E.V.Ramasamy(Periyaar)

E.V Ramasamy (Periyaar) was not an avatar of god. He is just a normal human as each one of us and it is childish to expect him to be perfect in everything. 

He preached rationalism and self-respect. He attacked the widely held religious beliefs which is bound to hurt the sentiments of followers of many religions. He believed in Aryan-invasion theory and tried for a separate country "Dravidistan". 

People accuse him for offending the sentiments of hindus by burning (Lord) Ram's effigies. The very same people celebrate "hatred" every year in Ramaleela by burning huge effigies of Ravan and Kumbhakarna.

People accuse him for sowing seeds of secesssion. Yes, he did. Just like Jinnah tried for a separate pakistan, Periyar tried for a separate Dravidistan. Because he feared that Britishers would be replaced by north-Indians and the south-Indians would still remain without political and economic freedom. Ambedkar went to Britishers to ask for separate electorate for dalits. Ambedkar believed that Upper caste hindus would never give 'social justice' to dalits. Does that mean Ambedkar was a British Agent?? 

Periyar also organized protests against imposition of hindi way back in 1937.

People accuse periyar for spreading hatred against brahmins. He questioned why brahmins who constitute just 3% of the population occupy 70% of the government posts in madras presidency. He attacked the caste system, the benefits of which the upper castes were enjoying. He attacked the rituals and brought self-respect marriage which does not have brahmin priests and other hindu rituals.

Attacking a century old social-system is bound to create tensions. When social change happens, vested interests groups will try to resist the change and preserve the dominance. 

If you have problems with the ideology of periyaar, question the ideology and prove in what way it is wrong. Don't find faults in him like he married a young woman, attacked brahmins etc. As I said before, he is just a normal human and not a 'perfect' god.

P.S: I am not a follower of periyar and I dont subscribe to all his views. 

S.C.Bose, Ambedkar and RSS

There has been increased attempts to own up leaders who stood against congress. The leaders now are Subhash Chandra Bose and Ambedkar. 

Ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary falls on April 14th. His views are being distorted and quoted out of context to an extent that a RSS spokesperson claimed Ambedkar was the first supporter of "Ghar wapasi"!!!

Next is the sudden love for Subhash Chandra bose and the hue and cry being raised over Bose relatives being spied. 

What were the ideas these leaders stood for?? Do they have anything in common with RSS Ideology??

S.C. Bose was ready to forge alliance with Nazis and Japan during WW2 only to counter the british. He considered every human as equal and had no belief in racial policies (or even the aryan link theory between India and Germanic-Europe which even gandhi had once appealed to it). But M.S. Gowalkar admired hitler's ideology of Racial purity. Gowalkar considered hindu race and culture as superior in the Indian sub continent(Hindus-tan) and  asked the non-hindus to embrace hinduism or live as foreigners without any rights. 

Bose described himself as "left-wing nationalist" in his book 'The Indian struggle' while RSS is a right-wing nationalist orgn.

Ambedkar in his book 'annihilation of caste' attacked Hinduism directly and claimed that the very foundation of caste system has to be attacked to end it. He led mass conversion of dalits to Buddhism. When he met Gandhi in 1931 he criticised Gandhi's struggle for homeland by his famous remark "Gandhiji. I have no homeland. No untouchable worth the name will be proud of this land". 
He never considered Hinduism as a home(ghar) of dalits and his ideology is completely antagonistic to Ghar Wapasi...

In the efforts to trumpet support and own up leaders who stood up against Nehru and Gandhi, I think the RSS will next distort history and start supporting the Britishers. 

Language policy of Singapore

As a matter of fact, Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, who passed away recently, made 4 languages as Official Languages of Singapore-English, Tamil, Malay, Mandarin. This means every single document published by the government would be in all the 4 languages.

Singapore has a bilingual education policy where medium of instruction is English and the other language being the student's mother tongue.

This policy also has its own minor flaws. But it was the best available one to accommodate the interests of the Diverse groups.

The majority linguistic group was intelligent enough to understand that English could not be done away and they also didn't impose their own language on the minority linguistic groups. The majority linguistic group also didnt claim that identity of singapore is their language only.

Singapore was ruled by the British and got later separated from Malaysia. But they never insisted that English and Malay languages must be thrown away from their country.

Singapore is an example of how a nation can progress, (only) if diversity is accepted and accomodated

P.S.This post is just a fact which has been posted because Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away. It has nothing to do with any other language policy followed by any other country in the Solar System.

