Violence, the necessary evil?

Sun Tzu

A couple was asked how they maintained peace in their household. The husband replied, "we clearly demarcate our respective scope of duties. My wife would handle the smaller issues like what to cook, where to get groceries, and how to balance the household budget." 

I, on the other hand, am left to deal with larger issues, such as peace agreements in Gaza, airport security, and the world's geopolitical strategies. In that way, we do not cross paths. There is peace within the family. 

My secondary school friends, mostly males, seem to have taken the cue from the couple mentioned above. In the WhatsApp group they share, they are quite fierce about condemning one side's perceived cruelty and justifying the other's right to defend themselves during discussions on unrest in the Middle East. Another member would respond by saying violence can never be justified. An eye for an eye would only leave the whole world blind. 

Another wise guy retorted that it is idiotic to subscribe to Jesus' idea of turning the other cheek. Many current commentators are quite certain that it was not Gandhi's passive resistance or satyagraha, which he began in 1907, that led to India’s independence in 1947. They argue that the Royal Indian Navy revolt in February 1946, sparked by the trial of captured Bose's Indian National Army (INA) prisoners of war in Delhi, was the real catalyst. The threat of thousands of sailors mutinying against the colonial authorities terrified the oppressors. Meanwhile, the Indians, left uninformed by the British media about resistance from locally recruited soldiers, suddenly became highly motivated.

Similarly, a select group of individuals in my WhatsApp group support the actions taken by the Palestinians against what they perceive as Israeli oppression. They justify Hamas's stance on 'teaching the Zionists a lesson'. They oppose turning the other cheek, preferring instead to strike the offending hand before it lands a second blow. The former might argue that doing so would make the whole world blind, not to mention the hardships it would cause. They often quote Sun Tzu, who said, 'In war, no one wins,' suggesting that wars should be avoided. In reality, Sun Tzu did not promote abstaining from war. Instead, he advocated using diplomacy, strategies, and intelligence—well before conflict arises—to prevent direct confrontation and bloodshed. 

Justifying Nathuram Godse's violent decision to kill Gandhi, a lifelong advocate of violence, he argued there is a moral duty to resist and overpower an enemy by force. Godse cited examples of Rama and his men fighting Ravana, as well as young Krishna overpowering the tyrant Kansa. History is filled with violence. For one era to end and another to begin, Nature marks it with violence; whether it is the Big Bang, the start of Kaliyuga, or even the extinction of the dinosaurs. 

In that manner, the discussion continued without reaching any conclusions. Everyone clung to the topic until it reached a lull. Then somebody would suddenly go off topic, and at that point, everyone would have another subject to discuss. 

And believe you me, my friends are all Jacks of All Trades who would never admit to being Masters of None. In conclusion, they have simply become very opinionated armchair geopolitical critics who could only stir up a storm in a teacup.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

The Iron Man of India

Sardar (1993)

Director: Ketan Mehta

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240879/

Sardar Vallabhai Patel is said to be the best Prime Minister India never had. Dubbed the Iron Man of India, a title given to him by Mountbatten, some believe he might have led India along a different path if he had been chosen as the first Prime Minister instead of Nehru.

It was 1946. World War II had just ended, leaving England to tend its wounds. It faced a huge bill to pay and had lost its dominance on the world stage. The sun had finally set on the British Empire. The Anglo-Saxon cousins across the Atlantic, the Americans, had come out on top, as shown by the Conference in Yalta. Managing the colonies had become an expensive undertaking. England had to cut its losses and relinquish control over the colonies. 

With that background, India had just formed its interim government. The Congress Party had recently won the elections. They were preparing to select the first Prime Minister of independent India. 

Maulana Azad, at that time, was the President of the Congress Party. He had been its leader since 1940. No elections were held since 1940 after the Party announced the 'Quit India' movement, and as a result, most, if not all, of its senior leaders were behind bars. Gandhi, as the senior member who commands profound respect from his members, expressed his displeasure with a leader seeking reelection. Azad withdrew his nomination for reelection as the President. 

Fifteen regional and state Congress committees were tasked with nominating their candidates. Twelve of these nominated Patel. Nehru got none, and the remaining three committees chose not to nominate anyone. 

