Sri Lanka that the Sinhalese would always receive an extraordinary place in a free Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese attitude was that the Tamils would simply have to adjust to the new ground realities.

The Sri Lankan Tamil parties were alarmed by these legislatorial moves, which weakened the Tamil position in the island. The moderate Tamil parties requested the federalization of Sri Lanka with reasonable linguistic, cultural, administrative and religious autonomy for the Tamils. But in sovereign Sri Lanka, some Sinhalese parliamentarians were severely distrustful of Sri Lankan Tamil intentions in general and considered even Tamil demands for reasonable autonomy as a step in the direction of Sri Lankan partition in the future. The geographical proximity of Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka placed fear and suspicion in Sinhalese minds that India, through the province of Tamil Nadu, could provide shelter to Tamil autonomists and agitators and exert influence upon Sri Lanka.  Sizable Sinhalese politicians were opposed to the ceding of any ground to even flexible Tamil parties.

As legislatorial means were not achieving the aim of even Tamil autonomy, Tamil terrorism was born. Outfits such as LTTE denounced the Sri Lankan democracy and labelled the Sinhalese parliamentarians as bigots, who would never give dignity to the Tamils. Bellicosity against Colombo was the only method to attain Tamil Eelam. Terrorism commenced, which led to the murders of moderate Tamil politicians as well as of the nationalist Sinhalese administrators. The Tamil terrorist outfits were responsible for these murders as well as for attacks on Sri Lankan security personnel. The rejoinder from Colombo to contain Tamil secessionism was stormy. Unfortunately, the Sinhalese rage was such that thousands of innocent Tamils were pulped in this state rage. The detestation among the Sinhalese parliamentarians for the Tamil terrorism became so strong that even requests from moderate Tamil parties for autonomy within one Sri Lanka became anathema to Sri Lanka.

Rajiv Gandhi’s active intercession to resolve this crisis in India’s neighbour demonstrated to the world that India was, at last, embracing assertiveness in its foreign policy. India intervened militarily in June 1987 to terminate the humanitarian disaster in Jaffna when it was under Colombo’s military blockade during Colombo’s struggle against Tamil separatism. However, the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of July 1987, formalized by the then Sri Lankan President, Jayewardene, and the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi, was an apt example of proactive diplomacy aimed at tranquilizing a searing Sri Lanka, conserving Indian strategic interests there, preventing a foreign power from emerging in Sri Lanka to get a foothold there.

Of course, the Accord also laid down the conditions explicitly for the reinstatement of ethnic tranquillity in Sri Lanka. The Accord had provisions that expressly granted considerable autonomy, federalism and democracy to the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka. It was an accord that had the ingredients of peace and success provided there was political will on both sides. The Accord also assured Sri Lanka that its territorial integrity would not be diluted in any way and that its oneness would be intact. The principal Sinhalese demand that there be no disintegration of Sri Lankan unity was also assured by the Accord. It was a fairly model Accord for sowing the seeds of sereneness in a violent region.  Also, the Accord was legislated by the Indian Parliament and was given the go-ahead by Jayewardene.  The Accord also permitted a large number of Indian soldiers to travel to Sri Lanka to carry out military operations to curb the Tamil militancy, to disarm the terrorists and to create conditions agreeable for the democratization of the mainly Tamil northern and eastern Sri Lanka. The merger of northern and eastern Sri Lanka into one administrative unit was also enshrined in the Accord. The Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) was in Sri Lanka with the presidential consent of Sri Lanka to kill the menace of Tamil terror and to bring about tranquil contact between the Tamil secessionists and the largely Sinhalese Sri Lankan Parliament to create a peaceful solution of the ethnic war.

The writer supports the IPKF and its military activities in Sri Lanka. The IPKF was, on several occasions, trapped by the bloody slyness and disingenuousness of Tamil terrorists and, on other occasions, by the inharmonious ultra nationalism of sections of the Sinhalese population. The ultranationalist Sinhalese, on occasions, cooperated surreptitiously with the LTTE cadres to bring about the downfall of the IPKF. These ultranationalists wanted the ouster of the Indian military from Sri Lankan soil. Sinhalese ultra nationalism was convinced that Tamil terrorists and autonomists have to be defeated heartlessly by the Sri Lankan military alone devoid of foreign intervention. The IPKF, therefore, inadvertently, maimed certain innocent Sri Lankans, who were callously utilized by the LTTE, at times, as shields in their battle against the IPKF.

The IPKF wasn’t a unilateral military venture by a domineering India. It happened with the unambiguous approval of the Sri Lankan executive, headed by Jayewardene.  But the IPKF performed certain commendable tasks such as the enhancement of the damaged infrastructure in the embattled zones of Sri Lanka, the provision of assistance to Tamil victims of the civil war, democratization of the Tamil areas and the induction of reasonable serenity in the erstwhile gory areas of Sri Lanka’s north and east.

