Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

The Simultaneous Elections Debate: An Attempt to Fix the Ruling Party’s Achilles Heel?


The Simultaneous Elections Debate: An Attempt to Fix the Ruling Party’s Achilles Heel?

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 13 February 2018


The BJP has been pushing the idea of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas for some time. Just a couple of days ago, I saw a big debate on this topic on NDTV.

There is one point worth raising that most people are not talking or writing about.

The fact is that the BJP is a one-man party. They have no leaders of repute except the PM, and this is by design. Any prominent leaders, whether at the national or at the state levels, have been systematically marginalized, and the only ones in control are those who have no independent base, are unelectable and could not win an election for anyone else.

The argument that is made in favour of simultaneous elections are that when elections are spread out over 5 years in their natural course, the government is constantly in campaign mode and hence little work of the people gets done. It is also said that elections cost money, and wouldn’t we all want to save some money by synchronizing all elections?

The example of the US is given when it comes to “synchronized elections.” In the US, there is a Presidential election every 4 years, and there are midterm elections 2 years after the Presidential elections. Elections to the House and Senate are synchronized with the Presidential or midterm elections.

But many have pointed out that this system cannot work in India because we don’t have a two-party system, and because of this, and the widespread occurrence of defections, a party that comes to power in an election might not be able to hold power for 5 years. If they lose a motion of no-confidence in the state assembly due to defections, fresh elections may have to be held if no party has a majority. This kind of thing never happens in the US. All state legislators and governors serve their full term (except in the case of death.) So it is impossible to have synchronous elections in India.

Given all this, what is the real motive behind this concerted push to synchronize state and central elections?

The PM … is too busy running around the country to run the country.

The practical effect of all this running around is haphazard, poorly-thought-out policies like Demonetization and GST.

The fact is that the BJP is a one-man party. They have no leaders of repute except the PM, and this is by design. Any prominent leaders, whether at the national or at the state levels, have been systematically marginalized, and the only ones in control are those who have no independent base, are unelectable (like the honourable finance minister, Mr. Jaitley, who lost his Lok Sabha election in Amritsar and had to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha to continue in Mr. Modi’s cabinet) and could not win an election for anyone else. The state Chief Ministers are a bunch of nobodies – be it a Devendra Phadnavis in Maharashtra, a Manohar Lal Khattar in Haryana, a Vijay Rupani in Gujarat, a Trivendra Singh Rawat in Uttarakhand, or a Jairam Thakur in Himachal Pradesh – none of these could win elections in their own states without the fortifying presence of Narendra Modi. With a few exceptions like Shivraj Singh Chouhan in MP, Vasundhara Raje in Rajasthan, and Manohar Parrikar in Goa, the BJP needs Mr. Modi’s popularity to win elections.

And this is why Mr. Modi is in constant campaign mode. This is a one-man party, and it is so by design. Anyone who was popular enough to present a challenge to Mr. Modi was thrown out of active politics and sent to a defunct “Margadarshak Mandal.” The result is a party of yes-men and women and a party with only one viable leader.

And, of course, if the PM is constantly in campaign mode, he clearly cannot do the work for which he has been chosen – he is too busy running around the country to run the country. Those who think Yogi Adityanath won because of this own strength should remember that Modi addressed 24 rallies in UP in 2017. He also addressed 31 rallies in Bihar in 2015 (when the BJP lost) and 34 in Gujarat in the 2017 assembly elections (when they won).

Should the country’s entire system be changed (with all the attendant difficulties and costs) just to ensure the survival of one party and its leader? Should the entire political system change to solve the weakness of one political party?

The practical effect of all this running around is haphazard, poorly-thought-out policies like Demonetization and GST. Even for a Superman like Mr. Modi, there are only 24 hours in a day, and governance takes a backseat to winning elections.

This kind of involvement in state elections by the chief executive is unprecedented. Yes, past Prime Ministers have addressed rallies in poll-bound states, but they have usually been only a handful because they have been busy with the job of running the country. Even when the Congress was in the opposition in 2015, Mr. Modi addressed nearly twice the number of rallies (31) that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi addressed, combined (16).

