Tuesday, 21 April 2015

To those who wanted an ' Islamic ' state
This is the inevitable barabaric  result of falling into the trap of the wicked British, and demanding and setting up an 'Islamic' state.. Only secularism will work in this sub continent of such diversity, and lead us to prosperity.
 Pakistan, that fake, artificial entity ( I refuse to call it a country ) must be abolished and reunited with India under a strong secular  government which does not tolerate religious extremism and bigotry of any kind and crushes it with an iron hand, and works genuinely for the welfare and prosperity of our people.

http://news.yahoo.com/husband-sets-wife-fire-pakistan-honour-killing-100532923.html

Monday, 20 April 2015

The British stooge Tagore and the National Anthem
There is a controversy as to whether the Indian National Anthem 'Jana Gana Mana ' was written by Rabindra Nath Tagore ( see my blogs ' Tagore ' and ' Tagore and Sharad Chandra ' on justicekatju.blogspot.in ) in praise of God, or as sycophancy in praise of the British King George the Fifth.
In my opinion the evidence is strongly in favour of the second view.
To explain, let me first quote the Engish translation of the song :

" Victory to thee, O ruler of the minds of the people,
O Dispenser of India's destiny.
Thy name rouses the hearts of Punjab, Sindh,
Gujarat and Maratha,
Of the Dravida, Odisha and Bengal;
It echoes in the hills of the Vindhyas and Himalayas,
mingles in the music of Yamuna and Ganges and is
chanted by the waves of the Indian Sea.
We get up with your blessed name on our lips
We pray for your auspicious blessings
Thou dispenser of India's destiny.
Victory, victory, victory to thee."

Now a few things must be noted about this song :
1.The song was composed at precisely the time of the visit of the British King George the Fifth and Queen Mary in December, 1911
2.The poem does not indicate any love for the Motherland.
3. The ' Adhinayak ' ( Lord or Ruler ) is being hailed. Who was the ruler of India in 1911 ? It  was the British, headed by their King-Emperor.
4. Who was the ' Bharat Bhagya Vidhata ' ( dispenser of India's destiny) at that time ? It was none but the British , since they were ruling India in 1911.
5.The song was sung for the first time in India on the second day of the Calcutta Conference of the Congress Party in December 1911. This Conference was held specially to give a loyal welcome to King George the Fifth, and to thank him for annulling the Partition of Bengal in 1905.
6. The agenda of the second day of the Calcutta Conference , in which the song was sung, was specially reserved for giving a loyal welcome to George the Fifth, and a resolution was adopted unanimously that day welcoming and expressing loyalty to the Emperor and Empress.
7. It was only as late as in 1937, when he wanted to show himself as a patriot, that Tagore denied that he had written the song to honour the British King
    The above facts almost conclusively prove that ' Jana Gana Mana ' was composed and sung as an act of sycophancy to the British King.
   And we have proudly adopted this song as our national anthem !
 Jai Ho !
An ocean of idiots
Those Hindus who regard cow as our mother are as big idiots as those Muslims who support burqa ( hijab ). When it comes to behaving like idiots I see little difference between Hindus and Muslims.
Narayan Narayan !
Baba and the Fakirs
A story by Voltaire ( written in 1750 )

When I was in the city of Benares on the banks of the Ganges,  the ancient land of the Brahmans, I strove to learn. I understood Hindi fairly well. I listened much and noted everything. I was staying with my friend Om. He was a Brahman, the worthiest man I have ever known.
 One day we went together to a temple. There we saw several holy men. As is well known, they have a learned language, Sanskrit , in which is written a sacred book they call the Veda.
 I passed in front of a holy man who was reading this book.
" O wretched infidel " he cried " You have made me forget the number of vowels I was counting. Because of that my soul will go into a rabbit's body when I die, instead of going into a parrot's, as I had every reason to hope it would "
  I gave him a rupee to console him.
A few steps from there I had the misfortune to sneeze, which awakened a yogi who was in samadhi.
" Where am I ? " he cried out. " What a calamity ! I can no longer see the end of my nose. The celestial light has disappeared."
" If I am the cause ", I said to him " of your not being able to see the end of your nose, here is a rupee to repair the harm. Now go back to your celestial light ".
 My friend Om then took me to the cell of the most famous of the holy men, whose name was Baba. He was naked as a monkey, and around his neck had a chain that weighed over sixty pounds. He was sitting on a chair which had nails penetrating into his buttocks. Many women came to consult him. He was the oracle of every family, and enjoyed a very great reputation.
 Om had a long talk with him.
" Do you believe swamiji " Om said to him " that after seven lives and seven transmigrations of my soul I may reach the abode of Brahma ? "
 " That depends on how you live " said Baba.
 " I strive " said Om " to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good father, and a good friend. I give money to the poor, and I maintain peace among my neighbours "
" Do you sometimes put nails in your arse ? " asked Baba.
" Never, swamiji " replied Om.
" I am sorry, but then you will certainly never reach the abode of Brahma " said Baba