Surprisingly, Gandhi vetoed their decision. He requested that Patel withdraw his candidacy and suggested the Cambridge-educated, modern-looking Nehru to become the Party President and Patel to be his Deputy. Being a 'respectful lieutenant' and showing his respect for Gandhi, Patel obliged. 

Gandhi believed the modern, forward-thinking Nehru would be a better choice than the traditional-thinking Patel. However, insiders suggest that it was probably Gandhi's fear that Nehru might cause trouble if he was not selected. The Congress might split, and the British could use that as an excuse to delay self-rule. 

Being the compassionate man Gandhi was towards the Muslim plight, he thought Patel, as the Prime Minister of India, would be harsh against Muslims. 

 

Nehru became the Prime Minister with Patel as his Deputy and Home Minister during the tumultuous times of newly independent India. With Pakistan being the albatross around India's neck and Patel and Nehru disagreeing on everything about the handling of Kashmir, it is a surprise how the Indian machinery remained intact. 

King Hari Singh initially aimed to remain independent, like Nepal and Bhutan. When Pakistani agents infiltrated Kashmir, Hari Singh abdicated to Jammu. He consented to accession to India. Nehru, contrary to Patel's suggestion, called in the United Nations and advocated for a plebiscite. Patel had wanted the Indian Army to march in. The result of this approach led to repeated unrest, two subsequent wars, and the latest confrontation. 

Junagadh, a princely state with a Hindu majority and no shared border with Pakistan, had a Muslim ruler determined to join Pakistan. His subjects revolted against him, and he abdicated in favour of Pakistan. With India's support, Junagadh was integrated into the State of Gujarat. 

Another state, quite distant from Pakistan, that wished to join the dominion was the landlocked state of Hyderabad. It was surrounded by regions under India's control. The Nizam, once the wealthiest man in the world, also ruled over a Hindu majority. Using his immense wealth, he managed to procure arms from Europe through British arms dealers, pre-Partition. The Nizam had deployed a paramilitary group, the Razakars, led by Qasim Razvi, to terrorise Hindu peasants into submission. Meanwhile, the Communists were also attempting to benefit from the situation. Patel, citing Nehru's departure as an excuse, used the nation's machinery to launch police action to forcibly annexe Hyderabad into the union.

Nehru and Patel's differences were challenged by a series of resignation letters, but they were softened by Gandhi's persuasion. Gandhi's assassination compelled these two leaders to collaborate until Patel's death.

 

In recognition of his contributions to India's political integration, the Statue of Unity, the tallest statue in the world, was erected in Gujarat.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Watch this space...

Something is brewing in a small village called Keezhadi in the Sivagangai district near Madurai. As early as 2015, the Archaeological Society of India has been excavating ancient artefacts just about 15 metres below the surface. The team leader, Amarnath Ramakrishna, had prepared a 279-page report on his findings. He reported that his team's discoveries could alter the civilisational history of India. Amarnath was instructed to modify his report, and he was subsequently transferred abruptly within a short period. The State Archaeological Department then took over further exploration of the area.

Since the State took over the management of this area, the surrounding regions have experienced a remarkable transformation. An impressive museum has been built to showcase the finds, which include terracotta figurines, pots, and coins. The interesting aspect of the pots is that they are inscribed with Tamil-Brahmi lettering. Carbon dating has determined that the inscriptions on the vessels could be as old as 580 BCE.

The intriguing aspect is that artefacts discovered in Harappa, which also featured the Brahmi script, were dated to around 500 BCE only. This creates significant confusion in the timeline of Indian civilisation. The puzzling thing about the layout of the buildings found in Keezhadi is that it resembles that of Harappa. Similarly, there is a conspicuous absence of structures that could indicate places of worship or royalty.

In our history lessons, we learned that the first urban settlements with advanced townships, organised housing, irrigation, sanitation, and urban living began in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Afterwards, the people migrated, and the Aryan Migration theory was proposed.