If the country does try to move to simultaneous elections, the move will fail after a couple of cycles and elections will go back to being random. Two cycles, of course, is probably sufficient for the remainder of Mr. Modi’s political life (he is already 67) – which is all the BJP is interested in – milk Mr. Modi’s popularity as much as possible.

The question that needs to be asked is: Should the country’s entire system be changed (with all the attendant difficulties and costs) just to ensure the survival of one party and its leader? Should the entire political system change to solve the weakness of one political party?



Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

Friday, 22 December 2017

2G Trial Court Verdict: First Impressions


2G Trial Court Verdict: First Impressions

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 22 December, 2017


Abstract

The verdict of the special CBI trial court on the 2G spectrum allocation criminal trial is out, and it is unambiguous: there was no wrongdoing by the accused. All the accused have been acquitted by the trial court.

The verdict clearly shows that the basic premise on which the BJP has been winning elections for the last 4 years, viz., the perception that the Congress Party and its allies, especially the DMK, were corrupt — is in fact fundamentally flawed.

The verdict clearly vindicates both former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and his telecommunications minister, Mr. A. Raja, and establishes their innocence.

The verdict also demonstrates that despite the fact that the charges were leveled against it, the UPA government of 2009-2014 was more diligent in prosecuting the case than the Modi government which made such a big hullabaloo about it when in the opposition.


A Nation of Laws and Judicial Processes

Many of my friends are expressing opinions that, despite the trial court verdict on the 2G spectrum case that was announced on 22 December 2017, they think there was a scam, etc. The purpose of this post is to respond to such views, and to explain what the trial court verdict says and implies.

The first thing to remember is that we are a nation of laws and systems, however imperfect. A verdict is a verdict, and it means something in our country. If it says you are innocent, then you are. If it says you are guilty, then you are. Both can be reversed by a higher court, but until that happens, the original verdict stands. One's suspicions, however well-founded, cannot overrule the judgment of a court where arguments for and against, and actual evidence, have been considered by the judge before giving a verdict. This is to be remembered by those who want to say things like, “But … what about Tata? What about Niira Radia?” And many more statements of that ilk. We have to base our trust on something, however imperfect — otherwise we have no basis for any discussion. Some others point to the weakness of India's legal systems by pointing to incidents like the 1984 riots investigation, for which no significant political leader was found guilty, in sharp contradiction to eyewitness reports. While there have doubtless been failures to convict the guilty due to political interference, our imperfect justice system still remains the best hope to hang our hats on. So yes, if our justice system says that Narendra Modi was not guilty of orchestrating the 2002 Gujarat riots, then, sorry to disappoint my fellow-liberals, he was not. And if the same justice system says that nobody in the UPA government was guilty of any crime in the 2G spectrum sale, then nobody was. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Some have even expressed the (wrong) opinion that the verdict only disagrees with the presumptive loss proposed by the then-CAG, Mr. Vinod Rai (now Padmabhushan, thanks in no small part to his now-(in)famous report that pegged the loss to the exchequer from the 2G spectrum sale at Rs. 1.76 lakh crores), but still holds that those accused committed some wrongdoing. I want to set things clear here, on the basis of what I understand is contained in the verdict, from news sources. I have not yet read the verdict myself, but will do so at some point. This is an interim assessment, based on the news reports on the verdict from the Times of India, Times of India (another report), Times of India (yet another report), Financial Express, Business Today, and NDTV.

Summary of the Verdict and Its Implications

The summary of the verdict is:

  1. No wrongdoing happened. Period. (Nothing has been proved, which is the same thing as nothing having happened, in a nation governed by laws and a judicial system.)
  2. Prosecution seemed uninterested in proving the case in the latter stages of the case (i.e., during Modi sarkar.)
  3. Raja clearly communicated his intentions to the PM in a letter, but some concealment/misrepresentation of that information seems to have happened as it was forwarded to the PM. The guilty seem to be PMO officials Pulok Chatterjee, TKA Nair, and BVR Subramaniam, not former PM Manmohan Singh.
  4. There seems to have been much confusion in the DoT guidelines, suggesting that confusion and incompetence in spectrum allocation, rather than malfeasance, was the source of the problems.

