Did A Stolen Convict Ship Visit Japan During Its Closed-Country Period?

historical-nonfiction

In 1829, a group of convicts seized the English brig Cyprus off of Tasmania, and sailed her to the Chinese city of Canton. After his capture, the convicts’ leader William Swallow claimed the ship visited Japan on their way to China. No one believed him because Japan was famously isolationist at the time.

But last year an amateur historian discovered Japanese records of a visiting “barbarian” ship in 1830 that flew a British flag. Curious local samurai visited the barbarian ship. Luckily for history, they wrote about what they saw, and even made some watercolors.

According to one of the samurai, the barbarians had “long pointed noses” and asked in sign language for water and firewood. One young barbarian put tobacco in “a suspicious looking object, sucked and then breathed out smoke.” These men “exchanged words amongst themselves like birds twittering,” and the ship’s dog “did not look like food. It looked like a pet.” Another samurai listed the gifts the crew offered, including an object that sounds like a boomerang – strengthening the idea that the ship with the British flag had been at Tasmania or Australia.

The Japanese refused to allow the mutineers to stay. They eventually scuttled the Cyprus near Canton, and worked their way back to England. Unfortunately for the adventurous convicts, they were arrested in England for piracy. They had stolen a ship, and they were convicts before that – and British law at the time was notoriously harsh. Swallow died in prison, and the rest became the last men hanged for piracy in Britain.

Source: historical-nonfiction

Read full article: abc.net.au

The Modi-Erdoğan Parallel

Jun 7, 2018 Shashi Tharoor

While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not achieved the degree of “state capture” that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has, he is also 11 years behind. And the path the two leaders are on is similar enough to invite comparison – and provoke concern.

NEW DELHI – Comparisons are generally invidious, especially when they involve political leaders from different countries. But, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rose to power 11 years before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, there is much about their personal and professional trajectories that makes comparison irresistible.

Both Erdoğan and Modi come from humble, small-town backgrounds: Erdoğan sold lemonade and pastries in the streets of Rize; Modi helped his father and brother run a tea stall on a railway platform in Vadnagar. They are self-made men, energetic and physically fit – Erdoğan was a professional soccer player before becoming a politician; Modi has bragged about his 56-inch (142-centimeter) chest – not to mention effective orators.

Both Erdoğan and Modi were raised with religious convictions that ultimately shaped their political careers. Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have both promoted a religiously infused, nationalist creed that they argue is more authentic than the Western-inspired secular ideologies that previously guided their countries’ development.

Yet, to win power, Erdoğan and Modi did not count exclusively on religious voters. Both campaigned on modernist platforms, arguing that by implementing business-friendly policies and reducing corruption, they could bring about greater economic prosperity than the establishment they sought to supplant.

Here, Erdoğan and Modi press both the past and the future into service. Erdoğan extols the Ottoman Empire’s legacy, while telling voters that they are not only “choosing a president and deputies,” but also “making a choice for our country’s upcoming century.” Likewise, Modi constantly evokes the achievements of ancient India, which he claims to be reviving in the name of creating a better future.

In short, Erdoğan and Modi have consolidated their power by glorifying the past, while portraying themselves as dynamic, future-oriented agents of change – heroes galloping in on white stallions, swords upraised, to cut the Gordian knots holding their countries’ down.

At the same time, Erdoğan and Modi have painted themselves as political outsiders, who represent the “real” Turks or Indians long marginalized by cosmopolitan secularists. With popular discontent high when they rose to power, such political messaging fell on receptive ears. The narrative of resentment against the established secular elites, peppered with religious-chauvinist discourse and historical revisionism, facilitated their emergence as voices of the middle classes of the hinterlands and second-tier cities and towns.

When Erdoğan first became prime minister in 2003, his position was bolstered by booming global growth, emboldening him to start transforming the Turkish polity. His political formula – a potent compound of religious identity, triumphalist majoritarianism, hyper-nationalism, increasing authoritarianism (including institutional dominance), constraints on the media, strong economic growth, and a compelling personal brand – carried him to re-election as prime minister twice, and from there to the presidency in 2014.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, Modi has adapted Erdoğan’s formula to his own effort to reshape India. He has sought to marginalize Muslims and reinforce Hindu chauvinism. Minorities in general feel beleaguered, as Modi’s nationalism does not merely exclude them, but portrays them as traitors.

Moreover, in Modi’s India, political loyalties are often purchased, and institutions are subverted to serve a narrow sectarian agenda. Dissenters in the media and the universities have faced intimidation. The only area where Modi has been tripped up is GDP growth, owing to his government’s gross economic mismanagement.

On the international stage, too, there are notable parallels between how Erdoğan and Modi conduct themselves. Both pursue activist foreign policies aimed at boosting their domestic image, and have cultivated diaspora support. Erdoğan’s speeches in the Balkans might antagonize the United States and Europe, and even Serbs and Croats, but they raise his stock with Turks. When Modi addresses stadiums full of Indian expatriates on his visits abroad, his speeches are aimed squarely at audiences back home.

Soner Captagay, a Turkish analyst and author of a book on Erdoğan, recently remarked, “Half of the country hates him, and thinks he can do nothing right. But at the same time, the other half adores him, and thinks he can do nothing wrong.” The same is true of Modi in India.

Of course, there are important differences between Turkey and India. For starters, Turkey’s population, at 81 million, is less than half that of just one Indian state, Uttar Pradesh, with its population of 210 million. Turkey is 98% Muslim, while India is only 80% Hindu. Islamism, as Hindu chauvinists never tire of pointing out, is a global phenomenon; Hindutva is not. Turkey has no equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi, with his message of non-violence and co-existence drilled into the head of every Indian schoolchild.

