The Best Immigrants

[I wrote this blog a long time back , 2009 to be exact, and posted it on a blogging site which i don't believe exists now. When it ceased to exist it took away all my blogs with it, and I was aghast, natuarally, but coiuold do nothing about it. Then, very recently and miraculously I found this blog on my facebook page. How it came there -- don't ask me]  

I am in the US now on a private visit to see my daughter’s family, and had been to Canada for a few days to see an old friend. In 2007 I had come on a similar visit to Switzerland and had also visited Austria, Germany and Belgium. In 2006 I visited the United kingdom. Every time, everywhere in the first world, there is one feature that strikes you : the sheer number of old men and women. The baby boomers of the mid-and late-1940s are now into their sixties, retired or about to retire. And the young men and women are not having enough children, despite incentives by a number of countries, to replace the baby boomers. With the result that the average age is going up. Now each such country requires young men and women to run the economic and technical engine in the country and to fill the armed forces. As a result, each such country is faced with the need to bring in immigrants.

Now, no country wants to do this, because immigrants mean trouble. Immigrants do not assimilate. Immigrants stick out like a sore thumb. Immigrants live in ghettoes, do not try to absorb the culture of the country, get into fight with ethnic bhumiputras (Malay word of Sanskrit origin, meaning ’son of the soil’). Yet immigrants are required. Hence the question : who make the best immigrants?

Certain countries in the world have sent out more immigrants than the others. Out of these, the Western European countries and Israel can be counted out today for purposes of getting immigrants from. The English, the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, the Swedes, the Jews — in short Western Europeans, plus the Jews — who had made the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa prosperous are prospering in their own countries now, which are themselves short of manpower. They will not emigrate. Ditto for Spaniards and Portuguese to Latin America. Arabs from oil-rich countries will obviously not emigrate. So who does it leave?

It leaves the following groups :

(1) Eastern and Southern Europeans from relatively less prosperous, especially non-EU countries : Belarus, Albanians, Bulgarians, Moldovians, Bosnians, Turks.

(2) Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians.

(3) Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians.

(4) Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis.

(5) People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans

(6) South Asians, mainly Indians, professing Hinduism or other religions of South Asian origin, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists

(7) South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis.

(8) South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Myanmarese.

(9) Chinese.

We may now examine these categories one by one. In this examination, it has to be remembered, perception plays as big a role as facts. But, it is also to be remembered that perception owes its origin to at least one set of facts, though very often not to the entire set of facts.

Category 1, i.e. Eastern and Southern Europeans from EU countries are welcome in the highly developed economies of Western Europe which have a EU-imposed requirement to employ them to the exclusion of other immigrants. So they need not go anywhere else. Even for these Western European countries, however, it is doubtful whether their manpower requirements can be fulfilled by the EU-member Eastern and Southern Europeans alone. So more immigrants would be needed by them -- and also by North America, Australia and New Zealand. Citizens of non EU European countries would be welcome in these countries, primarily because of the colour of their skin (though no first world country would admit this), but they would have two major problems: First, they do not speak English, French or German; and secondly, they are educationally backward. .  

Category 2, that is Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians; category 4, that is Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis; and  category 7, that is South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis — let’s face it — would be unwelcome anywhere other than the oil-rich Arab countries, simply because they are Muslims, and 9/11 (together with 7/7 of london and 26/11 of Mumbai) is a reality today. Muslims multiply fast, because they do not believe in small families. Muslims do not assimilate AT ALL but after a while they demand separate schools, separate dress codes, even separate Laws. Add to that the duties of Jehad, that is waging war on non-Muslims — imposed on every Muslim, and the promise of virgins in heaven after they have killed non-Muslims, and you have damn good reasons for there being unwelcome.

They are not all the same, of course. The Arabs and South Asian Muslims learn fast, are less likely to make a nuisance of themselves and are culturally more advanced than the African Muslims. The Bangladeshis are moreover not particularly orthodox or crime-prone, and work hard. But few countries will make such fine distinctions, and prefer one group of Muslims over others.