All this suggests that there was no case at all, as the judge clearly states in the verdict.

This is a landmark verdict, because the entire foundation for Mr. Narendra Modi's 2013-2014 election campaign for the Lok Sabha, and several other state elections as well, is that the Congress was corrupt and looted the country — and the centerpiece of his allegations is the so-called “2G scam.” Yesterday's verdict means that the foundation for Mr. Modi's campaigns and election victories, from 2013 to today, is wobbly, and that the Congress is not the corrupt party he has so far successfully projected them to be. Mr. Modi claimed that there was incontrovertible proof that the Congress and its ally, the DMK, had their hands dirty with the 2G scam, and the Congress was soft-pedaling the investigation against the accused, using its control of the CBI (which was referred to as the “caged parrot”), and more generally using its control of the machinery of power, both in the central and state levels.

But this verdict comes at a time when the Congress is in no position of influence in the country at all. The central government and most state governments are under the control of the BJP, as are the CBI and all government officials. Nobody has an incentive to soft-pedal the case against the Congress and the DMK to favor these parties that are out of power. Even if the chargesheet filed by the Congress, for argument purposes, had been weak, prior judgements have held that the charges can be modified at any time prior to the final judgement. So if the Modi sarkar and its eminent lawyers, like Ravi Shankar Prasad, felt that the charges filed by the CBI under Congress rule were not strong enough, they could have revised them.

If we are expected to believe that the Congress had control over the prosecution of the guilty, and could be blamed for the fact that Raja et al. were not convicted, then we should believe the same about Modi. The “caged parrot” is now under Modi's control.

That leads to one of only three conclusions:

  1. There was no scam, as the court concluded. Modi and the BJP tried their best to prove their stand that the UPA regime was a corrupt one, but there was no evidence.
  2. There was evidence, but Modi hushed it up. After all, the court concluded that there was no scam because no evidence to support a scam had been presented. This begs the question of what the motive for hiding such evidence might be — whether people or companies friendly to the BJP would have been implicated had it been presented.
  3. Modi and his government are incompetent. Even though there was a mountain of evidence, they could not bring it to the attention of the court to get a conviction.

None of these conclusions is flattering to the Modi government.

Specific Details from the Verdict

The main points of the verdict (mostly taken verbatim from the news sources listed above; passages in inverted commas are Judge Saini’s comments, quoted verbatim):