The LTTE targetted Sri Lanka’s main international airport and the adjoining military base in July 2001, destroying 13 aircrafts. Photo Sena Vidanagama / AFP / Getty Images

That Rajiv didn’t back the cause of Tamil Eelam was right. The writer believes that independence for Sri Lankan Tamils and the breakup of Sri Lanka on account of Indian military conduct would have only emboldened the LTTE. The LTTE was a dictatorial organization, which had systematically annihilated all the opposition to it. Moderate as well as fundamentalist Tamils, who disagreed even slightly with the LTTE, were bumped off by the LTTE. Through this mercilessness, the LTTE had emerged as the ‘champion’ of the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka. There is a serious possibility that the LTTE would have institutionalized its autocracy in a sovereign Tamil Eelam. An independent Tamil Sri Lanka would have forged strong bonds with Tamil Nadu, which could have increased the numerical strength of the admittedly tiny Tamil secessionism in India. The dormant Tamil secessionism in India could have been inspired by the LTTE’s attainment of a sovereign Tamil state and may have advocated aggressively the merger of Tamil Nadu with Tamil Eelam or independence for Tamil Nadu. The LTTE, in all probability, would have been the autocrat of Tamil Eelam and could have extended nefariously its support for Tamil secessionism in India. India would then have had to deal with a potentially serious linguistic problem. Also, in the 1980s, the Indian forces were bravely battling against the venomousness of Khalistani secessionism in Punjab, which had clandestine Pakistani endorsement. So, India couldn’t afford another secessionist disturbance, small or large.

The writer deems that an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka would have been a calamity for Indian strategic interests. If the Indian military had broken up Sri Lanka, ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would never have forgiven India for partitioning Sri Lanka. India would have lost all its influence in the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ then and would have no strategic toehold there today. China would have inundated Sinhalese Sri Lanka militarily, strategically, economically, etc. ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would be taking advice from Chinese diplomats on how to deal with the ‘Indian enemy.’ Pakistani espionage agents and Islamabad would have seduced ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ that would have been seething with victorious Indian military aid for Sri Lankan Tamil secessionism. A battered, bruised, furious and humiliated ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would have thrown itself in the arms of India’s foes, China and Pakistan. China and Pakistan, with their invidiousness, would have been at our doorstep as ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ in Sri Lanka’s west and south is closer to the Indian mainland geographically.

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended.  The LTTE was culpable for scores of political assassinations in Sri Lanka, killing of blameless Sinhalese and destruction of Sinhalese Buddhist sites. LTTE was a frighteningly barbarous organization. Peace has come back to Sri Lanka. It would be prudent if the moderate Tamil parties arrive at an agreement with Colombo on the devolution of administrative powers to the Tamil areas in the Sri Lankan north and east. Again, this provision is enshrined in the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.

The assassins of Rajiv deserve zero mercy from the Indian executive. Our judiciary has gifted them the death penalty. The verdict must be honoured. Anti national and base politicking over this issue, as has been observed, is a sorrowful reminder of the parochialism that can emerge in India’s polity. India lost its PM because of a gruesome assassination. The LTTE plotted and carried out it. It had the depravity to assassinate our PM. Monstrous behaviour merits no clemency.
 

Ananth Venkatesh

[ Other recent stories by the author: The Double Standards of ‘Freedom of Speech’, Hindus in the Netherlands, The Failure of Islam in Multicultural Europe]

Another related issue that comes to mind relates to the extent of artistic and creative autonomy that should be granted to writers and painters.

In a state like India, what has engendered considerable Hindu unhappiness is that the paintings of the Late MF Hussein, which depict unclothed Hindu Gods and Goddesses, are regarded as a manifestation of his artistic awesomeness. Some public figures in India, who specialize in distorting liberalism, have vehemently asserted that Hussein had the right to paint undressed Hindu divinity, even though some of these paintings had a carnal foundation. Their argument is that the Indian constitutional text endorses artistic self-governance.

Per se, I, as an India citizen, don’t have any problem whatsoever with the unclothed portrayal of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, even if there is carnal suggestiveness in them. I believe that religion mustn’t restrict our minds and intellect. We must explore the diverse facets of religion to obtain a better picture of it. Divine nudeness is not to be denounced straightaway. There is, per se, nothing incorrect in associating divinity with human emotions or humanizing divinity. Though I consider some of his paintings profoundly offensive to overall Hindu sentiments, I deem that he has the right to paint those mages, which he claims, depict the pureness of Indian divinity. While I certainly disagree with this description of his offensive paintings, I grant him the right to paint them.

If any Hindu organization is offended, as was the case in India, it can approach the court demanding penalty for the painter. The judicial verdict needs to be respected. There are provisions in the Indian constitution, which state also that no means can be employed to increase animosity between religious units or to decapitate the feelings of one religious entity.

