"One-stop shop" for the TOTAL transformation of India

Category: Uncategorized

HC Gupta (IAS 1971 RR, UP cadre) and the Coal Block scam – preliminary analysis #2

A number of people who know HC Gupta have come out in his support. I’m not passing any judgement at this stage, but just noting some of the comments I’ve come across.

  1. MY BATCHMATES

My batchmates who know him (and I’m only talking about those whose views I trust) vouch for his integrity.

2. OTHERS

“Mr Gupta is known across the state for being a humble and an upright official. The fact that he has chosen to go behind bars and not even take legal recourse for lack of funds has pained us immensely and we are trying to help him in as many ways as we can,” a principal secretary of Uttar Pradesh told IANS. [Source]

The officials pointed out that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there was no watertight case against Mr Gupta, as there was neither intent nor a money trail. “We believe he did what is alleged to have done at the beck and call of the then PMO and he is not involved in the whole issue anyhow,” said a senior bureaucrat, not wishing to be named.  [Source]

Former Coal Secretary H C Gupta, an accused in several coal scam cases and presently out on bail, has been known among his colleagues, subordinates, and batchmates as a clean and studious civil servants who obeyed the orders of his political boss and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It’s a travesty of justice that for doing what he was obligated to do as a civil servant, he has been hauled up in as many as 20 cases [Source]

“this fine bureaucrat, whom everyone unhesitatingly certifies to be “the most honest officer” of his generation” [Source]

IAS officers back ex-coal secy H C Gupta, to approach PM Modi [Source]

(Further: ‘Coalgate’: corruption, an honest bureaucrat and a deeper malaise in India)

MY VIEWS

Once again, I’m not putting out my own views till I understand this case better. I’ve asked the mining industry to advise me, as well. I may add, that prima facie, HC Gupta appears to be an honest officer.

On the policy matter, though, it is my view that the Supreme Court went overboard (and incorrectly) in their intervention into coal block allocation.

I’ve already posted about this issue (see this: Modi government’s disastrous mining policy for India. Article: Coal block auctions: A Himalayan blunder?)

And my views on Modi’s mining policy are clear: Fundamental design flaws in the Modi government’s mining ordinance

This does NOT mean I’m absolving HC Gupta of wrong doing (e.g. he may have been honest himself – much like Manmohan Singh is personally honest – but may have agreed to do the biddings of political masters whose only goal is to make money; I consider that corruption as well – even though that may not be precisely covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act).

All I’m saying is that this matter needs careful consideration of policy aspects, as well as implementation aspects. The CBI is (as is the Supremet Court) sorely ill-equipped to evaluate the policy aspects involved.

HOW POLITICIANS MAKE MONEY

Let me elaborate how politicians actually make money. It is never the case that they make money by directly passing written orders in favour of the person who is going to bribe them. When Hiteswar Saikia asked me (when I was Director, Rural Development Assam) to give a cement contract to a particular private company, he wanted me to make all kinds of written excuses in the file to not give the contract to the lowest bidder. It would then appear that I took the decision, not Saikia. I would not get any money (since I never took any corrupt money) but Saikia would get the money and would be exempt from any direct trail to him.

I was kicked out of my job by Saikia the moment I awarded the cement contract to the lowest bidder (Cement Corporation of India).

But here’s the deal: I’d rather be kicked out and do nothing (while in the IAS) than sign things on behalf of corrupt politicians.

It is NOT good enough to not take money for oneself. Is one doing one’s job honestly? That is the question.

In the case of HC Gupta, that’s still an open question. He may not be culpable under the PC Act, but he may still be guilty of corruption in my broader definition of corruption.

Can those who know Mr HC Gupta confirm that he NEVER violated the ideals of integrity in order to appease any politician? Can he be asked to say so?

Continue Reading

We must support Constitutional, not sectarian nationalism, says SBP President, Vishal Singh

SBP’s press release here.

National Press Release – to be released across India

4 April 2016 – for immediate release

Mr Vishal Singh, President of the Swarna Bharat Party, said that India needs Constitutional nationalism, not sectarian nationalism of the kind that some saffron groups, supported by India’s ruling party, are attempting to forcefully impose on the country.

While a nation needs a narrative, a sense of history, India is perhaps the world’s oldest melting pot and has a multiplicity of such narratives. Expecting everyone to adopt a common shared history is an illusion. “Unity in diversity” is the correct language for a multitudinous nation like India.