Category 3, that is Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians, Congolese, etc. and category 5, that is People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans, do not pose a religious problem, but they do pose a law and order problem. Again there are distinctions among them, and it is not as if they create law and order problems everywhere or others do not create law and order problems. But this is all a question of perception, based to an extent on gross facts, and to an extent (let’s face it) on prejudice.

Category 8, that is South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos and Category 9 that is the Chinese are often lumped together because of facial and racial resemblances. They are largely free from the problems with which the earlier mentioned categories are associated — that is to say they are not religious fanatics and they do not create law and order problems, nor are they likely to make a nuisance of themselves in petty ways. However some complaints persist against them. They do not assimilate well — the presence of Chinatowns in cities ranging from New York to Kolkata is enough proof of that. They are also said to be secretive and inscrutable. In these respects the Cambodians, Vietnamese or Filipinos fare better than the Chinese, and the countries that do appreciate these differences are likely to be more welcoming to them than to the Chinese.

That leaves the Hindus, including Sikhs and Jains — mainly from India, but also other countries where the Hindus have lived or migrated to, such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana, Fiji or Surinam. Sri Lanka Buddhists are in this respect in the same category, as they are ethnically the same as Indians and religiously close, just as the Sikhs and Jains are. ‘Close’ of course does not mean they are not different — but not all that different. Are the Hindus religious or ethnic fanatics? Of course not — they are essentially pluralists and bear no ill-will against any other religion or ethnicity. But more than that, they assimilate like no one else does. True, there are ‘Little Indias’ in Southall (a suburb of London) and Toronto — but Indians want to move out of there as soon as they can and live where the ethnic British and majority Canadians live. They will never dream of demanding separate areas, dress codes or laws. They are hard-working and law-abiding. One never hears of Hindu criminal gangs or ‘Secret Societies’ (a Chinese speciality). And they bring credit to the nations they migrate to — look at the Nobel Laureates Hargobind Khurana (US), Subramanyam Chandrasekhar (US), Sir Vidia Naipaul (Trinidad and Tobago), and the latest, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (US). Look at the statesmen Sir Sewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Chhedi Jagan of Guyana, Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana (later converted to Christianity), Ujjal Dosanjh, the Premier of British Columbia. Look at the British industrialist Lord Swraj Paul, the economist Lord Meghnad Desai (an atheist though, but a Hindu all the same). This capacity to assimilate has been a trend with Hindus right through the ages. The Hindus of Bali (Indonesia) or of Trinidad, Mauritius or Fiji do not look back at New Delhi for succour. To them home is Denpassar, Port of Spain, Port Louis or Suva.

What does all this lead us to? To the conclusion that Hindus make the best immigrants in the world, and every nation short of manpower should welcome them.

This has to be got across to the rulers of the first world nations in need of manpower.

This is a review of the film 'Haidar' against which there are serious complaints that the film is anti-National and anti-Indian Armed Forces, received over email. This is being temporarily put on my blogging site so everyone can see it.

A Soldier Reviews ‘Haider’ movie

October 19, 2014 By Agniveer 47 Comments

I am an ex-armyman. I was stationed in Kashmir in mid-nineties. This was the same period when hordes of militants from across the border infiltrated in Kashmir to spread terror. Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and scores of other terrorist groups were having a free-for-all rampage in Kashmir. They would infiltrate from Pakistan, recruit cadre, take them to Pakistan for training, bring them back and perform heinous acts of terror.

This was the same period when half a million Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs were massacred and forced to flee the valley.

This was the same period when Kashmir burnt under fundamentalism. It was next to impossible to differentiate between a peaceful nationalist and a killing-machine.

Whenever a cricket match would happen between India and Pakistan, Pakistani flags would wave across the valley as if we were sitting in heart of Pakistan. Any minority voice who dared to wave the Indian flag would be silenced immediately by militants.

It was during such a reign of terror, that Indian Army had to douse the fire in Kashmir with their own blood.