Churchill's prophecy

"If Indians won dominion status, A triumphant brahmin oligarchy would drive out the moslem minority and grind the untouchables into the dust. Gandhi's wealthy backers would extract their fortunes from the sweat of the poor; graft and corruption would become the rule of the day......"

These are the words of Winston Churchill in 1931 when Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed and Irwin had accepted dominion status in principle.


Looking at events like Hashimpura massacre, Bathani Tola massacre, Laxmanpur Bathe massacre and the way judicial system failed to punish the perpetrators, I feel that churchill was right to a certain extent. The triumphant brahmin oligarchy is not there. Instead we have casteism and religious intolerance. We also have the triumphant dominant caste hindus in every region, in every arm of bueraucracy and politics who will keep proving that Churchill was indeed right.

India's Daughter

I remember one politician whose name starts with 'M' and ends with 'Singh' remarking that "Boys make mistakes and so rapists should not be hanged".

An Interesting coincidence is that a rape convict whose name is 'Mukesh Singh' justifies his crime in a similar tone.

The existence of people with mentality of 'Mr.Singh' in politics itself shows that they merely reflect the mentality of our society.

In the continuum of 'patriarchy' on one extreme and 'Equality' on the other extreme, some of us are placed close to patriarchy while some are close to equality. We are in fact part of, and also responsible for every crime which happen against women.

Dowry would have ended long back if we had stopped demanding it atleast after a prohibition law was enacted. Female foetuses would not have been aborted without the connivance of doctors and parents. Secret cam videos would not have gone viral without we sharing them in Whatsapp. Serials and movies glorifying violence against women and commodifying women would not be telecast unless we enjoy watching it. Dark-skinned women would not be ridiculed in fairness cream ads if our families don't prefer for fair-skinned bride. Khap panchayats would not have been dictating the time at which women should venture out and their dress code without our approval. Religious leaders would not have been distinguishing between rural and urban rapes without our support they enjoy.

We are completely okay when a religious leader or a politician echoes our patriarchal views. But we become hysterical when a rape convict echoes the similar views!!!

The documentary 'India's Daughter' clearly shows that crime against women is a social problem, and it is the mindset of the society which is the reason for such crimes. Stringent laws alone cannot stop such crimes, a change in the mindset among us(men as well as women) is what is needed.

Instant Justice and Anarchy

The behaviour of AAP MLAs in Burari police station shows the mindset of instant justice has not changed among these people.

A member of legislative assembly is not a part of the 'Executive' and has no right to give directions to police. Then what was the reason for these MLAs to go to a police station at first place for a kidnapping case?

It reminds me of the incident last year involving the law minister Somnath Bharti where he was on the spot directing the police without understanding the role demarcation between a Political Executive and Permanent Executive(the bueraucracy)

There is a procedure('Rule of Law') by which the police or for that matter anyone in Bureaucracy has to act. 

The mentality of this crowd to deliver instant justice has not changed at all. During the Anti-corruption movement Mr. Anna hazare , touting himself as a Gandhian asked for death penalty for the corrupt, and poked his nose into the legislature by demanding his nominees be present in the committee drafting lokpal bill. That was the first instance in Indian political history where persons not elected by the voters got involved in legislating business, thereby disrespecting the established procedures.
There is no doubt that the descendants of such a movement too have this same mentality.

It is high time that we realise subverting democratic institutions and established procedures will bring more harm than good to the society. Agreed, that the existing institutions and procedures have drawbacks. The way ahead is to reform them and not to subvert them. 

Two auctions

Two auctions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is for the coal blocks. The allocation done by the then UPA government was cancelled last year and SC ordered to auction them. The auction is going on and the bidding amounts proves that the coal blocks were indeed allocated at under rates. So the revenue loss for the exchequer is about to get compensated after the auctions are over.

The next auction is for designer coat suit with name printed worth 10 lakhs. The fund collected through auction is going to be invested to clean ganga. 
Does the ends justify the means?? With 75% of countrymen barely sustaining themselves with $2 per day, was it necessary for the executive head of such a country to wear such an expensive suit at first place. 

If auctioning the suit and investing the amount to clean ganga will purify the sins, then auctioning the coal blocks and compensating the exchequer too must absolve one of the crime committed. Can a theft or corruption be undone just by recovering the assets without any other punishment?? Doesn't make any sense at all.