In the 21st century, the Aryan Migration theory was challenged. Later, mitochondrial DNA studies of populations around that region suggest the 'Out of India' migration pattern. With this new idea, are historians suggesting that urban living actually started in the southern part of the continent? Or were there many pockets of civilisation across the land called Bharat? What is the significance of both the Indus civilisation and the Keezhadi findings, both of which contain Brahmi script? The Harappan scripts were previously reported as undecipherable.

The whole subject is highly politicised. The State government, whose entire existence is carved under the ideology that the southern part of the Indian subcontinent is culturally and ethnically different from the rest of India, has a vested interest in that whole exercise. The Central government, from the North, on the other hand, is contended to be at the heart of the cradle of Indian civilisation.

Historians largely agree that further studies are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn from their latest findings in Keezhadi.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.profitableratecpm.com/eavw6i1vus?key=563e27a9bff24095551c69d633759b79

The philosophical king who never was!

The Emperor Who Never Was
Dara Shukoh in Mughal India
Author: Supriya Gandhi

Genghis Khan (and Timur, who followed suit later) likely established the tradition of not designating a successor. He believed that the issue of ascension should remain open. It was anticipated that the most capable individual, able to vanquish rivals for the throne, would emerge as the strongest ruler and govern the Empire more effectively. It was irrelevant if brothers, stepbrothers, widows, and uncles fought against one another; politics took precedence over emotions. Primogeniture, the right of succession granted to the firstborn, as seen in feudal rule, is noticeably absent in the Mughal Empire.

Naturally, the Mughals, whose ancestry arose from these barbaric races, continued that tradition. After Babur, animosities among siblings to usurp the corridor of power were frequent occurrences. Factions formed, with one parent siding with a particular son or grandson. Moreover, emperors had multiple wives. Shah Jahan, known as Kurram before seizing the throne, faced such a situation. Khusrau, Kurram's elder brother, had a long-standing battle with their father, Jahangir, before Jahangir blinded him. After becoming emperor, one of the actions he took was to execute his stepmother, Nur Jahan, and his half-brother Shahar, among others. Such was the brutal process of succession. During the later part of his reign, Jahangir was half the man he once was. Long-term use of opiates and alcohol had taken a toll on his health. Nur Jahan effectively took over the realm.

We have all read about Aurangzeb and his antics during his lengthy reign as one of the last emperors of the Mughal Dynasty. However, we rarely hear of his elder brother and half-brother, Dara Shikoh.

Dara Shikoh was Shah Jahan's third child and his firstborn son. Jahanara, Shah Jahan's first child, grew up as Dara's confidante, seeking wisdom. She was erudite, never married, and followed the path of spirituality. Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal had four sons: Dara Shikoh, Shah Shuja, Aurangzeb, and Murad Baksh.

It is fantastic to read about the childhood these princes had. Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb were caught in Shah Jahan's bizarre mutiny attempt against his father, Jahangir. Jahangir took Dara and Shikoh hostage in a political chess game. Naturally, they matured precociously.

By the age of 19, Dara showed his killer instinct by hunting down and slaying an amok elephant. Following in the footsteps of his father, Shah Jahan, and his grandfather, Jahangir, Dara Shikoh displayed an affinity for exploring spiritualism, Sufism, and other religions prevalent in India at the time. Perhaps, like his great-grandfather, Akbar, who proposed 'Din Illahi', he was moving toward the monotheistic concept of a One God common to all religions. In the tradition of the Mughal courts, Dara was proficient in Farsi, Sanskrit, Urdu, and Arabic. He was favoured and groomed by Shah Jahan as his successor. Dara endeavoured to promote religious tolerance in his philosophical journey in association with the renowned Chisti and Qadiri Sufi Orders, much like Akbar before him. He translated the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita into Persian. Throughout his life, hardships, such as losing two newborn children, illustrated his susceptibility to depression, much like how his father, Shah Jahan, was affected by the loss of Mumtaz, his favourite wife, who died of haemorrhage after her 14th delivery. Perhaps this is why Shah Jahan kept him close, depriving him of the military exposure that proved crucial later on.

Dara Shikoh

To keep Aurangzeb out of the throne's loop, Shah Jahan sent him far away with the army to conquer new lands in Central Asia and Kandahar, ensuring the vassal states towed the line. Aurangzeb received his religious guidance from more hardline orthodox Islamic scholars, who were quick to label Dara Shikoh a heretic. 