If someone suffered most severe human-rights violation in history of mankind, it was the Indian Army in Kashmir. We left our families in different parts of India and survived under harshest of conditions. For days we would sleep over guns in harsh climate and remotest locations just to keep tab on infiltrating militants. Anyone of us could be bombed away in a sudden attack of fundamentalism. Innumerable among us lost our lives. I lost my hand like so many others who lost their limbs or eyes. To die in a bomb blast was considered lucky. Because if you chanced to be captured by the militants, you would be slowly and mercilessly tortured to death. Militants and their supporters took pride in this gruesome ‘halal’ ritual.

Remember Saurabh Kalia? He is definitely not as popular as Vishal Bharadwaj or Shahid Kapoor. Because he was not a film star who made money by exploiting national interests. He was a humble Indian soldier who gave his life for motherland. He was captured by fundamentalists along with 5 more soldiers. They were taken across Line of Control and tortured as a religious ritual.

Pakistan army tortured their prisoners by burning their bodies with cigarettes, piercing ear-drums with hot rods, puncturing eyes before removing them, breaking most of the teeth and bones, fracturing the skull, cutting the lips, chipping the nose, chopping off limbs and private organs of these soldiers besides inflicting all sorts of physical and mental tortures and finally shooting them dead after twenty-two days, as evidenced by the bullet wound to the temple.

This made the killers “Ghazi” – who as per these fundamentalists gets highest number of most beautiful virgins in Heaven. All you need to do to be a Ghazi is to celebrate killing of a non-believer.

These five soldiers were after all the worst of creatures in world in eyes of jihadis. They were Indians, soldiers and idol-worshippers. What could be greater sin!

I was lucky because I could have been in Saurav’s place. Had I not lost my hand, instead of Saurav Kalia, I would have been ‘halal’ed to make someone Ghazi.

This was the same period when Indian Army made greatest sacrifice to save India and humanity from reign of death and blood.

And it is the same period around which the film “Haider” by Vishal Bharadwaj, Shahid Kapoor and anti-India jihadi writer Basharat Peer has been made and adored by “critics”.

No struggle for liberation in Kashmir

Everyone on ground knows that there is no struggle for liberation of Kashmiris in Kashmir. If that had been so, why native Kashmiri Pandits would have been massacred?

You need to spend just a few days in the valley to understand the true nature of struggle that lies hidden under this garb of Kashmiriyat.

It is simply a ploy to extend the reaches of Islamic fundamentalism. The same fundamentalism of Al-Qaeda and ISIS that is shaking the entire world.

Kashmiri militants are brainwashed to believe that they will go to Paradise only after India is conquered by an army of Jihadis. Listen to speeches of Masood Azhar, founder of Jaish-e-Muhammad. He talks of Ghazwa-e-Hind prophecy where Prophet made conquest of India a precondition for opening doors of Heaven.

In name of religion, the same poison is spread in minds of Kashmiri youth to make them militants.

Go and ask opinion of any Kashmiri liberation member. No one will say that idol-worshipper can also be a good human blessed by Allah. On contrary, they believe that idol-worshippers are worst of creatures. The real hatred is against non-Muslims because as per them, Islam is the only acceptable religion. All non-Muslims must convert to Islam or deserve hatred. This is exactly the same ideology that ISIS and Al-Qaeda follow.

The war against terror is a war against this fanatic mindset. None other than the Indian Army has sacrificed more to fight this war. We fought not only with arms but with love and service. The flood relief efforts in Kashmir in recent past is a clear example of the same.

Enemy within and outside

Yet Indian Army continues to face bullets from enemies and abuses from family. Today, on one side Pakistan is targeting Indian Army and minority locations in Kashmir with bullets. And around the same time, our own country-men create a film like “Haider” that paints Indian Army a villain.

On one hand, flags of ISIS are waved in Kashmir, and at same time, “critics” laud anti-nationalism of Haider as marvel of art.