Further, India is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic state. Our Constitution does not ask us to imagine the nation in the form of a human being, god or goddess. People are free to chant Vande Mataram or Bharat Mata ki jai if they wish, but no one has the right to mandate such slogans. Mr Singh noted that many SBP members are happy to chant such slogans, but this is a matter of their personal choice.

There is a vast difference between well-considered patriotism and rabid, divisive nationalism. SBP condemns the atmosphere of euphoric sectarian nationalism created by saffron groups in which rowdies are starting to beat up people for not chanting slogans.

In our Constitution, the individual is sovereign. SBP opposes fascist approaches that restrict individual liberty.  Compulsion attacks the very basis of nationhood. Attempting to force a particular worldview upon the vast nation of India has already backfired once, leading to India’s partition. Aggressive saffron nationalism is causing new and dangerous fissures.

Mr Singh said that BJP, like all other Indian political parties, has sworn to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. How can it justify its support for divisive saffron groups? He also wondered whether the BJP is raising the bogey of sectarian nationalism to draw attention away from its poor performance.

Mr Singh expressed regret that the liberal values underpinning our Constitution are being eroded at a time when India needs them most in order to develop into a modern nation. He noted, for example, how the Delhi High Court made unwarranted comments on nationalism recently in a bail case relating to Kanhaiya Kumar, thus losing sight of its Constitutional obligations.

SBP supports Constitutional nationalism in which patriotism is a well-considered rational response to the nation’s unrelenting commitment to reason and liberty. The intrusion of compulsion into such matters can only take weaken India. Let all flowers bloom in the great garden of India.

End

Notes for Editors

SBP is India’s only liberal party, committed to defending liberty and promoting prosperity.

Contacts:

Sanjay Sonawani (Pune), Spokesperson, +91 9860991205

Vishal Singh, President (Bengaluru), President, +91 9920613669

Madhusudhan K. (Hyderabad), Joint Secretary, +91  9885496473

Continue Reading

God cannot be schizophrenic. That the Quran is schizophrenic further confirms it is a work of fiction.

My FB  comment:

God must be schizophrenic. Not!
Clearly Mohammed was.

Mohammed-schizophrenic

It is self-evident that Islam is (like ALL other religions) a cult centered around the fiction created by a human being (in this case, Mohammed).

Not only is the Quran full of scientific fallacies and amazing levels of ignorance, it is extremely schizophrenic. In some places the Quran exhorts people towards liberal ideas, such as Quran 2:256. In many other places, however, the Quran asks people to kill or otherwise humiliate those who don’t believe in the Allah of the Quran.

Now, one thing we do know. We know that God (if he/she/it exists) is NOT schizophrenic. Cannot be schizophenic. So this is further proof (apart from the innumerable falsehoods in the document) that the Quran is man-made.

I’d recommend that Muslims carefully review the facts and make up their own mind. To be good and to be truthful, one doesn’t need religion, leave alone an ultra-schizophrenic and ignorant “religion” like Islam.

Regardless, let’s all be very clear: Islam is NOT a “religion of peace”.

Continue Reading

Perhaps the best introductory lectures on Indo-European languages: by John McWhorter

I don't know what's happened to me. I was not particularly interested in languages or ancient Indian history, but since I discovered the debate re: AIT/OIT and began to understand that European languages are very similar to Indian ones, a number of questions have arisen that I am curious about. Curiosity has set in, and I must keep exploring. That's why I am reading/ learning about linguistics in my spare time.

I chanced upon these talks which are extremely well-presented. These two lectures (lectures 8 and 9) are part of a 36 lecture series by Dr. John McWhorter, 'one of America's leading linguists and a frequent commentator on network television and National Public Radio'.

These two (out of 36) lectures relate to Indo-European languages. Enjoy. 


Continue Reading

Entering into a debate with a Vedic scholar re: OIT theory of Sanskrit/ Rig Veda #5

Around four days ago, I received this fifth installment from Kalicharan Tuvij. I find some assertions (e.g. in red, below) that I don't agree with. Much is interesting but not directly relevant to the issue I'm looking into: the OIT.

Publishing this for the record.

​SS ji,

Namaste.

You said,

"Well, this information (re: Parsuram, Sudras, etc.) is rather interesting and I'm sure will interest a lot of people."

No sir, this – or anything else – will NOT interest a lot of people. Tolerance for truth is not among the highest in our country, where playing "fighting" into each other is a profitable business ensuring returns even without investment.

