Sunday, December 13, 2015

Joshua Dubois: What the President secretly did at Sandy Hook Elementary School

Below is an excerpt from The President’s Devotional by Joshua Dubois, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He’s recounting events that occurred Sunday, December 16, 2012 — two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members. Dubois had gotten word the day before that the President wanted to meet with the families of the victims:

I left early to help the advance team—the hardworking folks who handle logistics for every event—set things up, and I arrived at the local high school where the meetings and memorial service would take place. We prepared seven or eight classrooms for the families of the slain children and teachers, two or three families to a classroom, placing water and tissues and snacks in each one. Honestly, we didn’t know how to prepare; it was the best we could think of.

The families came in and gathered together, room by room. Many struggled to offer a weak smile when we whispered, “The president will be here soon.” A few were visibly angry—so understandable that it barely needs to be said—and were looking for someone, anyone, to blame. Mostly they sat in silence.

I went downstairs to greet President Obama when he arrived, and I provided an overview of the situation. “Two families per classroom . . . The first is . . . and their child was . . . The second is . . . and their child was . . . We’ll tell you the rest as you go.”

The president took a deep breath and steeled himself, and went into the first classroom. And what happened next I’ll never forget.

Person after person received an engulfing hug from our commander in chief. He’d say, “Tell me about your son. . . . Tell me about your daughter,” and then hold pictures of the lost beloved as their parents described favorite foods, television shows, and the sound of their laughter. For the younger siblings of those who had passed away—many of them two, three, or four years old, too young to understand it all—the president would grab them and toss them, laughing, up into the air, and then hand them a box of White House M&M’s, which were always kept close at hand. In each room, I saw his eyes water, but he did not break.

And then the entire scene would repeat—for hours. Over and over and over again, through well over a hundred relatives of the fallen, each one equally broken, wrecked by the loss. After each classroom, we would go back into those fluorescent hallways and walk through the names of the coming families, and then the president would dive back in, like a soldier returning to a tour of duty in a worthy but wearing war. We spent what felt like a lifetime in those classrooms, and every single person received the same tender treatment. The same hugs. The same looks, directly in their eyes. The same sincere offer of support and prayer.

The staff did the preparation work, but the comfort and healing were all on President Obama. I remember worrying about the toll it was taking on him. And of course, even a president’s comfort was woefully inadequate for these families in the face of this particularly unspeakable loss. But it became some small measure of love, on a weekend when evil reigned.



From The President’s Devotional. Copyright 2013 Joshua Dubois.


 Children waiting outside the school after the shooting. [photo: Michelle McLoughlin]

Source: Vox Populi

Friday, December 11, 2015

Watch: 'My name is Suzette, I'm not the Park Street rape victim'

Crime Against Women

What Suzette Jordan said when she chose to fight back against her rape and identify the criminals.

Scroll Staff  · Yesterday · 01:02 pm

Satyamev Jayate Season 2 Undying Spirit Inspiring Moment English



Suzette Jordan is dead. All five men accused of raping her in a moving car on February 6, 2012, have been found guilty. Jordan, who died of encephalitis in March 2015, chose not to stay anonymous but to reveal her identity, to fight back.

"I'm a person," she told the host Aamir Khan in an episode of Satyamev Jayate, "and I want my life back." In the video above, Jordan recounts how visiting the site of the rape and murder of another woman in a village near here home – "I could smell the blood" – made her decide not to seek refuge as a victim but to do all she could to ensure that the perpetrators were brought to justice.

The rape was initially dismissed by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee as a "fabricated incident". On Thursday, a Kolkata court found all five accused – two of whom are absconding – guilty. It's come too late to bring any sort of closure to Suzette Jordan herself, but the judgment vindicates the courage with which she withstood all the pressure to drop the charges, along with the stigmatisation.

Banerjee is yet to respond to the judgment on either her Facebook or Twitter page, on both of which she is quite active.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Source: scrollin

Thursday, December 10, 2015

53 years after India incarcerated 3,000 of its Chinese-origin citizens, the internees speak out

Sunday, 29 November 2015 - 7:10am IST


India incarcerated 3,000 of its Chinese origin citizens during the 1962 war. Now the 'Deoli Camp Internees' are calling for justice through testimonies in films and books, Gargi Gupta reports.

dnaindia
 1. The Deoli prisoner of war camp in west Rajasthan 2. Yin Marsh and (r) former Deoli prisoner late Yap Yin Shing 3. Effa Ma, mother of journalist Joy Ma (r)

It has taken more than 50 years for them to speak out, but now the small band of 'Deoli Camp Internees', as they call themselves on Facebook, are eager to tell the world their story. Last month month, four members of the community, citizens now of the US and Canada, flew down to India for just this purpose. At public screenings of Rafeeq Ellias's Beyond Barbed Wires: A Distant Dawn, a documentary film that records the testimonies of several of the earlier generation of Deoli detainees and addresses to the media, they spoke about the pain and humiliation they, or their parents went through, and how they'd like the Indian government to acknowledge its mistake, if not say sorry.