Such co-incidences give ample evidence that somehow our enemies and certain elements from within our country consistently orchestrate great timing and coordination among each other that it is hard to believe that it was just a mere coincidence.

In Army, we are trained to observe such remarkable coincidences, understand what goes behind, and yet silently sacrifice ourselves for the mission of nation.

Haider shook me to core

I have myself faced irrepairable loss in saving motherland from anti-national militants. And my fellow armymen have made much larger sacrifices for the same cause. Thus the film Haider shook me to core.

It made me question for the first time – Whom are we fighting for? Whom are we defending? The same people who could make this film because of Army’s protection collude with an anti-national Jihadi writer to make a villain of Indian Army?

Is this the reward of our sacrifices that we continue to make? Are commercial gains and so-called artistic expression more important than motherland and humanity?

What if we had not fought terrorism by tooth and nail in nineties? What if we had not arrested the spread of terror to other parts of country through our own lives?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

This is not a film-critics review. This is a review from perspective of an armyman, a lover of humanity and a son of India. A true secular who refuses to believe that God hates idol-worshippers so much that they will go to Hell. And aspires to fight against ideology that directly or indirectly nurtures such fundamentalist elements.

This is not rhetoric in jingoism

Unlike Haider, which is an experiment in fundamentalism, don’t consider the article to be a rhetoric in jingoism.

Yes, I love my country. I love my country more than I love anything else in life. I love my country not because I was born here or I am a native of this nation. It is not because I love the design of the map of India. It is because its timeless cultural and philosophical heritage that is built on core foundations of tolerance, acceptance and justice. So jingoism has no place for a nationalist and son of soil.

My nationalism does not make me aspire to conquer the whole world. It inspires me to enlighten the whole world. It inspires me to promote brotherhood across the globe and strive for “One World, One Family.” It inspires me to make India lighthouse of the world. I joined Indian Army not to conquer the world, but nurture and protect Peace that defines foundation of India.

I am not a movie-watcher. My mission never allowed me the luxury to fit movies or serials in my priority-list. But I made an exception for Haider.

 

 

 

 

 

Summary Review of Haider

While I will provide details later, let me state upfront – I find “Haider” to be a shameless commercialization of anti-nationalism.

No its not a rhetoric. This is the most “polite” way in which I can summarize the review of this film.

The more “practical” review summary is already being demonstrated by my Indian Army by appropriate retaliation to Pakistani misadventure of cross-border firing. Salutes to my Army for this. Am proud to lose my arm for you. And regret that I could not gift my life for you.

The Detailed Review of Haider

A. This is perhaps the first anti-Indian film that has been produced in India by Indians. Just as the film producers chose to showcase Army as criminals, I would prefer to call the film-maker and its sympathizers Jaichands.

B. The film has been written by Basharat Peer – a Kashmiri separatist based out of New York. Basharat Peer is well acclaimed for his hatred of India. He lived, studied and made career from what India gave him. But in influence of fanaticism, fundamentalism and perhaps some money, he chose to hate India. He openly claims that he holds an Indian Passport only due to compulsion.

Of course it is a pity that Vishal Bhardwaj and Shahid Kapoor and the rest of the gang who eat their bread from India chose to select a vocal anti-national to write their plot.

No, Basharat Peer is not a professional film writer. On contrary, this is his first such project.

In garb of producing Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the film team has done what Jaichand or Mir Zafar did, all for petty commercial gains.

C. The film has a clear anti-India tone. The protagonist is son of a doctor who also is a member of militant gang of Kashmiri separatists. The wife and brother of the doctor report presence of terrorists in home to military. Military catches the doctor and kills all the militants. The hero “Haider” is supposed to take revenge for this.

In entire film, all dialogues and all characters make one clear assumption – that anything and anyone who supports India is a bad guy. Anything and anyone who hates India or Indian Army or is a militant is a good guy.

The greatest crime of bad guys is that they believe in Indian democracy or chose to support Indian Army instead of militants.

D. Indian Army is shown to be tyrants. They torture even innocents brutally. In one scene, they castrate a young man during torture even though they knew he was innocent.