One day in 1657, Shah Jahan was afflicted with what is now assumed to be infective prostatitis. Dara Shikoh was designated as the natural successor, being the philosophical ruler who understood the scripture, earned the respect of the masses, and demonstrated courage. He was also Shah Jahan's favourite son. Upon hearing this, the remaining brothers rushed to Agra to assert their place in the Empire. Aurangzeb, the one skilled in military affairs, emerged victorious. He had his father, Shah Jahan, imprisoned and had Dara decapitated. His head was presented on a platter to Shah Jahan while he was having dinner. This exemplifies how much brutality was normalised in the Mughal Empire.

At a time when intolerance masquerading as faith is prevalent, the name Dara Shikoh shines as a beacon of hope that united all of India.

[P.S. Plato's idea of a perfect leader is a philosophical king who possesses profound knowledge and a love of wisdom. These qualities, in Plato's eyes, made them true rulers, not just power-holders, to rule justly in a harmonious society. Obviously, in the real world, increasingly the sword and the wealthy hold the corridors of power at ransom.]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

About falling and the moustache...

A jocular Tamil proverb sarcastically portrays a man who denies losing his balance and falling flat on his face on the ground. He would show the people around him a clean moustache devoid of sand. The man hoped the others would believe he was a macho man who never fell. (குப்புற விழுந்தாலும் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை - the said proverb.)

This proverb has been playing in my mind over the past few days during the recently paused India-Pakistan War. 

It started with a band of terrorists crossing over from Pakistan, killing 26 tourists just because they were not Muslims and retreating back into Pakistan. Pakistan vehemently denied being part of the killing or even harbouring any terrorists at all in their country. This heart-wrenching moment, especially the one involving a 6-day married honeymooning couple and a father shot in front of his wife and young son, stirred India to take retaliatory actions.

Both sides flaunted their military toys, and the war games were flagged off. The only thing is that these were not games. People actually died.

Then, the media war started. Both sides were quick to announce their kills and successes. Loud cries of jingoism filled the air. Visuals of destroyed enemy planes and sites filled cyberspace. The only thing is that, as pointed out by their enemies, much of the footage was old pictures of unrelated events. Citing military secrecy, many images of damaged sites were kept under wraps. So what actually happened is anybody's guess.

Finally, both sides seem to be congratulating themselves on a well-done job. Both boast of inflicting much pain and destruction. They claim to be on the side of truth, and truth prevails in the end. Perhaps, time would be the best judge. In time, all the putrefying rots would start stinking. Maybe then, we would know where each country stands. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Missed the point!

Emergency (Hindi, 2025)

Story, Direction, Starring: Kangana Ranaut

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21279420/

The first thing my language teacher told me in essay writing class was to stay on topic. Therefore, with a title like 'Emergency,' I expected to learn about the events leading up to the 1975 black mark in Indian democracy. I wanted to understand how the Opposition and civil society responded to Indira Gandhi's iron-fisted rule. Instead, I received a mini biopic of Mother Indira, the so-called Mother of India. The Emergency was rushed through, I thought. It would have been better if the film had started with the events just before 1975 and given some credence to the audience to know a little bit of Indra's background.

I recall that in 1977, my classmates and I, the so-called Backbenchers of the Class, engaged in lengthy, recurring debates about India, Indira, dictatorship, and democracy. Our teenage minds, albeit somewhat precocious, concluded that for a vast and complex country like India, communism was the best solution.

It was euphoric following India's handling of the East Pakistan issue, as they emerged victorious, defeating their troublesome neighbour, Pakistan, in just 14 days. The Indira Wave propelled her to a significant majority, allowing her to outmanoeuvre her political opponents. She believed it was her time to modernise India. Although the 1971 War strained India's economy, the country sought to increase revenue through taxation and nationalisation of projects. She centralised power within the Prime Minister's office. She likely harboured dynastic intentions, as she encouraged her son, Sanjay Gandhi, to engage actively in running the party and government, even making critical decisions. The veteran members at the party were not particularly pleased. Sycophants were rewarded, while the economy experienced sluggishness. Railway workers were on strike, and the press revelled in the chaos. The successful detonation of India's first nuclear test occurred in 1974.