But first the details of the story, which has come out in driblets in sections of the Indian media but is still not widely known. During the 1962 war, around 3,000 Indians of Chinese origin - women and young children among them - were picked up from Calcutta, Siliguri, Darjeeling, Shillong and other places in eastern India, and transported to a World War II prisoner of war camp built by the British in Deoli, a town in west Rajasthan. Most of them had lived in India for generations and had prospered as leather or tea merchants. Though none of them had anything to do with the war, their businesses and establishments were seized as "enemy property" and houses ransacked. They were kept at the Deoli camp for four years, before being released. But that wasn't the end of their travails - from being well-off, eminent citizens, they now found themselves poor and needy, shunned and looked upon with suspicion.

It's a story that does not show the Indian dispensation of the time in a good light, but no different from the detention of Japanese Americans in the US during World War II, or of German-origin citizens during World War I. It happened elsewhere too - the imprisonment of 32,000 Germans and and Austro-Hungarians in the UK from 1914 to 1919. The discovery of historical precedent may provide a context, but it does not take away from the pain and humiliation the Deoli internees suffered.

In the absence of government succour or even acknowledgment that it caused grievous harm to innocent citizens, it is art - books or films - that often brings a sense of closure. Think of books like Farewell to Manzanar, the documentaries Topaz and History and Memory: For Akiko and Takashige and how they exposed the shocking brutality of meted out to the "Nisei".

The Deoli camp internees are now embarking on somewhat similar project.

Besides Elias's documentary, which has recorded interviews with several very old internees, there's now an Indian edition of Yin Marsh's book, Doing Time With Nehru, which she'd self published in 2012. The book, which takes its name from the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru had also apparently been imprisoned for a time in Deoli, gathers her memories of the camp, where she was sent off when she was just 13.

Canada-based author Kwai-Yun Li wrote An Oral History of Chinese Indians from 1962 to 1966 in 2011, which is also available on the Internet. Joy Ma, a journalist from San Francisco who was born in the internment camp, is now writing a book on her mother's experience.

Disclosure may be necessary, but it's not easy. "I've been writing about the camp and internment in the form of short stories and personal projects for several years," says Joy. "The camp and its aftermath were such a difficult time for my family, it was hard to find the right perspective to write it."

Source: dnaindia

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Guardian of the dispossessed: an economic dissident in modern India



By J. Zach Hollo

As India thrives and convulses in its embrace of capitalism, one labor organizer sees himself as the last line of defense for the working class and those being left behind as the country develops.

 Venkateswarlu Manam (right) and his wife Lakshmi Marella (left).Copyright J. Zach Hollo

On a hot, humid afternoon in Visakhapatnam, a large city on India’s southeastern coast, Venkateswarlu Manam had a visitor. It was a young man named Raju, who had come to thank Manam for rescuing him from an abusive episode with his employer.

It had begun when Raju sold company property and didn’t hand over the revenue, like he was supposed to. Raju had admitted his wrongdoing and apologized to his boss, saying he’d pay the company back. But his boss, the manager of a gas cylinder distributor, beat Raju, and chained him to the wall outside the office building.

It was then that Raju’s aunt called Manam, who works for the Indian Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), telling him about the episode and pleading for help. Manam called to the manager, who reluctantly agreed to release Raju and give him back his job.

Raju later told Manam that his thievery was an act of desperation to pay interest fees to private moneylenders. “You fool,” Manam replied. “Why didn’t you come to me earlier?”

Settling disagreements like these is part of Manam’s job. Most of his time consists of sifting through legal paperwork for ongoing labor disputes, but random crises like this one often arise.

As India thrives and convulses in its embrace of capitalism, Manam sees himself as the last line of defense for the working class, a guardian of the poor and those being left behind as the country develops. India has experienced a sporadic flurry of growth since its 1991 economic reforms, when the government deregulated the economy, privatized many sectors, and opened up the country to greater foreign investment. Over the past 24 years, development indicators such as educational enrollment, child mortality, life expectancy, and percentage of people living below the poverty line have consistently improved. But these accomplishments belie India’s somber realities: the new economy has disproportionately benefitted those who are already privileged. Even with great economic growth, an estimated 363 million in India still live in poverty, according to a 2014 report by the Indian Planning Commission.

At the IFTU branch in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Manam serves as the union’s vice president and also advises the Visakhapatnam Slum Dwellers Welfare Association (SDWA). The SDWA provides economic aid and legal services to residents in the city’s poorest quarters, and is led by Manam’s wife, Lakshmi Marella, who shares her husband’s activist bent.

Manam, who is 49, stands hunched over, his left arm twisted and dangling at his side. He walks with a limp, and though he often struggles to move from one place to another, he can get by, even if it takes a bit longer. What Manam lacks in mobility he compensates for in energy. He jumps from one bundle of paperwork to another, his voice serious but chatty as he discusses cases with his colleagues in his home office. He smiles easily under a whirl of hair oranged by the sun.

Manam’s battle for the poor, and against the establishment he sees as their oppressors, began in college. Raised by farmers in a village in Andhra Pradesh, he moved to Visakhapatnam to study law at Andhra University. There, he joined a student group that visited the city’s slums and organized political rallies against income inequality and caste discrimination.