E. In one scene, Army asks all militants to shout “Jai Hind”. The father of Haider refuses to shout so, and hence is punished. In anger, he asks his companion to inform his son that he must take revenge for all this. Thus a “hero” is born from Haider whose only agenda in life is to kill those who love India. This continues without remorse till end of the film.

There is no mention of the fact that thousands or even lakhs of militants had infiltrated India during the same period. Only an anti-national can complain about use of “Jai Hind” to segregate militants from ordinary citizens. I can understand Basharat Peer to have hatred against “Jai Hind”. But why Shahid Kapoor and Vishal Bharadwaj?

For humble soldiers like me, “Jai Hind” is the only call for which we live and die. This alone is our mantra, our kalma, our slogan.

F. In last scene, after all killing and destruction, the hero heads towards Pakistan.

G. In the interim, there is an incoherent monologue by Haider on how India cheated Kashmiris and has illegally occupied Kashmir. He raises slogan among public who shout back that they want independence from India. This anti-India speech is supposedly a high-point of the film.

H. Kashmiri women have been portrayed as lose characters. Haider’s mother starts sleeping with her brother-in-law immediately after she gets her husband arrested by military for hiding militants. And immediately after death of her husband is confirmed, she marries. Further, she has questionable feelings for her son which is exemplified by unnecessary kiss scenes.

I. Another Kashmiri woman, Haider’s girlfriend is shown to have utter disdain for her religion. She refuses to touch Quran for vow and instead decides to sleep with Haider despite objections from her brother and father. She is confused between her love for Haider and love for India. And that confusion leads to problems for Haider.

J. These are the only two women in the film. Basharat Peer has played a very smart move here. It is evident that he has insulted Islam as well as denigrated Kashmiri women apart from insulting India. His real goal is not the benefit of Kashmiris. He seems to be inspired by Pakistan instead. That is why the hero finally leaves for Pakistan. Any Muslim who has slightest soft-corner for India is shown as someone against Islam.

K. In fact there is another set of characters who mimic Salman Khan – an Indian actor. They are shown to be friends of Haider who turn traitors and try to kill him under orders of police. But Haider kills them instead.

L. The father of Haider’s girlfriend is shown to be a spineless policeman who knows India is wrong in illegally capturing Kashmir and yet works against “Kashmiri freedom fighters”. He is the one who gives orders to kill Haider in encounter.

M. There is a repeated use of word “Chutzpah”. It serves two purposes. First it fulfills the fetish of film crew to speak out an abusive word indirectly. Secondly, it is supposed to rhyme with AFSPA – Armed Forces Special Powers Act – that gives special powers to Army in Kashmir to fight terrorists. In one scene, Haider is seen mocking AFSPA along with his friends by mentioning it along side Chutzpah.It is used to ridicule India’s ‘illegal’ control over Kashmir.

The director ignores the fact that Chutzpah is a Hebrew word that is pronounced as “Hutspah” or “Khutspah” and not with “CH” as director’s fetish propelled him.

The irony is that AFSPA alone is the reason why the makers of Haider could make the film today!

N. Even apart from the obvious focus on anti-Indianism, there is nothing that the movie offers apart from long yawns and drags. There are scenes and situations where one is confused whether to laugh or take seriously. For example, two comedians who mimic Salman Khan suddenly turn villains. Some elderly grave-diggers near Pakistan border suddenly start singing and dancing out of context. They are revealed to be militants later.

O. There is a song “Bismil” where idol of “Satan” has been put on gates of Martand Temple in Anantnag and the hero sings and dances like devil. It is an obvious reference to the oldest Sun temple of world being a haven of Satan. After the song, hero attempts to kill his uncle. Several Hindu organizations have protested against this insulting depiction of a revered temple.

P. The hero refers to Anantnag as Islamabad when an army-man asks his destination. This is an obvious reference to affection for capital of Pakistan and refusal to speak the original Hindu name.