Our middle class being a consumer, and not producer, need to be told or taught how to do/ use this or that; sadly, they are completely dysfunctional in every other way.

When RV was redacted (text form) for the first time, the society (except our "beggar-bhaktas", and "village-Hindus") was already dysfunctional. Because it is very clear that those who did the documentation, or did the subsequent commentaries (Yaska, Sayana, even Panini, etc), did not have any clue on what the text meant.

This was because a civilisation had just died a natural death (widely understood under "yuga-cycle"; yeah US will also go, someday:-)), and RV as a written text was an attempt to salvage some of that.

The oral tradition was, therefore, continuing since even before that: prAkrita and Sanskrit existed side by side- none being older or younger to the other. RV is in Vedic Sanskrit, so we don't have any records of Prakrit from that period (other than the substratum in RV).

Indus seal writings have not been deciphered, and will never be, because we don't have Prakrit from that period. It is also a false framework to compare Sanskrit with other IE languages, because Sanskrit IS NOT A NATURAL LANGUAGE, Prakrit is. But we don't have any Prakrit texts from that time to compare with, since Sanskrit was the medium of formal communication; Prakrit was not even one language – it was a guild of  a thousand languages.

Ultimately, Sanskrit is as old as the RV ideas. Using the RV ideas, Prakrit was modified, unified, rationalised, and refined to create Sanskrit. Sanskrit, on the other hand, since then, continued to influence Prakrit as well.

Philology is therefore successful when Russian region is shown to be the main genesis of European IE, but fails when it is taken out of context to include Vedic Sanskrit into its application on the Eastern IE.

One doesn't have to be particularly bright to see that Sanskrit has a lot of innovations (sound resolutions, rules inventing, roots arithmetic, and so on), but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit came later: because, as I said, Sanskrit was coexisting with Prakrit. Sanskrit was also a language designed to be an efficient carrier of innovations, its root system is an important tool to support that. PANini didn't create Sanskrit — everyone knows that — he didn't create inflection, roots, any of that. The original Sanskrit is known as "Aindra Sanskrit".

Sanskrit was meant to be the ONE LANGUAGE, as against the many of Prakrit. Sanskrit was meant to be the formal pan-bhArata lingo, so the insistence that there is only one Indian IE, that is Sanskrit, is in the end nothing but an obfuscation.

The native names of places and rivers (small or big) in Punjab, Haryana etc are known to be IE. This is because they are from various Prakrit's, which were all IE's.

Linguistically speaking, and in every other sense as well, India can be modelled as an inverted triangle: the three vertices being — at the bottom TamilNadu-Kerala, at the left upper Punjab-Haryana, and at the right upper Bihar-Jharkhand.

This is the three dimensional "vector" model, where all other regions of bhArata are seen as different sums of these three pure, "basis" vectors.

Among these three, the bottom vertex is the "first among the equals". The RV ideas, even though co-eval, were preceded a bit by the South. Remember, the timelines I am talking here could be tens of thousands of years.

So, even though the three "centres" were the independent contributors to the competencies, these still interacted with each other and kept abreast, so the content remained the same.

Under this triangle model, the IE story is only the third of the whole story.

The Easterners are less bragging than the Westerners, and that is I guess why the Japanese are not claiming a JIT (Japanese Invasion Theory) explaining their connections with the Bengalis or others on the East :-)

To the East, it is not the RV or Sanskrit that played that role: it was primarily the Ramayana culture. Not different languages, just different Ramayana's. Not much military enforcement was required either. Yet, the Ramayana ideas are at the deepest level the same as the RV ideas, even though there is a lot of difference in their respective forms.

So, yes, ideas went outside both from the East and the West of India.  

We don't believe in creationist theories of "Aryans" (which nobody, I admit, "believes on paper", either, nowadays. Well, good for them), but the thing is, a lot of evolution and enrichment took place in India which was specially located for this purpose (spent a lot of time even floating there in the sea as an island).

There is a "West", and there is an "East", and we are right there in the Center. For clearly, "east" doesn't mean that "the sun REALLY rises there", neither does "west" mean that "the sun REALLY sets there". (I have read K.Elst earlier say something along this line).

There are many deeper things about these world-views and models, but I will not allow myself to speak more on this; however, the point is, this is the framework (already existing in our native sources) I am suggesting that is relevant here, and admits of all facts.

The liberal narrative demands that various models should be given opportunity to compete with each other. There is no middle path.

Continue Reading