In 1975, the Allahabad High Court disqualified Indira's victory in the 1971 elections due to her misuse of government machinery during the campaign. She was also barred from holding the position of Prime Minister for six years.

JP Narayan

Massive demonstrations ensued, demanding her ousting. Jayaprakash Narayan, a Gandhian at heart, was vocal in his calls for Indira's resignation. Although this did not occur, the President, on Indira's advice, declared a state of Emergency on 25th June 1975 at the stroke of midnight. A widespread power failure was implemented to halt the printing of newspapers, which was then the sole means of news dissemination. Radio was also under control. Thousands of political opponents and activists were apprehended. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was invoked, allowing dissidents to be detained without charge, effectively making them disappear. The Emergency period witnessed the banning of trade unionism and significantly curbing media freedom. The people of India received news about their country from foreign correspondents.

There was an ongoing conspiracy theory about Jaya Prakash Narayan's rapidly deteriorating health following his incarceration. Despite the official announcement that he had diabetes, his kidney function declined sharply, leading to speculation about possible foul play. After his release in March 1979, it was mistakenly reported that he had died, resulting in public mourning and the closure of schools, parliament, and radio broadcasts. He ultimately succumbed to his illness only seven months later.

Indira Gandhi continued to govern the country by decree, passing laws and attempting to appease the masses. Sanjay Gandhi, now active in the ruling elite, believed bulldozing squatters was a sure way to modernise Delhi. He was also instrumental in the brutal forced sterilisation of the poor to curb the population explosion. Twenty-two months after its declaration, the Emergency was lifted, and elections were called. Indira lost to the Janata Party, a new political party initiated by Jayaprakash Narayan.

The newly formed coalition government did not last long. It collapsed, prompting fresh elections in 1980, in which Indira Gandhi was re-elected. A few months after her victory, she tragically lost her son in an air crash. Soon afterwards, Indira Gandhi faced unrest in the state of Punjab. Her actions during Operation Blue Star to regain control of the terrorists in the Golden Temple in Amritsar proved to be her coup de grâce.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Riding the wave...

Chhava (Lion Cub, Hindi; 2025)

Director: Laxman Utekar

The debate centres on whether Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was simply a minor chieftain seizing small territories in the Deccan, an opportunist, or a Hindu nationalist. Additionally, the crucial question is whether Aurangzeb was a fair ruler or a religious bigot.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27922706/

Depending on who authors the history book, one will be portrayed as a saviour, while the other will be depicted as an opportunistic villain.

Shivaji's kingdom was once characterised as a vassal territory of the Mughal Empire, and he was even said to have undertaken military campaigns on behalf of the Mughals. In his later years, his father, Shahaji, reportedly had a somewhat complex relationship with him, having formed an alliance with the neighbouring Bijapuri Sultanate against Shivaji.

In the wake of numerous military clashes post-1657, Shivaji's once amicable relations with the Mughals soured. This shift coincided with Aurangzeb's rise to the throne as Emperor. Growing military expenditures and potential corruption drained the Mughal treasury. The Jizya tax was enforced on non-Muslims, resulting in widespread discontent. Shivaji's kingdom is renowned for its multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition. He maintained an army comprising 60,000 Muslim soldiers, many of whom occupied significant positions. His forces included several Muslim officers, and reports suggest that he advocated for gender equality.

 

It is probable that Aurangzeb's father, the illustrious Emperor Shah Jahan, expended considerable resources on Noor Jahan's mausoleum, the Taj Mahal, which subsequently severely depleted the treasury. Consequently, innovative taxation schemes became necessary. The jizya, which had been abolished during Akbar's reign, was reintroduced, inciting anger among Sikhs and Hindus. Jizya is the tax sanctioned by Islam as a protection fee imposed by Islamic rulers on their non-Muslim subjects.