Moreover, Turkey is more or less a developed country, while India still has a long way to go to reach that point. And, unlike India, Turkey was never colonized or partitioned on religious grounds, as India was to create Pakistan (though the exchange of populations that accompanied Turkey’s separation from Greece comes close).

What Turkey has experienced – and India has not – are bouts of military rule. In fact, India’s democracy is deeply entrenched, making it less vulnerable to capture by a single ruler. That partly explains why it is so difficult for many Indians to imagine their country following in Turkey’s footsteps to become a majoritarian illiberal democracy with an autocrat in charge.

But while it is true that Modi and the BJP have not achieved the degree of “state capture” that Erdoğan and the AKP have, they are also 11 years behind. And the path they are on is similar enough to invite comparison – and provoke concern. The warning bells are ringing: like the Turkish lira, the India rupee has lost over 5% of its value in the last month. With upcoming elections in both countries – Turkey this month, and India in Spring 2019 – will voters heed the alarm?

Source: project-syndicate

Soul Of India Is Pluralism, Tolerance: Pranab Mukherjee At RSS Event

Carrying the weight of his party's disapproval, Mr Mukherjee, 82, delivered messages on India's history of tolerance, inclusion and pluralism.

All India | Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: June 08, 2018 13:41 IST

Former President Pranab Mukherjee said we derive our strength from tolerance at the RSS event

NAGPUR: It may not have been succinct but Pranab Mukherjee's speech to the RSS on Thursday evening had a clear message: "We derive our strength from tolerance. We accept and respect our pluralism... Any attempt at defining our nationhood in terms of dogmas and identities of religion, region, hatred and intolerance will only lead to dilution of our national identity."

Mr Mukerjee's term as President of India, a post enabled by his party of over five decades, the Congress, ended in July last year. His decision to address thousands of RSS volunteers has been questioned and bemoaned by the Congress as a political gift to its opponent, the BJP, at a time when the country is being landscaped for the next general election.

The RSS or Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh is the ideological mentor of the ruling BJP. It has been assailed by Congress president Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders for promoting a culture of intolerance underpinned by majoritarianism. Mr Mukherjee's quality time with the RSS, Congress leaders said, loans it respectability. 

It was reportedly at the instance of Mr Gandhi's mother, Sonia, who was the party's top boss till December, that Mr Mukherjee was questioned for his voyage to Nagpur on Twitter last night by top Congress strategist Ahmed Patel . "I did not expect this from Pranab da," Mr Patel tweeted. It wasn't just former colleagues who offered public remonstrance. Mr Mukherjee's daughter Sharmistha Mukherjee, who is a member of the Congress, said, also on Twitter, that while Mr Mukherjee's speech would be forgotten, the visual imprint of his visit would linger damagingly.

Pranab Mukherjee served as one of the most senior cabinet ministers in the two-term coalition government of Dr Manmohan Singh. His proximity to Sonia Gandhi and his ability to win consensus among opposition parties -- or at least draw them to the negotiating table during tricky impasses -- gave him mega bonus points.

There were few signs in his speech on Thursday of shifting allegiances -- the former president did not tread gently around allegations that his hosts regularly confront from critics. "The soul of India resides in pluralism and tolerance. This plurality of our society has come through assimilation of ideas over centuries. Secularism and inclusion are a matter of faith for us," he said.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala told reporters: "He taught the (Narendra) Modi government rajdharma." The remarks suggested Mr Mukherjee had redeemed himself. But not all Congressmen agreed. Manish Tewari tweeted:

THIS COUPLET APPLIES APTLY TO @CitiznMukherjee TODAY
ज़फर आदमी उन को ना जानिएगा
गो हो वो कैसा ही साहिबे फह्मो ज़का
जिसे ऐश में यादे खुदा न रही
जिसे तैश में खौफे खुदा न रहा
CALL HIM NOT A MAN,’ZAFAR', HOWSOEVER WISE, WHO,IN JOY, FORGETS GOD,IN RAGE HAS NO FEAR OF THE ALL MIGHTY

— Manish Tewari (@ManishTewari) June 7, 2018

Earlier on Thursday, Mr Mukherjee was warmly welcomed at the RSS headquarters, where he paid homage at the memorial of KB Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS.

"Today I came here to pay my respect and homage to a great son of Mother India," he wrote in the visitor's book at the memorial. Not long after, the Congress tweeted what it called a "primer on what the RSS really stands for".

Anand Sharma, one of the Congress leaders who had tried to dissuade Mr Mukherjee from the visit, tweeted: "Images of Pranab Da, veteran leader and ideologue at RSS Headquarters have anguished millions of Congress workers."

Since Mr Mukherjee, 82, accepted the RSS' invite to serve as Chief Guest at its event, there have been reports that he is seeking to rise above his party - that he is foraying into the non-BJP, non-Congress terrain of a "Federal Front", a loose and nascent league of regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee who believe that the Congress, decrepit and no longer a national force, must buckle itself into the backseat while they steer a combined opposition into 2019 to roadblock PM Modi from getting re-elected.

The RSS earlier on Thursday said that the Congress' attack on his participation in its event reveals its small-mindedness. It described Mr Mukherjee as a "mature and experienced" politician.

Perhaps that review has been tempered by Pranab Mukherjee's frank talk. 

Source: NDTV