  1. CBI could not prove that A.Raja, along with telecom ministry officials, manipulated the cut-off date for bids for the first-come, first-served policy for allocation of spectrum.
  2. CBI failed to establish that Raja had prior familiarity with Shahid Balwa and Sanjay Chandra during his stint as UPA environment minister.
  3. Documentary evidence and witness testimony couldn't prove that the accused ignored ineligibility of Swan Telecom and Unitech group companies.
  4. CBI couldn't link Raja to the money transfer of Rs. 200 crores to Kalaignar TV by Dynamix Realty (Balwa’s group), which was critical to establish if it was “illegal gratification,” or bribe, in exchange for telecom licenses.
  5. Lapses in CBI probe and “deteriorating” prosecution in the latter stage of the trial after special prosecutor Anand Grover appointed by the Supreme Court took charge of the case. (Note: This happened immediately after the Modi sarkar took over, in August 2014, when the previous special prosecutor, UU Lalit, was appointed as an SC judge.)
  6. No criminality or conspiracy in spectrum allotment.
  7. Some people created a scam by “artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels.”
  8. “A huge scam was seen by everyone where there was none.”
  9. Judge Saini said that he had “absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well-choreographed chargesheet.
  10. “There is no material on record to show that Raja was mother lode of conspiracy in the instant case.”
  11. “Prosecution gave up its case in its entirety during the examination of witnesses as not a single question was put to any witness suggesting that Rs 200 crore was paid as bribe or reward by DB group for grant of UAS licences. There was no single question that illegal gratification was dressed up as a loan.”
  12. CBI could not prove that Loop Telecom was a company of Essar group or was substantially controlled by it. As a result, the charge of cheating was dropped.
  13. Prosecution was unsuccessful in proving any of the ingredients, either of the offence of conspiracy to cheat DoT or of the substantive offence of cheating.
  14. Prosecution had “totally deteriorated” and had become “directionless” towards the end of the trial.
  15. CBI started with “great enthusiasm and ardour” but at the final stage of the trial, SPP and CBI prosecutor moved in “two different directions without any coordination.” (Note: this is an interesting point, given that the case started during the UPA regime and ended during the Modi sarkar.)
  16. “Statement of controversial corporate lobbyist Niira Radia was of no use and her testimony lacked any significance.”
  17. “For 7 years ... I religiously sat in open court ... waiting for someone with some legally admissible evidence in his possession, but all in vain.”
  18. In the court's view, the lack of clarity in the policies as well as spectrum allocation guidelines also added to the confusion. The guidelines, it said, were been framed in such technical language that meaning of many terms are not clear even to Department of Telecom (DoT) officers. “When the officers of the department themselves do not understand the departmental guidelines and their glossary, how can they blame companies/ others for violation of the same?” noted the court. (Note: This suggests that rather than a “scam,” what really happened was confusion.)
  19. “The charge sheet of the instant case is based mainly on misreading, selective reading, non reading and out of context reading of the official record.”
  20. “The charge sheet is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness box.”
  21. Key officials in the Manmohan Singh PMO — secretary Pulok Chatterjee and principal secretary TKA Nair — suppressed the relevant and controversial part of A Raja’s letter to Manmohan Singh.
  22. “In the beginning, the prosecution started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour. However, as the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove.”
  23. “However, by the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident. Not much is required to be written as the things are apparent from the perusal of the evidence itself.”
  24. The court also took strong note of behaviour of CBI and its SPP, saying several applications and replies were filed on their behalf but, in the final phase of the trial, no senior officer or prosecutor was willing to sign these documents. “When questioned, the reply of the regular senior PP would be that the Spl. PP would sign it and when the Spl. PP was questioned, he would say that CBI people would sign it,” the judge noted. “This shows that neither any investigator nor any prosecutor was willing to take any responsibility for what was being filed or said in the court,” the court said.
  25. “Not only this, the most painful part is that Spl. PP was not ready to sign the written submissions filed by him,” the court said, asking, “What is the use of a document in a court of law, which is not signed by anyone? When questioned as to why the Spl. PP was filing unsigned written submissions, his reply would be that some defence advocates had also not signed the written submissions.” The court said that despite its persuasion, Mr Grover refused to sign the CBI's written submissions. (Note: Keep in mind that all this happened during the Modi sarkar.)


Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

Thursday, 21 December 2017

India in 2027: A Theocratic Hindu State


India in 2027: A Theocratic Hindu State

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 21 December, 2017


Abstract

India will be transformed into a theocratic Hindu state in the next ten years, with the full support of the majority of Hindus, riding roughshod over the faint voices of dissent from the minority Hindus, Dalits, and religious minorities such as Muslims and Christians.

The implications are severe for minorities, Dalits, and women in the “New India” of the future.

The reasons for this dire prediction are explained by their sources in current events, and the full range of consequences of such a development are elaborated.

While this is a personal opinion, the opinion is firmly based on unmistakable current trends in public opinion as evidenced by various facts, which are discussed herein.


Prologue: Lessons from Gujarat 2017

The 2017 Gujarat assembly elections are over, and it is time to take stock.

To me, the future of India appears bleaker than ever.

It is true that the BJP did not win as big as it expected, and that the Congress did better than it has done in decades in Gujarat.

But we need to look at the reasons for these.

The BJP did poorly because:

  1. Economic factors, such as Demonetization and GST, hurt the pockets of the moneyed Gujaratis.
  2. The Patidar agitation hurt it. It should be noted that this is about a caste (Patels) who are already prosperous and who want more privileges.