However, I also support the right of painters to depict images of Islamic terrorism abstractly, subtly, directly or in any other way. Paintings can be made, in which the focus is on Mohammedan violence, and on indoctrination in the madrasas, which is, in several cases, directed towards the Islamic youth to make them virulent and irrational opponents of non-Islamic faiths. No voice of objection should be raised if paintings in an artistic exhibition talk about the subjugation and secondary status of numerous Islamic women in general and, more so, after matrimony. No one should complain then that these paintings hurt Islamic sentiments and that we need to be sensitive to Islamic feelings during the era of the ‘War On Terror’.

Hussein paints nude Hindu divinity and he is eulogized. However, any painter, who paints the harshness of certain provisions of the Islamic culture and jurisprudence, is dubbed as a detester of Islam. Such a painter is condemned, hounded and persecuted by the media, especially in a nation like India, where the media and intelligentsia are famous for kowtowing to Islamic fundamentalism. This is unjust and hypocritical.

Personally, I, as a Hindu, have no issues with films, cartoons, newspapers, online debates, video debates, etc. thrashing out vigorously the corruptions of contemporary Hinduism. My religion, for which I have sizable respect and admiration notwithstanding the dearth of rituality in me, has always told me about the need to be open-minded and ready to undergo changes to improve the functioning of my religion. The discussions on Hinduism in India for many decades have been symbolized by flexibility, profundity and paucity of rigidity and intransigence. I am all for openness as it only enables the removal of any dirt, which exists in Hinduism.

In the previous century in 1998, there was an intense film called ‘FIRE’, which produced a lot of heated anger among some ultrasensitive Hindu socio-political outfits. The two female protagonists in ‘FIRE’ were in a relationship of lesbianism. Their names were Hindu names deeply connected to Hindu spirituality and religiosity. The ultrasensitive Hindu outfits demanded a ban on the film as it depicted lesbianism within a Hindu marital household. But I don’t have any opposition to ‘FIRE.’ Its screening should have been allowed.

The problem begins when Islamic fundamentalists are appeased, mollycoddled and when their stubborn and illogical demands are satisfied e.g. the banning of Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ in India in the 1980s. It was a senseless, shameless, cowardly and impotent move by the Indian national government then, headed by the Congress (I) with a thumping majority. It was the first glaring and dangerous example of corrupted secularism being practiced by the Indian government. On seeing the unreasonable demands of extremist Muslim organizations being met by a shamefully indecisive Indian polity, it was only inevitable that the ultraconservatives among the Hindus would be bolstered. I have no reservations about the ‘Satanic Verses’ or Tasleema Nasreen’s ‘Lajja’, or about James Laine’s tome about the valiant King Shivaji, in which Laine contentiously alleged that Shivaji had Islamic bloodline too. None of these books should have been banned.

One saw how Nasreen was harassed and intimidated in secular India by the wretchedly intolerant Muslim outfits in 2007 and 2008. There needs to be one governmental voice that expressly condemns bullying and intimidation by any religious group, which wants to strangle free speech and expression. No politics of electoral banks!

[This concludes Ananth’s series on multiculturalism and freedom of speech.]

Ananth Venkatesh

[Previously written by the author: Hindus in the Netherlands, The Failure of Islam in Multicultural Europe] 

I have to declare that Europe, especially after overseas decolonization, has been a society very ready to discuss the ills that plague modern Christianity. Certain facets of Christian history and the invidious Christian role in European imperialism abroad have been denounced firmly and, at times, with certain ruthlessness. Therefore, Wilders has the right to decry the bellicosity that exists in certain clauses of the Islamic holy book. He is well within the rights and liberties that the Dutch constitution provides him. He hasn’t surpassed any boundary set by the Dutch law.

Robustness, dispassionateness, comprehensiveness, deepness and candidness have characterized socio-political debates in the Dutch society in the last 25 years. Religion, even Christianity, hasn’t been permitted to subdue the Dutch intellect and reasoning. Therefore, it is inevitable that Islam in the Netherlands and some of its degenerations will also be scrutinized profoundly by the Dutch intelligentsia. If any Muslim is dissatisfied with the depiction of Islam in a cartoon, article, TV show, etc. he can approach the Dutch courts for resolving his grievances.

Belligerent infringement of the Dutch law was done in 2004 when a Muslim Dutchman of Moroccan bloodline, Mohammed Bouyeri, killed Theo van Gogh, a notorious but impactful Dutch media personality. Theo, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the female Somali writer, made a divisive short film, ‘Submission’, which conversed about the subdual of women in certain Islamic societies.

Consider this; if Indian artist M F Hussein has the right to paint the undressed ‘Bharat Mata’ without respecting the sentiments of innumerable Hindus, then the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard [seen in photo], has the right to show, via cartoons, that Islamic extremists derive inspiration from a number of aggressive passages in the Islamic holy tome.

Westergaard did this in September 2005. Then, his cartoons depicting the scriptural violence in Islam were published in a prominent Danish broadsheet, Jyllands-Posten. One such famous cartoon was the one, in which the Islamic Prophet was wearing a bomb in his turban. I find nothing wrong in these cartoons. There needs to be an honest debate everywhere on the bigotry and antagonism that have permeated sizable Islamic populations in Europe.