In the early 1990s, while he was nearing the end of his law program, life on Manam’s family farm changed dramatically. As India’s economy teetered on the brink of collapse in the late 1980s, the government acquiesced to a host of structural reforms imposed by the World Bank in exchange for investment loans. Among those reforms was an agricultural policy that deregulated the Indian seed market and brought it under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Seeds that Indian farmers had used their whole lives became the intellectual property of American corporations like Monsanto and Cargill, who collected royalties on their acquisitions and forced seed prices to skyrocket.

Manam’s family had to stop growing their own seeds, which they had normally replanted every year, and were forced to buy more expensive seeds, ones that had been genetically modified so that they could not be replanted in future seasons. The family also had to switch from homemade fertilizer to a more expensive foreign brand. Nationwide, imported food products made cheap by heavy subsidies from western countries flooded the market, driving the price down on the crops that Manam’s family sold.

“My input costs shot up from 4,000 to 15,000 rupees [$62 to $235],” remembers Manam’s brother Veeranjaneyu, who still works as a farmer. “The yield increased a little, but not nearly enough to cover the increase in input costs. And my crops sold for less money than before. I was forced to take out six lakhs [$9,412] in loans from private moneylenders. The loan has been a horrible burden on my life.”

 Photo by Vinay DV/Flickr, CC BY-NC

For India’s farmers, the debt acquired in an effort to cope with the new trade rules has led to an epidemic of suicides in the countryside, which continues to this day. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, in the past three years more than 3,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide.

Having watched American multinational corporations extract vast amounts of wealth from the Indian countryside, and having seen firsthand the squalor of the urban slums, Manam decided to dedicate his life to activism. “I knew then I wanted to work for the people,” he says.

In college, Manam met Lakshmi, a likeminded liberal student activist. They fell in love, married, and had two daughters. Together, they help those most vulnerable in their community, one desperate case at a time.
“Seeing the condition of people around us, and knowing the reasons behind why they are suffering, how could we sit back and allow it to continue?” Lakshmi says.

“The system now pits human against human,” says Manam, arguing that capitalism reduces the world to competition and cruelty. “People should always be kind and loving to others. People should help one another, whether that person is family, a neighbor, friend, or complete stranger.”

“I do not like the Chicago School,” he volunteered to me recently, referring to the University of Chicago’s famously conservative economics department — the onetime intellectual home of Milton Friedman and birthplace for many of the economic theories that justify the World Bank’s and World Trade Organization’s structural reforms. “Globalization is just another word for Western hegemony,” Manam sighs.

Two photos of Bhagat Singh, a socialist revolutionary who violently opposed British rule in the early twentieth century, adorn a long pink wall in Manam’s office. Known as the antithesis of Mohandas Gandhi, the peaceful champion of nonviolent resistance, Singh rose to fame by taking part in the revenge murder of a British police officer in 1928. In prison, he fasted for 116 days, dying at the gallows at age 23. Whereas Gandhi disavowed class struggle in favor of unified resistance to the British, Singh remained devoted to Marxism, studying Lenin until the last days of his life.

“I do not like Gandhi,” Manam says. “I don’t believe India ever became independent. It went from being colonized by the British to being colonized by multinational corporations.”

Manam sees his efforts with workers and slum dwellers as part of a larger effort to manifest radical change in the country. “We need a revolution,” he says. “We need to take up arms against the government if we have to. There is so much suffering and so little relief. Communism is the only way forward. Everyone should be equal. The government should provide for the people. It should make sure people have shelter and food when they are in need. It should give them education.”

 A communist banner is carried during a pro-farmers march through Thiruvananthapuram, India, in 2011.
 Photo by Johan Bichel Lindegaard/Flickr, CC BY.

“Every Monday is grievance day,” says Yuvaraj Narasimhan, the Visakhapatnam collector, a position much like a mayor. “Everyone is free to come and speak to me and my colleagues. And we often address the problems people tell us.”

Manam brushes it aside. “It is a sham!” he shouts when I bring up the “grievance day” sessions. “The government is deceiving the people into making them believe someone is listening.”

“I wanted to be an official once,” he continues. “Before I came to Visakhapatnam for university, I dreamed of getting a law degree and joining the government. I wanted to be a minister. I wanted to help the rural areas. I thought it was possible to serve in politics without corruption, without partiality, in a way that would really help the people. But after I moved here, I learned that idea was trash. It’s not possible to do good within the system.”
On May 30, 2015, three days after Manam had helped Raju, there was an incident involving a worker who transported gas cylinders, which are commonly used in India to provide fuel for cooking. This time, a 32-year-old transporter named Nagababu died on duty, leaving behind a wife and two children.

“Nagababu would only come home on Sundays. Otherwise, he was always working,” says Dhanalakshmi Lalam, Nagababu’s wife. “He would drive all day. At night, he slept in the car to guard the cylinders.”
Manam’s main task was to file a formal complaint to the police detailing the man’s death. Otherwise, he says, the company would have legal wiggle room to claim that the driver had not been on duty, leaving them largely off the hook in compensating his family. “The company has been abusing these workers,” Manam fumes. “They are only supposed to work one eight-hour shift per day. But the company often has them work three shifts straight.”