Let's also look at what the Congress did:

  1. It abandoned its traditionally secular stand, with Rahul Gandhi claiming to be a Shiv bhakt (devotee of Shiva) and a janeudhari (sacred thread-wearing) Brahmin, and visiting several temples in Gujarat.
  2. It supported the Patidar agitation.

No one, especially the Congress, talked about Muslims in Gujarat, as they had in elections past.

And why should they? The Muslims won't vote for the BJP anyway, so the BJP won't bother; and the Congress is the only option for the hapless Muslims, and so they will vote for the Congress, even if the Congress does not woo them. In religiously-polarized Gujarat, showing sympathy for Muslims is a political death sentence. So no “maut ka saudagar”-type comments. Let's compete on who is the better Hindu.

Of course, no brownie points for guessing which party will win that battle of perception.

There are huge ramifications of this change in the Congress stand. It comes from an essential recognition by the only hitherto secular party that standing up for Muslims will not help it in the polls. And the fundamental goal of any party is survival.

And it is needless to say, but it needs to be said here for completeness, that the BJP will never stand up for the Muslims.

In other words, no national party will any longer stand up for the Muslims. This is an important development. And the party that has been and is openly antagonistic to the Muslims is currently in power, and looks likely to be in power for a long time to come.

The Past

The silence on Muslims is not the fault of the Congress Party. They are simply responding to the will of the people. The people of India have changed in the last 25 years since the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

And, as I have been saying for some time about Indian PM Narendra Modi for some time to anyone who will listen, this is not his fault either. He is not the villain he is made out to be by liberals for the rising intolerance and violence against Muslims in India. He is simply the symptom. He is simply the tool that the Hindutva-converted people of India need to implement their designs. If Mr. Modi had not risen, for some reason, another person with a similar philosophy would have risen to the top. The circumstances needed a Modi. In fact, this has been one of the cardinal mistakes of secular forces in India for a long time — dating back as far as the 2013-2014 election campaign — that in their desire to demonize Mr. Modi as a bigot, they have lost sight of the fact that his bigotry is simply an extension of the bigotry of his followers, who today make up the majority of Hindus in India.

Muslims have ceased to be an important vote bank because a majority of Hindus are united in their hatred of them. This has long been the dream of the Hindu right, and is finally reaching fruition.

Indeed, the “villains,” to use a rather contextual term (10 to 20 years from today, it is very likely that these will be hailed as heroes) are not Mr. Modi or Mr. Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the RSS. The “villains” (or heroes, if you prefer) are the people of India who are not the least bothered when a Muslim is butchered in broad daylight and the murder recorded on video, and yet the police decides that there is no evidence to convict the killers. They are like an old friend who, when I told him some time back how bothered I was about the killing of Mohammad Akhlaque and the fact that ministers from the central government were justifying the killing of a man for what he ate, or that a Union minister visited the funeral of one of Akhlaque's murderers where his body was draped in the national flag, gently admonished me by saying, “SK, you don't understand the context. I agree with you that those reactions by the ministers were wrong, but Modi was silent because he wanted to send a message to the Muslims that it was not going to be business as usual. Before you criticize Modi for his inaction, try to understand the context.” The “context” here is the perceived injustice of centuries of Muslim domination of Hindus, the destruction of Hindu temples by medieval Muslim kings, etc. — for which the Muslims of today are seen to need to “pay the price” by many Hindus.

So while the BJP might face a setback here and there because of caste-based divisions or people upset about their economic performance, I doubt that those disenchantments will be sufficient to dethrone them. That which unites the Hindus today (hatred of Muslims) is far stronger than that which divides them (concerns about development, economics, foreign policy, languages, caste, etc.) The RSS dream of “Hindu unity” is finally being realized.