The film makes no mention of the fact that the name Kashmir comes from Rishi Kashyap – one of the most revered Sapta Rishis as per Hinduism. The name Anantnag comes from Ananta of Naga tribe, who also happened to be son of Rishi Kashyap. Both these words predate “Islamabad” and the demands for separation of Kashmir by thousands of years. Kashmir has been the most important center of Shaiva philosophy – one of the most important components of Hinduism – way before even religion was born.

Q. The movie claims to highlight the ‘Kashmir cause’ but the makers restricted themselves to Indian Kashmir only completely forgetting the Pakistan and Chinese Occupied Kashmir and rights of Kashmiris therein. Perhaps because it was again the Indian Army alone that allowed these snakes to shoot the movie in its area which was not possible in China or Pakistan. And in the end, the snakes bit the hands that fed them. Makers of Haider left no stone unturned to demonize Indian Army but not a single word has been uttered against the rogue Pakistani Army or Chinese PLA.

R. Soft corner for separatists but not even a single mention of ethnic cleansing of half a million Kashmiri Hindus from valley in 1989 in whole movie. Clear attempt of fueling false sense of victim-hood among the already radicalized separatists but deliberately hiding the real Kashmiri issues. It is clearly the Pakistani line on Kashmir that the makers of Haider have toed. The movie complains that army would inspect, threaten and torture Kashmiris. But movie offers no solution to how else the army should have dealt with those who hide militants in home, hate India, are ashamed to say ‘Jai Hind’ and has every other member in family as a militant or receiving terror-training in Pakistan. When thousands of militants have infiltrated the border, Pakistani flags are waved en-masse during Indo-Pak match, and half a million non-Muslims are killed or forced to flee, what else can army do to stop terror from killing more innocent lives? It does not matter whether it is Kashmir or Kanyakumari. If any person or group supports terrorists, or has family members indulged in terrorism, or are ashamed to say “Jai Hind”, then they deserve most thorough scrutiny and punishments. This is necessary to contain terrorism. This is not human rights violation. This is protection of human rights of innocent millions.

In general this movie has one agenda – to portray the following as villains:

• Muslims who love India
• Women who love India
• Hindus who love India
• Armymen who love India
• Kashmiris who love India

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

No I don’t call for ban on the film. The era of information control through bans is far over.

What I call for is to use this film as a lever to educate our fellow Indians and world about Kashmir. How militants destroy peace in Kashmir, how Pakistan destroys peace in Kashmir, how filmmakers mock true Kashmiris, true Muslims and true Hindus, how paid journalists like Basharat Peer bring bad name for Kashmir as well as India despite being Kashmiri. And how Indian Army has made greatest sacrifices in history of humanity to protect peace in Kashmir.

It is time to create national awakening on Kashmir issue, fight Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists in most ruthless manner to bring peace in valley and India. Indian Army is doing a fabulous job on the border. Lets do within the border and internationally to support their sacrifices.

Many critics and “experts” have claimed that “Haider” is a bold masterpiece. One reason why many frustrated minds are calling it masterpiece is obvious – despite their predictions, a so-called right-wing party came to power with absolute majority in recent elections. This is despite their top-of-the-mouth out-of-the-court pronouncement of judgement that the incumbent Prime Minister is a mass-murderer. Somehow public could not be conned by these fake allegations. And the massive victory frustrated them to core. So they will leave no option to proclaim any crap as masterpiece so far it is against the proclaimed stand of incumbent party. In case of Kashmir, it is also clear that this stand of zero-tolerance for militancy in Kashmir is also voice of people.

As far as it being a “bold” movie, I fully agree. It is indeed a bold experiment. Almost as bold as Pakistan’s recent bold experiment of cross-border firing in Kashmir. Or their “chutzpah” in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1998 that eventually bankrupted the rogue country.

And I agree that such boldness be better countered with even more boldness.

Please note that I am not against Pakistanis or Kashmiris who are fed up with violence. My love for nation makes every peace-lover in the world my best friend. But for sake of this peace, my love for nation calls for total annihilation of those forces or voices that promote militancy in any manner whatsoever.