Before studying the autopsy or drafting the paperwork, Manam had a more personal role to play. He was going to the man’s home to pay his respects to the family, who live in a village two hours west of Visakhapatnam. Manam left his house with two union colleagues at 5 p.m. They’d be there by sundown.

 Photo of Manam courtesy of J. Zach Hollo, who maintains the copyright.

Their small white van shot out of the city and onto a long highway that weaved through thick patches of palm trees, and past thatched-house villages next to sparkling Hyundai dealerships. Even more than the city, the countryside was full of surreal juxtapositions. The thatched-hut communities embodied serenity, but the road itself was a violent organism, with trucks, cars, and motorcycles swerving and honking at one another, surging onward with a ruthless sense of purpose.

Around 7 p.m., Manam and his colleagues turned onto a smaller, more unkempt road, and soon arrived at the village. About a hundred men had gathered in a field where Nagababu’s body lay atop a tall stack of wood, his face covered in orange dust with a thick red bindi mark on the forehead. Night was falling fast. A man lit the pyre.

The group gathered around Manam, shaking his hand warmly and smiling at him with tired eyes. Many men in this village work for the same company as Nagababu, and they all count on Manam’s services. Manam spoke to them, asking about their working conditions and telling them about the case he was filing to get Nagababu’s family more compensation.

Afterward, the van drove to the family’s house, a one-story brick home with a large porch draped by a billowing embroidered sheet. Two candles cast a dim yellow glow over the darkness.

Dhanalakshmi, Nagababu’s young widow, sat on a cot with their two children, a five-year-old daughter and three-year-old son, each of whom looked malnourished. When Manam entered, clinging to a colleague’s arm as he walked, Dhanalakshmi began to weep. Nagababu’s mother, short and skinny with long grey hair, was also there. Her eyes were sunk so deep into her face that they were barely visible. She wept, too.
Manam sat on a chair in front of the family. He stayed quiet for several minutes and absorbed the sounds of their grief. His eyes burned holes in the floor. Then he looked up and spoke.

He told them he was sorry for their loss — he couldn’t imagine the pain they must be feeling to lose a husband and son so young. He told them he was filing a police report on Nagababu’s behalf, so the family might get more compensation from the company. He told them he would need help from the family in days to come.

“Don’t be afraid. I know it is hard now, but you must be determined,” he said to them. “You must have courage. Don’t lose your courage.”

Dhanalakshmi paused her sobs and nodded. She thanked him, saying the family would do everything necessary to help the case.

After siting a few more minutes, Manam stood up, took his colleague’s arm, and limped away. As the van pulled out of the village and back onto the highway, one of them turned on the stereo and flipped to a muffled song, a fast number sung by a chorus with strong drums.

“This song was written during the Cold War,” Manam tells me. His eyes stare searchingly out the window; wind sails through his hair as he begins drumming his right hand on his leg.

“It’s about the hegemony of the Soviet Union and the United States — and struggle to escape imperialism,” he says. “They are singing, ‘How are we supposed to view the world? How can we escape this misery?’”

* * *

J. Zach Hollo is a graduate of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. He has reported on migrant labor issues for Doha News, on the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan for Al Bawaba, and is a contributor to the Wilson Quarterly. Follow him on WordPress, or on Twitter at @JZachHollo.

The reporting of this story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.

Monday, December 07, 2015

Home ministry vs home ministry: Were there 644 or 1,227 communal riots last year?

The ministry has ordered a probe to find out why its data on communal incidents vary from those of its subsidiary, the National Crime Records Bureau.


scrollin

India experienced 644 communal riots in 2014, according to data released by the Home Ministry. But if you believe data released by the National Crime Records Bureau – a Home Ministry subsidiary – there were 1,227 riots that year.

The data discrepancy, reported by Factly.in, a data journalism portal, is important because as an intolerance debate roils India, much attention is being focused on whether such riots have increased or decreased since Narendra Modi took over as prime minister in May 2014.

The Home Ministry has now ordered a probe to find out why its data on communal riots vary from those of the NCRB, which it controls.

IndiaSpend previously reported how Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are India’s communal tinderboxes, according to data tabled in the Lok Sabha.

Is the way hate speeches are listed the cause of the data dispute?

The NCRB numbers could be high only because hate speeches qualify as “incidents” and are listed under riots in NCRB data, while they might not be counted as incidents by the human rights division of the MHA.

Even so, the NCRB numbers should be higher in every state.

The only plausible reason for the discrepancy is faulty reporting by state police and intelligence departments, calling into question the sanctity of government data.

The biggest difference in data is in Uttar Pradesh

India had 1,227 communal riots in 2014, with 2,000 people listed as victims, according to the NCRB data.

Leading the list is Jharkhand with 349 incidents, followed by Haryana with 207. Tamil Nadu is third with 120 incidents followed by West Bengal (104), Maharashtra (99), Bihar (59) and Gujarat (57).

Jharkhand, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal do not have significantly more riots, according to the MHA data.