In 2015, a Muslim man, Mohammad Akhlaque, was killed for supposedly having eaten beef. There was a huge outcry. Many eminent citizens of India returned state awards in protest. But in 2017, just two years later, three Muslim men were killed for no fault at all, and publicly – Pehlu Khan, Junaid Khan, and Mohammad Afrazul, and the Hindu majority of the country was not the least perturbed. The seculars in India had become tired of fighting the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment. You can only bang your head against a brick wall so many times. Violence against Muslims, motivated by religion, had become the new normal.

Large numbers of people even marched in protest in Rajasthan against the arrest of the Hindu man who killed Afrazul brutally by hacking him to death and then burning him, and even video-recorded the event and gave a commentary for why he did it, blaming love jihad and movies like PK and Padmavati as provocations for his actions. When Pehlu Khan legally bought cows for his dairy and even had the papers to prove it, his killers did not care even when he showed them the cattle had been bought for milk, not beef. And Junaid Khan did not have to do anything to give an excuse to Hindu butchers. Being seen as a Muslim was enough for someone else on the train to slaughter him in cold blood.

BJP politicians, as usual, made statements sympathetic to the Hindu killers. Mr. Modi, as usual, remained silent on the killings, giving his tacit approval to the statements by BJP spokespersons — such as those who said that “the problem is from both sides” in Pehlu Khan’s killing. Most Hindus were not outraged at any of this, as seen by their repeated rewarding of the BJP at the polls.

If there ever was an occasion for the Indian public to mark its disapproval of all this, now was the time. Rising religious intolerance, bad economic performance, a huge caste-based agitation (the Patel agitation) striking at the roots of the support base of the BJP in Gujarat — in times past, these would have been enough to inflict a crushing defeat on the BJP in Gujarat.

But the people of Gujarat rewarded the BJP, as have people in so many state and local elections since 2014, with a victory.

From Here to 2027

With that as the background, let me give my (admittedly gloomy but arguably realistic) forecast for what will happen in the next 10 years.