This is despite the European continent providing them with wonderful healthcare, first-rate academic institutions, excellent residences, employment, etc. Praying that Europe undergoes Islamization is a manifestation of the ungratefulness of certain immigrant Muslims in Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, etc. Individual European countries will pursue their national interests in Islamic lands militarily or economically. But that doesn’t offer immigrant Muslims in Europe a license to slay blameless Europeans. Such an attitude, which prevails in certain Muslim quarters in Europe, is a demonstration of outright thanklessness by the radicalized Muslims to the advantages the European life has given them. European democracy is extremely liberal in several ways. The Muslims need to understand that and comply with the European principles such as freedom of speech, expression, free press, etc.

It is only natural that refusal to integrate with the Dutch language and Dutch way of life by certain Muslims will naturally lead to political calls for a ban on Islamic immigration.

Westergaard has had to endure two attempts by Islamists to slay him. Westergaard is not alone among the European political commentators, who have highlighted the dangerous degradation and violent autocracy that have crept into Islamic societies in Europe. Geert Wilders generated and discharged a contentious short film titled ‘Fitna’ in 2008, which speaks about Koranic segments being responsible for the emergence of Islamic terrorism and Mohammedan universalism that have blighted Europe and countries such as India.

‘Fitna’ was again the subject of global media scrutiny and Islamic ire due to its relentless criticism of the hostility and backwardness of Islam that is wholly incompatible with the pluralism and liberty of the 21st century Dutch society.

Again, if the Iranian media can organize a pejorative and depreciatory competition of cartoons about the Holocaust, then European commentators have the right to raise uncomfortable queries about Islam. [Photo Left: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the ‘holocaust’ and calls it a conspiracy.]

Certain segments of the Arabic media regularly write and publish anti-Semitic articles, publish anti Jewish cartoons and legitimize the killings of blameless Jews in Israel and globally. It is not that uncommon to read references in the Muslim media that label non-Muslims as heathenish, as kaffirs, as infidels, as nonbelievers. There is not much condemnation of that in the Islamic world.

Close to none.

[Next: In the final part of the series, Ananth considers the duplicity of ‘freedom of speech’ in India]

Ananth Venkatesh

[Follows “The Failure of Islam in Multicultural Europe”]

Note: The Dutch people are native to the Netherlands. Holland is a region in the western part of Netherlands. Though commonly accepted, Holland is not the same as Netherlands.

It isn’t as if Wilders is anti immigration outright. One hasn’t heard Wilders excoriate the Hindu Dutch citizens i.e. the Dutchmen and Dutchwomen of Indian bloodline.

Most of the Dutch inhabitants of Indian lineage currently have Indian ancestors, who immigrated in the 20th century to the Netherlands from Suriname, a former Dutch colony in South America that attained independence from the Dutch in the 1970s. The Dutch colonial administrators in Suriname had, via an accord in the 1860s and 1870s with the colonial British rulers in India, imported millions of North Indian indentured labourers (slaves) (chiefly from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh).

These Indians were ordered to work in the Surinamese plantations as slavery, which maimed black Africans, had been abolished in the 1860s in the Dutch Suriname. The labour market had to be filled by labourers in the absence of the uninhibited supply of Black slaves. These Indian labourers integrated themselves wonderfully with their Dutch environment in Suriname while simultaneously getting a pittance for toiling in the Surinamese plantations and improving the Surinamese infrastructure. They gained knowledge of the Dutch language and participated actively in the Surinamese self-rule movement, which led to the Surinamese liberation from Dutch governance.

Today, the Indians are the largest racial community in Suriname, with Hinduism being a significant religion there, with several temples dedicated to Hinduism. Politically too, the Surinamese Indians are potent.

The point that is being made is that Dutch Indians or the Hindu Dutch have never tried to impose their value systems upon the wider Dutch society. The Hindu Dutch have accepted the supremacy of the uniform and secular Dutch laws and haven’t demanded hostilely the enactment of Hindu laws meant to govern only the Hindu community in the Netherlands.

The Hindus have been allowed to openly practice their faith by the Dutch constitution. There are beautiful Hindu temples in the Dutch cities, where the Hindus go to express their reverence for the manifold Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The Hindus are aware of the Dutch language and haven’t attempted to terrorize the Dutch society with chauvinist demands.

The mainstream Dutch political parties have Dutch Indians amongst their members and have committed themselves to protect the Hindu Dutch. Again, the fact that, by and large, Hindu Dutch are not the target of rightist Dutch political parties, unlike the Islamic Dutch populations, illustrates the message of tolerance, harmony and coexistence that has been instilled into the Hindu mind-set in any foreign land. Again, there may be lunatic fanatics of the far right, who may target the Hindus in the Netherlands. However, mostly, the Hindus are a respected lot in the Netherlands and the ire of the Dutch Right is for the Muslims.

• The largest Hindu Temple in Europe is being constructed in Holland. It will be open to people in 2014. Watch videos about Hindu Schools in Netherlands here

Next part: Ananth writes about ‘Freedom of Speech’ and its application – without exception – to all religions.