Indeed, there are less than 20 riots in each of those states, as per the MHA data. Uttar Pradesh, which had the highest number of riots (133), as per the MHA, is eighth in the NCRB list with 51 communal riots.

The data disagreement extends to Haryana, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Telangana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.



Both data sets list about the same number of victims: the MHA 2,016; the NCRB, 2,001. There are other points of commonality.

What the home ministry and NCRB agree: 13 states reported no riots

Home Ministry and NCRB data match only for 13 states/UTs, and these are states where both NCRB and MHA report no riots.

There is a double-digit difference in 11 states, and the difference is significant in 10 states. The MHA reported only 10 riots for Jharkhand, while the NCRB reported 349.




How the NCRB changed its method of data collection

The NCRB maintains a secure national database of crimes, criminals and law enforcement agencies, collecting data from state police departments, compiling it into an annual Crime in India report.

The NCRB made significant changes to collection and dissemination of crime data in 2014.

In its new template for collection of crime data, there is a section on riots as defined under Sections 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 of the Indian Penal Code.


There is a separate section for data on offences that promote enmity between different groups, as defined under Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC.


Before 2014, all the data related to riots were collected under one head called riots. From 2014, the data on riots is categorised into many different sub-heads, namely communal riots, industrial riots and riots for political reasons etc.

The data collected under Sections 153A and 153B is counted as communal riots.

The NCRB gets data from state police departments. These data are based on the sections of law mentioned in the first information report.

The NCRB also follows what is called the ‘Principal Offence Rule’ for counting crime. So, among many offences registered in a single case, only the most heinous crime will be considered as a counting unit, thereby representing one case.

This article was originally published on IndiaSpend, a data-driven and public-interest journalism non-profit.
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Source: scrollin

Saturday, December 05, 2015

శ్రీ కౌముది డిసెంబర్ 2015

What really happened when Vasco Da Gama set foot in India

BOOK EXCERPT

The Portuguese explorer came in search of gold and spices, but ended up unleashing political fury.

Manu Pillai · Today · 05:00 pm

scrollin

In July 1497 when Vasco da Gama set sail for India, King Manuel of Portugal assorted a distinctly expendable crew of convicts and criminals to go with him. After all, the prospects of this voyage succeeding were rather slender considering that no European had ever advanced beyond Africa’s Cape of Good Hope before, let alone reached the fabled spice gardens of India.

Da Gama’s mirthless quest was essentially to navigate uncharted, perilous waters, and so it seemed wiser to invest in men whose chances in life were not especially more inspiring than in death. Driven by formidable ambition and undaunted spirit, it took da Gama ten whole months, full of dangerous adventures and gripping episodes, to finally hit India’s shores.

It was the dawn of a great new epoch in human history and this pioneer knew he was standing at the very brink of greatness. Prudence and experience, however, dictated that in an unknown land it was probably wiser not to enter all at once. So one of his motley crew was selected to swim ashore and sense the mood of the “natives” there before the captain could make his triumphant, choreographed entrance.

And thus, ironically, the first modern European to sail all the way from the West and to set foot on Indian soil was a petty criminal from the gutters of Lisbon.

For centuries Europe had been barred direct access to the prosperous East, first politically when international trade fell into Arab hands in the third century after Christ, and then when the emergence of Islam erected a religious obstacle in the seventh. Fruitless wars and bloodshed followed, but not since the heyday of the Greeks and Romans had the West enjoyed steady contact with India.

Spices and other oriental produce regularly reached the hungry capitals of Europe, but so much was the distance, cultural and geographic, that Asia became a sumptuous cocktail of myth and legend in Western imagination. It was generally accepted with the most solemn conviction, for instance, that the biblical Garden of Eden was located in the East and that there thrived all sorts of absurdly exotic creatures like unicorns, men with dogs’ heads, and supernatural races called “The Apple Smellers”.

Palaces of gold sparkled in the bright sun, while precious gems were believed to casually float about India’s serene rivers. Spotting phoenixes, talking serpents, and other fascinating creatures was a mundane, everyday affair here, according to even the most serious authorities on the subject. But perhaps the most inviting of all these splendid tales was that lost somewhere in India was an ancient nation of Christians ruled by a sovereign whose name, it was confidently proclaimed, was Prester John.

It was long believed that there lived in Asia a prestre (priest) called John who, through an eternal fountain of youth, had become the immortal emperor of many mystical lands.

Some accounts said he was a descendant of one of the three Magi who visited the infant Jesus, while a more inventive version placed him as foster-father to the terrible Genghis Khan. Either way, Prester John was rumoured to possess infinite riches, including a fabulous mirror that reflected the entire world, and a tremendous emerald table to entertain thirty thousand select guests.

Great sensation erupted across Europe in AD 1165, in fact, when a mysterious letter purportedly from the Prester himself appeared suddenly in Rome. In this he elaborately gloated about commanding the loyalties of “horned men, one-eyed men, men with eyes back and front, centaurs, fauns, satyrs, pygmies, giants, Cyclops” and so on. After vacillating for twelve years, Pope Alexander III finally couriered a reply, but neither the messenger nor this letter were ever seen again.