  1. Modi will win the 2019 elections with a substantial majority, which means that the Lok Sabha will continue to be dominated by the BJP.
  2. He will continue to win state and local elections until almost the entire country is in his grip.
  3. In the 2022 reconstitution of the Rajya Sabha, the Rajya Sabha will be completely dominated by the BJP because of their control over all state legislatures, allowing them to change any laws as they please, without any opposition in Parliament.
  4. Following that, despite those who talk of the “basic structure doctrine” of the Constitution, the BJP will amend the constitution to make India a Hindu republic. After all, the judiciary, whose job it is to decide what parts of the Constitution are essential, also comes from the people, and if they believe that secularism is not essential to the idea of India, it can be done away with.
  5. The new India will be a mirror of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with Hinduism replacing Islam in India.
  6. The PM, the CJI, and other important authorities in the country will soon after start reporting to a Hindu oversight panel composed of Shankaracharyas and other religious figures — who will play the role in India that the mullahs play in Iran — to ensure that the policies of the government are in alignment with Hindu theology. The Constitution will be substantially revised to be in conformance with Hinduism. After all, as the Jain monk, Tarun Sagar, said in his address to the Haryana Assembly, “Don’t term it as saffronisation but as purification of politics. When religion enters politics, it brings purity. While it becomes a disaster when politics enters religion.” And it isn't just the BJP that is enthralled by saints like these, as Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party showed in his disapproval of comments criticizing the monk's address an assembly of lawmakers.
  7. Jainism and Sikhism will be tolerated as second-class religions, but Islam, Christianity, and Judaism will be considered “foreign” religions whose adherents cannot be trusted, in line with the philosophy of Vinayak Savarkar, one of the founding fathers and most venerated past leaders of the Sangh Parivar.
  8. Criticism of Hinduism, Hindu philosophy, and Hindu theology will be outlawed. Criticism of retrograde traditions like “karva chauth” will not be tolerated. “Liberal” interpretations of Hinduism will not be allowed.
  9. The caste system will be strictly enforced, in consonance with Hindu scripture.
  10. All reservations in education and jobs will be abolished.
  11. Dalits will not be allowed to study beyond an absolute minimum level needed to function as servants, as it is forbidden in Hindu scripture.
  12. They will only be allowed to work in jobs that are reserved for them in Hindu scripture: the cremation of the dead, the removal of human excreta, the job of public executioner, etc.
  13. The varNa model of Hinduism will be strictly enforced: higher education only for Brahmins, governing and military only for Kshatriyas, business activities only for Vaishyas, and menial labour only for Shudras, with the most disgusting jobs reserved for Dalits.
  14. Inter-caste marriages and intra-gotra marriages among Hindus will be forbidden, since they contravene Hindu scriptures. These are already being informally enforced by Hindu groups.
  15. Women will not be allowed to work. They will be restricted to the home, the kitchen and the bedroom. Their primary role will be defined as child-rearing.
  16. Women will not be allowed to leave the home except with a parent, guardian, or husband.
  17. In the event that they are allowed to leave the home, they will only be allowed to dress in sarees or salwar-kameezes. Western attire like jeans, T-shirts, and shorts will be strictly forbidden with a stiff fine if caught.
  18. Women will be denied the use of mobile phones. Too much chatter on regular phones will also be monitored. Any activity that might lead to a premarital affair will be strictly monitored.
  19. There will be a special police force constituted on the lines of the Taliban’s “Ministry for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”
  20. Since India will officially become Bharat, a Hindu theocratic country, no Muslim parties will be allowed, and no party with a secular philosophy will be allowed to function.
  21. Women will be ostracized during their periods as they are considered impure in Hinduism.
  22. Our children and grandchildren will be taught in schools that Hindus had the most advanced society ever in human history — past, present, and future — and that everything that is invented today is simply re-discovery — atom bombs, stem cell therapy, in-vitro fertilization, air and space travel, hyperloop, mobile phones, etc., etc. - even if that makes us the laughingstock of the world.
  23. Science will take a backseat in India and religion, especially astrology, will be emphasized.
  24. More and more restrictive ordinances will be passed. The most excessive restrictions will be reserved for implementation after the elections of 2024, so as not to affect re-election prospects.
  25. Only after 2024 will the educated “bhakt” wake up, as his own freedoms will start to get curtailed. But, as the moderate intellectuals who helped Khomeini to come to power in Iran discovered, it will be too late then. Any dissent will be brutally suppressed.
  26. After 2024, with both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha under the control of the BJP, as well as state legislatures, a law will be passed appointing Modiji PM for life and eliminating the need for further elections. After all, as many have said before, many Indians believe we need a “benevolent dictator.”
  27. There will be increasing numbers of violent incidents against Muslims to avenge “historical injustices” as seen by Hindus – vengeance for Mahmud of Ghazni’s attacks on India, for example. None of these will be condemned; instead, Indians will express their sympathy for the perpetrators who were infected by a wholly understandable feeling of outrage about centuries of oppression by Muslim kings. What's a few hundred or thousand Muslim dead compared to the tens of thousands slaughtered by Muslim kings, centuries ago?
  28. In the 13th year of our Messiah, also known as 2027 CE, or 13 AM (“After Modi”, to denote the true history of India after 2014), Parliament will unanimously recommend to the President that, for his services to the Hindu Republic of India, Param Pujya Shri Narendra Modi be awarded the Bharat Ratna. All of India will erupt in a rhapsody of joy at this belated recognition.

India after 2027

So now, in 2027, India is a Hindu rashtra. Are we going to be in the land of milk and honey? Far from it. Intolerance is a very messy path to go on. This is what I believe the future holds for us.