The schism then emerged, with the Sikh gurus supporting his people and the Marathas under Shivaji of the Bhonsle Dynasty coming to the aid of the Hindus. Some scholars even contest the legitimacy of Shivaji's rise to the throne following his father's sudden death. His coronation by Brahmin priests from Kashi (rather than Maharashtra), along with the debate over his possible Shudra lineage, serves as points of contention.

Supporters of Aurangzeb argue that the Emperor was not a religious bigot. They claim he did not destroy temples; rather, he assisted in building and financing them. However, I find it difficult to take this stance seriously, given that it originates from a man who had no qualms about killing his brother, Dara Shikoh, to seize the throne and imprison his father, Shah Jahan, in a dungeon to admire his prized achievement, the Taj Mahal, from afar. Aurangzeb not only destroyed the Kashi-Visvanath temple in Varanasi, but he also constructed a mosque atop it, attempting to obliterate all traces of the temple until the Archaeological Department of India uncovered it.

For so long, the world has been presented with a different narrative of what transpired in the past. Over the last decade or so, Indian history has been re-examined and re-narrated from various perspectives. Meanwhile, leftist historians, who had discredited any Indian achievements, attributing all of India's development to Western colonisation and its failures to an archaic and self-defeating unscientific way of life, are now taken aback. They vehemently dismiss these new discoveries as Hindutva propaganda.

Bollywood has an unenviable reputation for glamorising foreign invaders through its films. In light of the general wave of Hindu consciousness that seems to have permeated the Indian psyche in the 21st century, the industry has begun to adopt a different approach. It is now embracing films that aim to convey the glory of Ancient India. This shift accounts for the surge in 'patriotic' movies such as Panipat (2019), Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019), Rocketry: The Nambi Effect (2022), Amaran (2024), and many more.

This movie starts at the time of Sivaji's demise. Aurangzeb, sitting down the knitting, is rejoicing with his henchmen. They thought that was the end of the Maratha empire. Surprise, surprise. Out of nowhere, quite unsuspectedly, his eldest son, Sambhaji, conquered Burhanpur. After that, it was one war after another, mixed with palace politics of betrayal and double-crossing. Bollywood has this warped notion that a story seems more convincing when the screen is filled with a sea of blood, decapitation and maiming scenes. It is quite off-putting, actually.

The filmmakers, political leaders, and Bollywood's elite appear to align with the prevailing majority. They capitalised on the film's launch for their own benefit. During the Maha Kumbh Mela season, many were seen among the Hindu pilgrims, reflecting the increasing sentiment of Hinduness among the people of India.

Some argue that Shivaji and Shambaji were not fighting for Hinduism but were merely defending their territories. Savarkar first proposed the notion of them as Hindu icons at the turn of the 20th century. The Shiv in the Shiv Sena, which plays a pivotal role in Maharashtra politics, refers to Chaturvedi Shivaji Maharaj, not Lord Shiva of the Hindu Trinity.

 

https://www.marathicultureandfestivals.com/sambhaji-mahar

Why do filmmakers choose to make a film about Shambaji rather than Shivaji, who is renowned as the defender of Sanathana Dharma? Consider this: Aurangzeb, who began his reign over the world's wealthiest empire, ultimately witnessed the great empire established by his forefathers diminish in size and riches, ending up interred in an unfinished grave. In contrast, earlier rulers had magnificent mausoleums constructed for them.

Aurangzeb, commanding perhaps the largest army in the world, was pushed to his limits and engaged in numerous fierce battles with Shivaji. Long before Mao Zedong wrote about guerrilla warfare, Shivaji employed guerrilla tactics and mobile strategies. Had it not been for this Maratha-Mughal animosity, the East India Company would not have been able to strengthen its position in the subcontinent.

Shambaji was also a capable ruler who focused his efforts on agricultural development and played a significant role in the expansion of Hindustani and Sanskrit literature. Unlike his father, Shivaji, who either died in a hunting accident or was poisoned by his queen, Shambaji was martyred at the hands of the Mughals after enduring torture, being blinded with hot iron, and ultimately decapitated. This act rendered him a hero among the masses. It is also noted that Shambaji never truly entered the history books, likely due to his stepmother (the same queen who poisoned Shivaji), who defamed him in her desire to position her own son as Shivaji's successor.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.