Luckily for Europe, the travels of Marco Polo in the thirteenth century and of Niccolo di Conti in the fifteenth painted a rather more rational picture of Asia on the whole, but they were still convinced of the presence of lost Christians there, egged on by religious fervour and the commercial incentives of breaching the monopolised spice trade.

If (Vasco) da Gama and his men, weighed down by centuries of collective European curiosity and imagination, anticipated the legendary Prester as they stepped on to the shores of Kerala in India, they were somewhat disappointed. For when envoys of the local king arrived, they came bearing summons from Manavikrama, a Hindu Rajah famed across the trading world as the Zamorin of Calicut.

This prince was the proud lord of one of the greatest ports in the world and a cornerstone of international trade; even goods from the Far East were shipped to Calicut first before the Arabs transported them out to Persia and Europe. Until the Ming emperors elected to isolate themselves from the world, huge Chinese junks used to visit Calicut regularly; between 1405 and 1430 alone, for instance, the famed Admiral Zheng He called here no less than seven times with up to 250 ships manned by 28,000 soldiers.

In fact, even after the final departure of the Chinese, there remained for some time in Calicut a half-Malayali, half-Chinese and Malay community called Chinna Kribala, with one of its star sailors a pirate called Chinali.

The city itself was an archetype of commercial prosperity and medieval prominence; it hosted merchants and goods from every worthy trading nation in its lively bazaars, its people were thriving and rich, and its ruler potent enough to preserve his sovereignty from more powerful forces on the Indian peninsula.

Da Gama and his men received one courtesy audience from the Zamorin and they were greatly impressed by the assured opulence of his court. But when they requested an official business discussion, they were informed of the local custom of furnishing presents to the ruler first. Da Gama confidently produced “twelve pieces of striped cloth, four scarlet hoods, six hats, four strings of coral, a case of six wash-hand basins, a case of sugar, two casks of oil, and two of honey” for submission, only to be jeered into shame. For Manavikrama’s men burst out laughing, pointing out that even the poorest Arab merchants knew that nothing less than pure gold was admissible at court.

Da Gama tried to make up for the embarrassment by projecting himself as an ambassador and not a mere merchant, but the Zamorin’s aides were not convinced. They bluntly told him that if the King of Portugal could afford only third-rate trinkets as presents, the mighty Zamorin had no interest whatever in initiating any diplomatic dealings on a basis of equality with him. Manavikrama, it was obvious, could not care less about an obscure King Manuel in an even more obscure kingdom called Portugal, and with a pompous flourish of royal hauteur, he brushed aside da Gama’s lofty ambassadorial claims.

The Zamorin was not unreasonable, however. He clarified that the Portuguese were welcome to trade like ordinary merchants in the bazaar if they so desired, even if no special treatment was forthcoming. Da Gama, though livid at his less-than-charming reception, had no option but to comply, having come all the way and being too hopelessly outnumbered to make a military statement to the contrary.

And so his men set up shop in Calicut, under the watchful eyes of the Arabs, peddling goods they had brought from Europe; goods, they quickly realised, nobody really wanted here in the East.
The hostility of the Arabs did not help either; for they, recognising a threat to their commercial preponderance, initiated a policy of slander, painting him and his men as loathsome, untrustworthy pirates. When complaints about this were made to the Zamorin, they were met with yawning disdain, not least because the Portuguese had precious little to contribute to business or to the royal coffers. The first European trade mission, thus, was a resounding flop as far as the Indians were concerned, and when da Gama’s fleet departed Calicut three months later, they left behind a distinctly unflattering impression on the locals.

Excerpted with permission from The Ivory Throne: Chronicles of the House of Travancore by Manu S. Pillai, HarperCollins India.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Source: scrollin

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Dictum & Diaspora: Silence or near silence on intolerance ill behooves PM Modi

Just as Prime Minister Modi can't ignore a foreign military attack on India, he doesn't have the option of turning a blind eye or of remaining silent in the face of intolerance, communal strife and religious violence within the country.

Written by Ujjal Dosanjh | Updated: December 3, 2015 8:40 am

indianexpress
Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking in Lok Sabha.

The intolerance being felt in the country is a serious threat to the idea of India. So is Prime Minister Modi’s silence or near silence about it. Recently my mind focussed on what it meant to be Indian – above and beyond the intolerance debate – when in answering a question from columnist Tavleen Singh, Aamir Khan criticised the extremists of all varieties including ISIS asserting he didn’t consider ISIS to be Muslims even if they held the koran in one hand butchering people with the other. Not satisfied with the answer, Singh went on to excoriate him in her column “Intolerance of the real kind” as a “Muslim leader” for not leading other Muslims in denouncing ISIS to the exclusion of all other extremists. I found it perplexing.

I have always thought an Indian is an Indian – no less than any other Indian. Aamir Khan is an Indian who happens to be an actor and a Muslim just as Tavleen Singh is an Indian who happens to be a columnist and hails from a Sikh family. None of that should matter and isn’t worth wasting even a smidgen of ink over. But it made me wonder whether any journalists had made an issue of any non Muslim Bollywood stars’ pronouncements or of whether they had ‘adequately condemned’ their coreligionists’ condemnable misdeeds. Recently, PTI reported Amitabh Bachan… on ‘growing intolerance’ as saying “Indian films taught… to banish communal prejudices”. He emphasised India’s social unity… at a time when “cultures are being questioned and prejudices against the communities are dividing the world.”