Ananth Venkatesh

The news of the judicial exoneration of Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch MP, has re-energized the debate on the degree of multiculturalism in the democratic and pluralistic Western half of the European continent.

Ananth writes that Muslims from the middle-east countries are interested in the better living conditions provided by European-Christian nations. However, if the Muslim intention is not to assimilate but to impose their way of life upon the host nation, then their immigration to Europe must be put to a stop.

[A multi-part story. Kartikey’s story on feminism and male-ego will resume after this series.]

Wilders is the leader of the rightist ultra-nationalist Dutch political party, Party For Freedom. Wilders, who has dynamically directed his party in the last few years, has, recently, been absolved of the accusations of encouraging hatred against the Dutch Muslims via his anti Muslim statements in various fora such as the political campaigns, Internet, broadsheets, films, etc.

Wilders has accused sections of the Islamic immigrants in the Netherlands for being culpable for the distortion, corruption, mutilation and decapitation of the traditional Dutch socio-political principles of liberality, tolerance, liberty, broadmindedness, egalitarianism and uninhibited speech.  The dread of offending the voluble Islamic minority in the Netherlands has, in the recent past, resulted in the Dutch polity following the path of the appeasement of the Muslims.

Subconsciously and, in a growing number of cases, consciously, certain Dutch, Danish, French, British Muslims, etc. are sympathetic to the chief demands of the Islamic fundamentalists, one of which is that Islamic laws like the Sharia govern the Islamic existence in the European continent. 

There is a general Islamic resistance in European societies to integrate and assimilate in public life with the European way. After all, Wilders has only assailed certain portions within the Islamic theology, which prevent Muslims from integrating with the crucial values of their adopted homeland (non-Muslim homeland).

At the centre of this obdurateness, is a sentiment among these European Muslims, which is that Islam is the best and truest religion in the world. This sentiment is seen in Internet fora, mass media, mosques, political campaigns, Islamic movies, etc. where the concerned Muslims constantly blabber about the intellectual supremacy of their religion. This sentiment is, unsurprisingly, even expressed by the Muslims educated in the most liberal colleges of the West.

This view is articulated nonchalantly even in general discourses among certain European Muslims.

Their reference to non-Muslim faiths as practitioners of heathenism or as infidels is well-known. It is another glaring example of the deep-seated intolerance, with which the ordinary Muslim mind, even in Europe, has gone to bed.

The roots of this intolerance and narrow-mindedness again go back, to a fair extent, to the ‘sacred Islamic texts’, which promote, in certain passages, a brand of chauvinism, which is wholly incongruous with the modern world, and which is more amenable to the cultural darkness of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Middle East.

It is necessary to disparage the audaciousness, with which influential Muslim theologians, in Christian Europe and in Hindu India, mock, belittle and berate the faiths of their host countries. Instead of expressing gratitude to the Christians in Europe and to the Hindus in India for permitting the Muslims to live with dignity and practice their faith openly, what is observed in certain voluble Islamic quarters is the assertion of the desire that Muslims in Europe be fully segregated from the rest of the Europeans with the introduction of the Islamic penal code.

This is undeniably condemnable.

This is already the case in a nation like Hindu India, which, despite clear constitutional mandates and judicial declarations, due to its supine politicians, continues to let the Muslim personal law administer several segments of the lives of Indian Muslims.

It is the duty of the Muslims to follow the secular laws of secular European nations and India.  The Muslims have to respect the constitutional secularism of these nations. If the Muslims are keenly desirous of adhering to the Islamic way of life, the option of relocating to the Islamic Middle East exists.

Europe is not Islamistan. Also, it would be difficult to witness any Middle Eastern national government sanction the creation of new churches, which is an attitude that differs from the presence of numerous gorgeous mosques in European nations.

It is true that the Muslims in the European ghettos, which are European citadels of self-enforced Islamic segregation, look at certain demands of Islamic extremist outfits sympathetically. There is no option for these Muslims but to assimilate with their host nations. If the Muslim intention was not to assimilate but to impose their way of life upon the host nation, then they should halt their immigration to Europe.

Obviously, the European life is attractive for these Muslims as it offers higher salaries, enhanced standard of livelihood, better education, superior infrastructure, etc. It is the responsibility of every right-thinking Muslim to integrate with the country that offers them these benefits. Integration needn’t mean releasing yourself from your faith in your religion. It is just that you need to respect your host country’s constitution. The problem is that the liberalness of the European constitutions is indigestible to sizable Muslims there due to their intercourse with the ultra-orthodox chapters of Islam.