As far as liberation of Kashmir is concerned, all this talks about plebicite or Nehru’s promise in 1948 is completely irrelevant. It was a blunder that few weak voices were allowed to partition the country whose borders have been decided since ages by nature and which nurtures the oldest civilization and culture of world uninterrupted till date.

No more partition can be tolerated. Period. If majority in Kashmir want separation, then the same rule should apply to every house, every lane, every mohalla of India. Tomorrow I may claim that 6 people of my home want to be independent country – we form full majority – hence grant us freedom. This is foolish talk.

Kashmir was always integral part of India. And shall remain so. The entire drama of separatism in Kashmir is a ploy to annexe a major part of India for fundamentalism – in lines of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The whole world is seeing results of rise of this fundamentalism. It is time we join together to crush it.

If a few silly films like Haider come up to rake up and further the cause of fundamentalists, we must use them as well to further the agenda of peace, tolerance and integral India.

My humble appeal would be to not waste your time and money watching such anti-national “pseudo-intellectual purgation”. Better donate it for Indian Army or PM Relief Fund to help Kashmiris suffering from floods and ignite the cause of nation.

I appeal all to support Agniveer, promote Agniveer, join Agniveer and become Agniveer to work for cause of nation. There is no other way.

This article is dedicated to Indian Army which has scripted the most befitting review of “Haider” and all such anti-national antics through its valor in Kashmir. My salutes to these heroes of nation.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram

BENGAL FAMINE OF 1943, AND A CRAZY BLOG

One Ajit Vadakayil has posted a blog on, among other subjects, on the Bengal Famine of 1943. The blog  at http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/09/amartya-sen-gets-nobel-prize-for.html?m=1 is such an enormous load of nonsense that I felt obliged to write something. Much of it is based on total misinformation or some half-digested facts. First of all, although I am Bengali, I am not a total admirer of Amartya Sen -- I rate him highly as an economist, but I thoroughly dislike his habit of poking his nose into every facet of life -- as if, just because he got a Nobel Prize, he knows everything. He doesn't, and moreover, he has lived abroad most of his life, so he has no way of knowing what happens here in India. In respect of the Bengal famine of 1943 I would much rather rely on the account of Ashok Mitra ICS, later Census Commissioner of India, who, as an SDO of a famine affected subdivision, had an insider's view of what caused the famine. According to him it was a policy of 'Denial and Evacuation', really a 'scorched earth' policy, followed by the British government in mortal fear of a Japanese takeover of Bengal, coupled with a terrible combination of a cyclone and Tsunami in a place called Kanthi in the present Purba Medinipur district of West Bengal. And the main person responsible, according to Mitra, is the half-crazed British governor of Bengal, Sir John Arthur Herbert, who was responsible for this cynical policy. Prime Minister Churchill, Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery and Viceroy Lord Linlithgow are primarily guilty of apathy and negligence. The blog contains a lot of other rot. Amartya Sen's first Hindu wife Nabaneeta Deb-Sen did not leave him because of his pro-Western views -- in fact she still sports his surname 'Sen' bears witness to the fact that it is not so. I know what caused their divorce, but I shall never make these domestic matters public. Ajit appears to be an anti-Semite, which is why he blames Rothschilds for all the ills of the world. The Rothschilds are powerful, but not that powerful. That Santiniketan, the ashram built by Rabindranath Tagore's father Debendranath,was built with opium money, or that Edwina Mountbatten was a Rothschild is pure baloney. He says Ramanujam, the mathematical genius, was "whisked off to England and then discarded like a curry leaf". Total rot. Ramanujam's talent was discovered not by any Indian, but by Hardy and Littlewood, two English mathematicians. What Ajit exhibits is called xenophobia, an irrational fear of everything foreign, in support of which he tries to marshal all this misinformation. The blog just teaches us what a lot of nonsense makes its rounds on the internet. One has got to be very,very careful.