Nandita Das declared “I don’t think freedom of expression has ever been so threatened.” Ranbir Kapoor said as much in describing his father Rishi’s battles with the Twitterati: “Unfortunately in this country you can’t really speak your mind”…without being misconstrued. No one has questioned Amitabh’s, Nandita’s or Ranbir’s patriotism; no one has called them “Hindu leaders”. That is as it should be in a democracy.

While citizens’ outspokenness makes for a better society, in a democracy they are nonetheless free to be silent and no one should be shamed or forced into speaking up on any issue including for or against his/her coreligionists no matter how wonderful or vile the latter may be. No matter how disagreeable or cowardly the silence of citizens may be, they only have a moral obligation to speak up.

VIDEO: Rahul Tears Into Govt, Rajnath Defends: Parliament Debate On Intolerance



On the other hand, the Prime Minister has both a moral and a legal obligation to lead on these issues. Over and above working for India’s economic progress, maintaining its territorial integrity and defending its borders, the Prime Minister of India is the legal guardian of the peace, order and good government in the country. Just as he can’t ignore a foreign military attack on India he doesn’t have the option of turning a blind eye or of remaining silent in the face of intolerance, communal strife and religious violence within the country.

Peace and harmony within India goes to the core of who we are as Indians; I say we because what happens in India has an impact on others’ perception of us even in the diaspora. Even if the level of intolerance in India is the same as it was before or more it must be fought. The stifling of free expression must be challenged. The communal and religious tensions must be defeated whether they are as bad as before or worse. No matter when it all began, who started it, who further fuelled it or whether it also happened under the previous regime, unfreedom, intimidation, violence or disharmony in the nation mustn’t be greeted by silence and can’t be vanquished by Prime Ministerial silence.

The Prime Minister is the ultimate official, legal and moral trustee of India’s heritage, its inherent diversity and social solidarity. His continuing silence on these fundamental matters is a serious threat to the survival of the idea of India – of multitudes of different ethnic, faith, cultural and linguistic groups.

Instead of haranguing Aamir Khan who professes to be nothing more than an Indian and an actor – the last I checked he hadn’t contested elections to even be a dog catcher for Mumbai let alone the PM of India – we should be urging the otherwise prolific speech maker PM Modi and politicians of all stripes to more vigorously speak up and stand up for Indian diversity, equality and freedom of expression; and to strike a strong and lasting blow against the forces of hate, division, fear and denigration of minorities. Uttering mealy-mouthed pronouncements on diversity and pluralism will not strengthen the idea of India for all Indians one whit. Modi must invoke the ancient Indian ethos of peaceful coexistence to robustly and loudly urge upon all Indians a compassionate, just, inclusive, strong and peaceful India. Silence – even near silence – isn’t an option.

Dosanjh is former Premier of British Columbia, and former Canadian Minister of Health. Views expressed are personal.

© The Indian Express Online Media Pvt Ltd

Source: indianexpress

How India’s founding fathers saw the ‘nauseating principle of secularity of the State’

The Constituent Assembly still chose to be secular in a caste-ridden, Partition-scarred, newly independent India.

Ipsita Chakravarty  · Today · 04:30 pm

scrollin


Secular, an adjective, used in its current form since around 1300, means “living in the world, not belonging to a religious order” or “belonging to the state”. It has been derived from the Old French “seculer”, from the Late Latin “saecularis”, meaning “worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or an age”, from the Latin “saecularis”, or “of an age, occurring once in an age”, from “saeculum”, the word for “age, span of time, generation”.


According to one theory cited in the etymology dictionary, its Proto-Indo-European roots lie in the word “sai-tlo”, where “sai” means to bind or tie, “extended metaphorically to successive human generations as links in the chain of life”. It is also the source for the French word “siecle” and for “ludi saeculares”, an Ancient Roman festival celebrated once in 120 years. In English, since the 1850s, it has stood for humanism, and for leaving god out of morality or ethics.


It does not strictly translate into the term “sect-neutral” in Hindi, as Home Minister Rajnath Singh suggested in Parliament on Thursday. Though in the political life of nations since the 19th century, it has come to mean a separation of religion from the state.


Of an age


    “Another word is thrown up a good deal, this SECULAR STATE business. May I beg with all humility those gentlemen who use this word often, to consult some dictionary before they use it? It is brought in at every conceivable step and at every conceivable stage. I just do not understand it. It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But it is brought in in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular State we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done. We have only done something which every country does except a very few misguided and backward countries in the world. Let us not refer to that word in the sense that we have done something very mighty.”


 – Jawaharlal Nehru, Constituent Assembly debates on August 12, 1949.


    “The specious, oft-repeated and nauseating principle of secularity of the State. I think that we are going too far in this business of secularity.”


 – PS Deshmukh, Constituent Assembly debates on August 11, 1949.