Wilders has urged that the Dutch Muslims amalgamate themselves with the core Dutch political and intellectual principles, which are, in any case, not opposed fundamentally to the presence of diverse religions in the Dutch society. Wilders is entitled to seek a restriction on Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. It has been mentioned by numerous non-Muslim Dutch citizens that considerable Dutch Muslims don’t even know to converse in Dutch fluently. Knowledge of Dutch is essential. It needs to be remembered that the European continent includes States that are dominated by a solitary language i.e. French in France, Spanish in Spain, Portuguese in Portugal, German in Germany, etc. Of course, there also exist linguistic minorities in European nations. Numerous Dutchmen complain that not many Muslim Dutch can communicate in Dutch as their primary language. The Dutch, similar to other Europeans, are passionate about their language and really honour those immigrants, who are aware of the Dutch idiom.

[Next part: immigration and the Dutch Hindus]

Ananth Venkatesh

Standalone story. You may like to read ‘The Case for Israel’ by the same author.

The Palestinians today have to accept certain ground realities. They refused to share their land with the Jews in 1947. The Palestinians have no land for themselves even now. Palestinian leadership has to discontinue making unrealistic demands such as to accommodate refugees from the 1948 war.

Israel can’t accommodate the descendants of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 War. It isn’t a feasible demand. That will mean an alteration in the demographics of the Israeli State. The Jewish identity of democratic Israel would be threatened by an influx of Palestinian refugees. These refugees would have to be housed in a sovereign Palestine. The condition of these refugees is pitiable but a realistic solution is necessary to end this problem.

Envisaging a Peace Deal

Also, some massive Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem will remain a part of Israel even after a peace pact with the Palestinians. This is a ground reality. The Palestinians are on the back foot. They are negotiating from a weaker position. That means that they will have to make some concessions. East Jerusalem and its Jewish structures are too integral to Jewish identity and spirituality for Israel to surrender them to Palestine. What should happen is that the religious affairs of East Jerusalem’s Palestinians should be governed by Islamic laws. A democratic Israel will allow East Jerusalem’s Palestinians to study in the area’s educational institutes and will provide them with fair treatment. These Palestinians will have certain rights granted to them by the Israeli democracy, parliament and judiciary. There are millions of Arabs in Israel, who, notwithstanding the suspicion with which they are looked at, continue to receive the benefits of Israeli democracy. These Arabs work in Israeli institutions.

Nearly 95% of the West Bank will be awarded completely to the Palestinians in any peace deal. That is a sizable amount.

…Ideas for the Road Ahead

The Palestinians will have to win the trust of the Israelis with their conduct. Therefore, for a few years after its founding, Palestine should be a demilitarized State. This demand of the Israeli PM Netanyahu is legitimate.

Gradually, as the Palestinians build their national institutions and security forces, the possibility of militarization can be looked into. Palestinians will have to demonstrate their peaceful intentions over a sustained period, after which one can entertain thoughts of arming the Palestinian State like other States in the world.

Israel will not compromise on its security. Weakness while dealing with Islamic terrorists never pays. Israel disengaged from Southern Lebanon in 2000 under UN instructions, after which the terroristic Hezbollah took over the area. Today, there are terrorist camps operated by Hezbollah’s military wing in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to provoke Israel like it did in 2006 July when it kidnapped and killed certain Israeli soldiers in an ambush. Giving away all of West Bank to the Palestinians, having no Israeli military presence in the strategic Jordan River, militarizing a self-ruling Palestine in the next few years, etc. could lead to terrorists being sent to the West Bank by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to maim Israeli forces and civilians in Israel proper.

The Palestinian government in a newly independent West Bank may not be strong enough to stem the surreptitious entry of these terrorists into West Bank. Hamas continues to propel dangerous rockets into Israel, which has killed people in the past. Killing of innocents can’t be tolerated for the sake of peace.

One can rely on Israel to make lasting peace. Israel made peace with Egypt in 1979, after which it handed over the Sinai to Egypt. The tranquillity has lasted. There has been Israeli peace with Jordan. Peace sometimes depends on ground-breaking gestures and actions. May be, the Palestinian leadership should have agreed to keep the Jewish settlements in the West Bank in an independent Palestine. The Jews in this Palestine could have been given the option of following their religious laws. The Palestinian government could have given concrete assurances to the world that the Jews in sovereign Palestine would be treated equally.

Such a Palestinian gesture would have been one that would have obtained favourable PR globally for the Palestinians. May be, it would have been easier to convince the Israelis then to hand over all of West Bank to the Palestinians. Just a thought.

Also, I strongly believe that, for tranquillity accords with the Palestinians, there needs to be a stable Israeli administration. Peace can be forged with the Palestinians if there is an Israeli alliance between leftist Labor, rightist Likud and centrist Kadima. These are the largest political parties of Israel, whose alliance will give Tel Aviv the numerical power to create peace with the Palestinians. There will be no need then for the Israeli government to depend on the intransigent ultraconservative Israeli political parties. Such ultraconservatives are essential for the current Israeli government’s survival. These ultraorthodox parties are opposed to any territorial concession towards the Palestinians and are full of prejudices against the Palestinians. An alliance like the one mentioned above might seem shocking. But if it is formed, it could pave the way for lasting peace and harmony with the Palestinians.

In any case, a ‘two State’ solution, as advocated by Obama, is the only sensible solution. A little bit of territorial tinkering and swapping by both sides would be good enough. Pragmatism is the need of the hour.