Sunday, 19 April 2015

Who ordered Incitatus to turn a Nelson's eye ?
During the UPA government there were numerous scams of not crores but lacs of crores of rupees ( not millions but billions of dollars ). Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister then. If he was not misappropriating these huge sums ( because he was said to be an honest man ) then he  was obviously deliberately turning a Nelson's eye to the scams. It was only because of PILs and orders of the Supreme Court that the Indian public came to know of this massive fraud and corruption.
The legitimate question then arises : on whose instructions was this human Incitatus deliberately turning a blind eye to these scams ? And who was pocketing all this money ( obviously stacked in some secret foreign bank accounts ) ? The Indian public has a right to know the answers  to these questions
The human Incitatus
It is said that the Roman Emperor Caligula ( who ruled from 37 to 41 A.D.) made his favourite horse Incitatus a consul ( the highest office in the Roman Empire, after the Emperor ), and that this horse was 'attended' to by servants, and it invited 'dignitaries' to dinner.
 Similarly, Sonia Gandhi made Manmohan Singh, a man who had never won a Lok Sabha election in his life, the Prime Minister of India, and this human Incitatus loyally obeyed whatever instructions he got from 10 Janpath

Saturday, 18 April 2015

Following the Gita


From Columbus, Ohio, where I am presently, I yesterday telephoned a lawyer friend of mine in Allahabad, my home town. He told me that most people in Allahabad were against me because of my statements about eating beef, Gandhi, etc

 I told him I am not a popularity seeker. I have often been isolated and viciously attacked and abused in the past, but that does not bother me.

 Lord Krishna's adjuration to Arjuna in the Gita has been my guiding principle in life. One should do his duty irrespective of the consequences.

 So I will do my duty to my country even if I am all alone, and even if I am abused and villified.
And at this critical juncture of India's history my duty is to tell Indians that if they wish to progress and prosper they must give up backward, feudal and unscientific ideas and take to the path of reason and science---the path shown by our great ancestors, Aryabhatta and Brahmagupta, Sushrut and Charak, Panini and Patanjali, Ramanujan and Raman.

Friday, 17 April 2015

Kashmiris


Kashmiris will have to keep suffering because many of them foolishly kept demanding separation from India, which will never be granted, instead of demanding reunification of India and Pakistan under a secular government which does not tolerate religious extremism of any kind, whether Hindu or Muslim, as I repeatedly advised.
 Since good advice has not worked, now only bitter experience will work. Sad, but true

Gandhi

I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent and a cunning hypocrite who did great harm to India. If that amounts to a criminal offence I am prepared to go to jail, but I will not apologize.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Artist-cannot-use-abusive-language-for-icons-like-Gandhi-Supreme-Court/articleshow/46951509.cms

Chamars


Chamar is a large caste among the Scheduled Castes in North India.
The word ' chamar ' comes from the word ' chamda ' ( चमड़ा ) i,e, leather. Chamars were those who did leather work i.e. making shoes, leather bags,etc in feudal society.

 As i mentioned in my blog 'Caste System' ( see justicekatju.blogspot.in ), though caste in India appears to have originally had a racial origin ( the word 'varna' literally means colour ), subsequently caste system developed into the feudal, occupational division of labour in feudal society. In other .words, every vocation,e.g. potter ( kumhar ), carpenter ( badhai ), iron smith ( lohar ), barber ( nai ), etc became a caste.. So leather workers also became a caste called 'chamar'.

  Upto the coming of the British in the 18th century, chamars were a respectable caste because chamars earned their livelihood, and in fact were indispensable, in feudal society.

 It was after the British conquered India in the 18th and early 19th centuries and destroyed the massive handicraft industry in India, thus making tens of millions of Indians unemployed and driven to destitution, beggary, crime and starvation, ( see my blog ' Dinner at the German Embassy' ) that chamars, along with many other castes, were driven down the social ladder, because they lost their livelihood as their hand made products were  driven out of the market. by factory products e.g. Bata shoes. When a person becomes unemployed and cannot earn his livelihood he becomes indigent and goes down the social ladder, and is looked down upon. And this is what happened to chamars.