Evidently, the Constituent Assembly argued a lot about secularism during the three years that it hammered out the Indian Constitution. There was general consensus that they were writing out a secular state, but not about much else.


During one session in 1949, HV Kamath moved an amendment to have the Preamble start with “In the name of God”. He was shot down – even if the god was not specific to any religion, it left out unbelievers. Brajeshwar Prasad, another member, proposed that “socialist” and “secular” be introduced in the Preamble. “Socialist” was ridiculed and “secular” fell by the wayside along with it. But the idea of a secular state still retained a powerful imaginative pull.


The Constituent Assembly debates somehow refract back to the origins of the word secular, to the living human choice made in a particular time and place, in a longer historical continuum. The debaters took an inherited Western idea and tried to work out what it meant to be secular, how best to be secular in caste-ridden, Partition-scarred, newly independent India. The version that emerged was peculiarly of an age.


Scholars through the decades have pointed out how it diverged from accepted definitions of secularism. Perhaps that is why the Constituent Assembly stopped short of using the word in the first place.


No concern or equal respect? 


    “It would have been enough if it had been said that the State should not interfere with any religion. Or, we could have said that the State should have a spiritual and moral outlook, instead of saying that it should be secular. The introduction of these words has created a lot of misunderstanding.” – Jagat Narain Lal, Constituent Assembly debates on November 25, 1949. 

As Shefali Jha has pointed out, much of the debate was a struggle between two theories of secularism, “no concern” and “equal respect”. The first dictated that the state stay away from religion, that faith be a private matter or, more radically, a matter strictly confined to the private sphere. It privileged the rights of the individual citizen over the recognition of separate communities. Nation states that evolved in the 19th century, Jha says, promoted individual rights so that older allegiances withered away, leaving behind only the loyal citizen.


But it was argued that such a state could not adequately represent a society with deep traditions of religion. Besides, the West, with its arid conception of secularism, was in crisis. It was for India to show the regenerative potential of spiritual and mystical streams of thought. The state that took shape would not interfere in religion. But it would respect all religions, which would also find a place in the public sphere.


The wellsprings of tolerance that allowed this plurality were often cast as a Hindu tradition. But it was also conceded that all faiths had inner resources of tolerance. JB Kripalani defined tolerance as the “acceptance, to some extent, of someone’s beliefs as good for him”. It was this acceptance that would prevent religious conflict.


There were several arenas in which the debate between the two models of secularism played out. For instance, the assembly had to choose between freedom of religious worship, or the individual’s private right to belief and prayer, and freedom of religious practice, which involved the public performance of faith and the right to propagate it; between a uniform civil code which erased the personal laws of various faiths and a jurisprudence that allowed for variations in civil law.


Jha shows how the Constituent Assembly gravitated towards the equal respect theory, but how the borders between the two forms of secularism were often blurred. So we got a state which allowed freedom of religious practice, provided protections for personal laws, recognised linguistic minorities and allowed religious instruction in schools, but which rejected political safeguards for minorities.


National integration, it was felt, would take care of it by absorbing minorities into the political mainstream. “I want to tell the House, Sir, that there is no minority in this country,” said Tajamahal Husain. “I do not consider myself a minority. In a secular State, there is no such thing as minority.”


Principled distance


    “The draftsmen seem to be torn between two rival ideals: one suggesting the Constitution for a wholly secular State, in which religion has no official recognition. On the other hand, there seems to me to be a pull – somewhat sub-conscious pull, if I may say so – in favour of particular religions or denominations, whose institutions, whose endowments, whose foundations, are sought to be protected.”

     – KT Shah, Constituent Assembly debates on November 30, 1948.


As secularism evolved in India, equal respect did not always mean equal distance from all religions either. Rajeev Bhargav points out how Indian secularism has had to defend itself against charges of differential treatment. There were two main contentions.


First, the state insulated Muslim personal laws but reformed the Hindu code, abolishing child marriage and polygamy, modernising laws of inheritance. Several articles of the Constitution directly acted against the caste system of the Hindus. Not only did it muddy  the lines of separation between faith and state, it clearly showed different degrees of familiarity towards the two religions, which could be read as discriminatory towards Hindus and protective of Muslims or vice versa. Second, the Constitution allowed for group-specific social rights for religious minorities. They enjoyed, for instance, enjoyed certain autonomies over educational institutions run by them.


To both objections, Bhargav puts forward the rationale of principled distance, which distinguishes between equal treatment and treating everyone as an equal. The state could not be blindly neutral or equidistant from all religions. To achieve certain constitutional ideals of equality, it had to act on behalf of discriminated populations. Religious minorities had to be protected, just as the entrenched inequities of the Hindu caste system had to be wiped out.


Choosing secularism


This, then, was the sum of our secularism, born of violence, oppression and mistrust. Born also of the hope that India could be a plural, equal society, in spite of the appalling evidence of Partition and the brutalities of the caste system. Secularism in India has been about making this choice, over and over again, in spite of all odds. To hold it to preconceived formal standards or to quibble about the absence of the word in the original Preamble seems pedantic.


We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Source: scrollin