Ananth Venkatesh

American president Barack Obama has recently outlined his vision as regards the solution to the cancer that has bedevilled the Middle East since 1948 i.e. the Palestinian-Israeli territorial conflict.

What Obama spoke was, basically, a reaffirmation of the policy pursued by his conservative predecessor, George Bush, on this significant issue. Obama, unequivocally and lucidly, voiced that an independent Palestine would have to be created on two of the four territories that Israel had occupied during the June War in 1967. The two territories are West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Gaza, governed by the terroristic Hamas, is imprisoned by Israeli blockades but is independent in one way as there are zero Israeli settlers and forces there today. Israel, under Ariel Sharon’s practical Prime Ministership, had disengaged fully from Gaza in August 2005.

What was the 1967 war?

That War was one, in which Jewish Israel had pounded the Arabic forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in a classic pre-emptive war that produced cataclysmic results for the Arabs. The Arabs lost territories as well as self-esteem because of their defeat at the hands of a tiny Jewish State that offset its territorial smallness with a shrewd and ruthless military strategy that caught the Arabs unawares. The war, which started on June 5, lasted 6 days only but engendered deep-seated repercussions for Middle Eastern politics, which reverberate even today.

Egypt had governed the Gaza Strip from 1948 onwards after the first Arab-Israeli War. Jordan was one of the beneficiaries of this war as the Jordanian military managed to seize the largish West Bank, including the sacred Eastern sector of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is an area of immeasurable religious significance for the Semitic faiths.                             

• Egypt lost Gaza when the Israeli forces overran the hapless and unprepared Egyptian forces in June 1967.
  Jordan lost West Bank when the Israelis subdued the Jordanians stationed there and established Israeli control.
• Syria, which had a terribly disputed border with Israel in the Golan Heights, was also smashed as the Israeli services captured the Syrian Golan Heights, a zone of considerable agricultural importance.
• Also, Israel captured the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, which is a vital and sizable chunk of Egypt. The Sinai was strategically important as it was ideally placed for Nasser’s Egypt to attack Israel.
  Also, there was ‘black gold’ in the Sinai i.e. oil. Therefore, vanquishment of the Arabs resulted in colossal territorial loss. The standing of Arab political heroes such as Nasser, Egypt’s autocrat then, received a thrashing. The Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian political and military heads were vilified by their national populace respectively.

The June War was a  conflict that Israel had no choice but to execute as the neighbouring Arab States refused to accept the Israeli State’s legitimacy and continued to intimidate Israel. Egypt and Jordan had formalized a defence pact some days before the June War’s initiation. The formalization of this pact was another instance of Israel being bullied by Arabs.  Israel had to demonstrate that it was committed to protecting and furthering its existence as well as that of its Jewish populace. The memories of the horrifying Holocaust were still raw in Jewish minds. After all, the Nazi and Fascist forces had targeted the Jewish race as a whole to eliminate it fully. By refusing to acknowledge the Israeli State’s right to exist in the Holy Land and by claiming all of Palestine for themselves, the Arabic States had pointed fingers at the Jewish race.

The June War silenced the Arabic hostility and made some Arabic nations accept, howsoever grudgingly, that Jewish Israel was here to stay as a self-confident and determined nation in the Muslim Middle East.

Before even the birth of Christianity and Islam, the Holy Land was the ultra sacred homeland of the Judaic people. Over centuries, various military, cultural and political factors such as the Roman mercilessness, Christian anti-Semitism and the Islamic expansionism led to the decline in the Jewish population in the territory of ancient Israel. Intellectual degradation, internal divisions and the shortage of willpower to fight for your religion’s survival were diseases that afflicted certain segments of the Jewry. You can state that this is a malaise that had also afflicted the adherents of the Hindu religion, especially when Hindu India was steadily overpowered by the marauding foreign Islamic forces, beginning from the 8th century.                                                                         
What is often forgotten is that, in 1947, respectable and pragmatic Jewish leaders such as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, etc. had agreed to the partition of ancient Israel into a Jewish State and a Palestinian Arab State. There was no opposition from these realistic and indefatigable Jewish voices when the UN’s Partition Plan for the Holy Land was ratified by the member countries in November 1947. The Jewish political heads then were willing to see a Jewish Israel coexist in peace with a sovereign Palestine in a partitioned Holy Land. However, in 1947, the Arab States were implacable in their opposition to the creation of a self-governing Israel in a Palestine that had been steadily Islamized ever since the triumph of the Mohammedans in the Crusades against Christians. There was only an inconsiderable minority of Jews in Ottoman Palestine that had been subjugated by the Allied powers during WW 1.