 In my decision in the Supreme Court ( in a bench along with Justice Alatamas Kabir ) in Swaran Singh vs. State through Standing Counsel ( 2008 ) I traced the history of chamars and observed :

  "  The question in this case is whether calling a person `Chamar' amounts to intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste.

 It is true that Chamar is the name of a caste among Hindus who were traditionally persons who made leather goods by handicraft [vide the People of India by Watson Kaye, the Tribes & Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh by W.Crooke, The Chamars of Uttar Pradesh by A.B Mukerji, The Chamar Artisans by Satish Kumar Sharma, The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western India by W. Crooke etc.]. The word `chamar' is derived from the Hindi word `chamda' which means leather.
Before the coming of the British into India, the Chamars were a stable socio-economic group who were engaged in manufacturing leather goods by handicraft. As is well-known, feudal society was characterized by the feudal occupational division of labour in society. In other words, every vocation or occupation in India became a caste e.g. Dhobi (washerman), Badhai (carpenter), Lohar (blacksmith), Kumbhar (potter) etc. The same was the position in other countries also during feudal times. Thus, even now many Britishers have the surname Baker, Butcher, Taylor, Smith, Carpenter, Gardener, Mason, Turner, etc. which shows that their ancestors belonged to these professions.

It is estimated that before the coming of the British into India about 40% of the population of India was engaged in industry while the rest of the population was engaged in agriculture. This industry was no doubt handicraft industry, and not mill industry. Nevertheless, there was a very high level production of goods in India by these handicraft industries before the coming of the British, and many of these goods were exported often up to Europe, the Middle East, China, etc. e.g. Dacca Muslin, Murshidabad silk, and other kind of textiles, etc.

A rough and ready test of the level of economic development of a country is to find out how much percentage of the population is engaged in industry, and how much in agriculture. The greater the percentage of population in industry and lesser in agriculture the more prosperous the country. Thus, the U.S.A., the most prosperous country in the world today has only about 2 or 3% of its population in agriculture, while the rest is in industry or services.

India was a relatively prosperous country before the coming of the British because a high percentage of the people (which could be up to 40%) was engaged at that time in industry (though no doubt this was handicraft industry, not mill industry). Thus, Lord Clive around 1757 (when the battle of Plassey was fought) described Murshidabad (which was then the capital of Bengal) as a city more prosperous than London, vide `Glimpses of World History' by Jawaharlal Nehru (Third Impression p.416, chapter entitled `The Indian Artisan goes to the wall').

When the British conquered India they introduced the products of their mill industry into India, and exorbitantly raised the export duties on the Indian handicraft products. Thereby they practically destroyed the handicraft industry in India. The result was that by the end of the British rule hardly 10% or even less of the population of India was still in the handicraft industry, and the rest of those who were earlier engaged in the handicraft industry were made unemployed. In this way about 30% of the population of India who were employed in handicraft industry became unemployed, and were driven to starvation, destitution, beggary or crime (the thugs and `criminal' tribes were really these unemployed sections of society). As an English Governor General wrote in 1834, `the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India'

 In this connection it may be noted that in the revenue records in many states in our country one often finds recorded : `A son of B, caste lohar (smith), vocation agriculture'; or `C son of D, caste badhai (carpenter), vocation agriculture', or `E son of H, caste kumhar (potter), vocation agriculture', etc. This indicates that the ancestors of these persons were in those professions, but later they became unemployed as British mill industry destroyed their handicraft. Some people think that if the British had not come into India an indigenous mill industry would have developed in India, and India would have become an Industrial State by the 19th Century, like North America or Europe, but it is not necessary to go into this here.

 The Chamars also suffered terribly during this period. The British industries e.g. Bata almost completely destroyed the vocation of the Chamars, with the result that while they were a relatively respectable section of society before the coming of British rule (because they could earn their livelihood through manufacture of leather goods) subsequently they sank in the social ladder and went down to the lowest strata in society, because they lost their livelihood and became unemployed.
Today the word `Chamar' is often used by people belonging to the so-called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person `Chamar' today is nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word `Chamar' when used today is not normally used to denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone.

 It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act. Hence, while interpreting section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to take into account the popular meaning of the word `Chamar' which it has acquired by usage, and not the etymological meaning. If we go by the etymological meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the Act, and hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation.

 This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word `Chamar' when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the `Chamar' caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity - so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country united.

 In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste `Chamar' with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word `Chamar' will of course depend on the context in which it was used."

 This judgment was followed in Arumugam Serrvai vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2011 by a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of myself and Justice Gyansudha Misra, vide para 13 of the judgment ( see online ).