The Need for the Jewish State

Britain was mandated by the highly flawed League of Nation to administer Palestine/Israel (Holy Land) after WW 1. British policy vis-à-vis Jewish immigration in the Holy Land was inconsistent and marked by fluctuations. It needs to be remembered that, in the 1890s, the idea of a Judaic nation in the Holy Land had sprouted among some leading Jewish intellectuals such as the legendary Theodore Herzl.  This idea was one that was quite controversial and inflamed passions. That such an idea emerged wasn’t surprising considering the venom of anti-Semitism that had permeated countless Christian minds in Europe through several centuries. One manifestation of that venom was the banishment of numerous Jews in the 15th century from Spain and Portugal by these countries’ Christian monarchs. This banishment happened after the ‘Reconquista,’ which was the liberation of Iberia from Islamic rule by the Spanish and Portuguese Christian soldiers.

British immigration policy from 1918 onwards resulted in the relaxation of norms for Jewish immigration into the Holy Land. There was some deliberateness behind this British policy. Of course, the sorrowful memories of Christian defeat in the Crusades against the Islamic warriors would have played a role in Britain deciding to allow more European Jews to immigrate to the Holy Land.

Islam was seen as the foe by certain Christian Britons in the British government then. There was sympathy in them for their Jewish brothers. There were sections in British Christianity that felt that allying with the Jewish demand for a national homeland in Palestine was the right thing to do. Christianity and Judaism were, after all, inextricably linked by historical developments. Some of their spiritual roots were the same.

Whatever it is, British governance in Palestine resulted in a marked increase in the Jewish population in Palestine by 1945. The Jewish population was large enough and reasonably well-equipped to fight against the Palestinian Arabs in a civil war just after WW 2. The Jewish determination to create a homeland for themselves was strengthened after the savagery of the Holocaust and the Arabic refusal to accept a Jewish nation in the Holy Land. The civil strife resulted in bloodletting on both sides. Finally, Israel managed to muster adequate global diplomatic support, after which Israel declared its independence in May 1948.

What followed was the Arab invasion to kill the nascent Israel and to maintain Palestine for the Arabs fully. The Israelis were compelled to wage war in 1948 because of Arab belligerence and intolerance. It was a war for Israeli survival, which Israel won. Israel conquered more territory than was awarded to it by the UN Partition Plan.

Another part on the same topic by the author in the coming days.

Ananth Venkatesh

Osama was slaughtered in Pakistan. He had been residing in Pakistan for some time. His compound was located close to the Pakistani military centre. Obviously, it doesn’t take too much cerebral effort to determine that sections within the Pakistani services were safeguarding Osama.

This is a classic case of Pakistani ‘two-facedness’. The difference is that, before 9/11, Pakistani duplicity skinned and drained India largely. Hence, the influential nations in the world were unconcerned or, at best, indifferent, believing Pakistani terrorism in India to be linked only to the broader Indo-Pak disputes. 9/11 changed the perception of the West. It made the West realize the poisonousness of terrorism and its strong roots in Pakistan.

It is evident that Pakistan continues to control certain sections of the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan and to make life there miserable for the American and NATO militaries. These segments of the Taliban would then be stage-managed by Pakistan after the NATO withdrawal from Afghan territory. Pakistan would utilize these factions of the Taliban to entrench itself in Afghan politics subsequent to the American departure from Afghanistan.

The Pakistan of the fairly secular Mohammad Jinnah has become a celestial territory for Islamic terror. Terrorist outfits, of differing degrees of ferociousness, are housed in Pakistan. Pakistan has targeted them selectively by capturing only some anti Western terrorists. Pakistan has let off the hook malignant tumours such as Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, etc. It has not initiated any action against these anti Indian terrorists.

The truth is that Pakistan will never punish these dastardly individuals for their crimes against innocent Indian civilians via terrorist attacks in India. Pakistan regards these corrupt terrorists and their terrorist organizations as assets that can be utilized to enfeeble India. Only one solution can undercut Pakistani espionage and its military and compel it to think twice before harming India. This solution has been stated before. India needs to be inspired by the victorious Israeli pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, who had killed defenceless Israeli sportspersons, at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

I deem that the possibility of an extremist takeover in Pakistan is very real. It may not happen in the near future but, after a few years, extremists could seize Islamabad. That would be a calamity as war could erupt between nuclear India and Pakistan. It wouldn’t be unsurprising if the Americans resort to regime change in Pakistan then to install a moderate leadership.

India needs to confederate with America and the West to position severe and undying pressure on Pakistan for its disingenuousness in tackling Islamic terrorism. I am an impassioned votary of meaningful Indo-U.S. ties. India needs to deepen its bond with America even more after the slaughter of Osama in Pakistan. The common foe of India and America is Islamic terrorism, sizable chunks of which are housed in Pakistani territory.

If a situation arises in the future, in which Pakistan has to be ‘remedied’, India should have a say in how to remedy that unsteady Pakistan. The overly rosy predictions about Pakistani stability from Indian politicians such as Mani Shankar Aiyer are irksome and dangerously misleading. It gives commonplace Indians an inaccurate portrayal of Pakistan and its intentions.India needs to understand that tranquil means alone cannot make Pakistan combat anti Indian terror. The threat of force from India has to be displayed secretly and prudently to Pakistan.