  1. There will be increasing incidents of violence against Christian organizations, and many of them will be forced to shut down, even after a ban on proselytization (which will have wide acclaim among ordinary Hindus in India) and even when the said organizations are only involved in charitable and relief activities. (Baseless) Accusations will be made that even though there is no overt conversion agenda, these Christian organizations are involved in “harvesting souls” on the sly. This will lead to gruesome murders like that of Graham Staines.
  2. Because of its discriminatory stance against people of other religions in India, and its unwillingness to crack down on the perpetrators of hate crimes against Christians and Muslims (as is already the case, as evidenced in the Pehlu Khan case), India will become an international pariah. The US State Department will lay down rules restricting the ability of US companies to do business in India because of its curbs on freedom of religious expression, driven by massive outrage from Christian groups within the US. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UNHRC will all issue statements condemning India's human rights record.
  3. As a consequence, foreign investment to India will start drying up as companies will look for alternatives to India. In software, it is well-known that other, cheaper destinations exist for software that are increasingly challenging India. Specifically, Romania, Vietnam, and Latin American countries have made investments in software. Also, because of automation and the lack of upskilling of Indian workers, the Indian software industry will no longer be as important to the world.
  4. This will lead to increasing unemployment and a fall in living standards in the country. A chain reaction will follow, whereby new home construction, an important driver for infrastructure generation and the economy, will slow down and ultimately stall, leading to an economic depression. Malls will be empty as people will not have the spending power to buy commodities. With unemployment rising and a sharp reduction in disposable income, the economy will come to a grinding halt.
  5. This will lead to a breakdown of law and order, leading to increasing incidents of violent crime due to an increasing unemployed and unemployable labour force. Violence against women, murders, and robberies will rise. There will be a reaction against the still sizable Muslim minority (15%) by blaming them for the decline in living standards in the country and the rising crime. Given that even today, crime is higher in poor Muslim neighborhoods than in Hindu neighborhoods, this association will be easy to make, and Muslims will be blamed for the ills of the country, leading to an unending cycle of violence.
  6. After a couple of years of this kind of instability, India will reach junk status as an investment destination. The economy will stagnate at first and then decline precipitously. The government will not have money even for important health programs, leading to a rise in diseases that were thought to be nearly eradicated. Malaria, polio, TB, and other epidemics will be rampant. India will become a failed state.
  7. Finally, I will have stopped writing political articles like this and will have switched to singing bhajans (devotional Hindu songs) to save my skin – maybe even compose some songs in praise of Modi, praising him as the 10th incarnation of the God Vishnu, Kalki, who is supposed to kill all the evildoers and save the good souls. While I do have a PhD in Chemical Engineering, I do not think it will be of much use in the new dispensation, unless I am willing to perform pseudo-scientific “research” on the miraculous properties of cow urine and dung. Rather than prostitute my scientific education and defile science, which is the only religion I believe in, I have decided that, if being a hypocrite is what is required, it is better to go all the way and become the equivalent of a court jester and sycophant and, since I do possess the ability to sing, use it to make a living flattering leaders of the BJP. I hope to be appointed to a significant position in Prasar Bharati, whereby I will regularly compose “patriotic” songs in praise of “Bharat Mata” and the Messiah of our nation, Shri Narendra Modi, for which I will regularly receive my 30 pieces of silver. These songs will regularly be broadcast on all radio channels, TV channels and played before and after every movie screened in our theatres, for which patrons will have to stand to prove their patriotism.

Epilogue

This article is not a joke or a parody. It is a serious article. I genuinely believe all this is possible and quite likely, and am writing this only to record my views for a time when I will no longer be able to speak my mind. While this article will no longer be viewable in India in 2027, it will be viewable in the rest of world because Google is not under the BJP’s control worldwide, and Google archives all information ever published on the web.



Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

Sunday, 26 November 2017

Do Not Blame Bollywood Actors and Producers

Do Not Blame Bollywood Actors


Do Not Blame Bollywood Actors and Producers

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 26 November, 2017


A lot of my friends are expressing their anger at Bollywood actors, producers, etc., for not standing up to the bullying of Sanjay Leela Bhansali by Hindu right-wing groups over his film Padmavati. They are calling Bollywood stars spineless and opportunistic.

But I do not blame the Bollywood stars.

It is easy for us to sit in our armchairs and castigate them for not rising up to Bhansali's and Deepika's defense. But we are not the ones whose professions will be threatened by standing up. We do not work in professions where our fate is judged by the public at large. We can happily write our opinions on social media and face no consequences.

We do not have the right to ask others to become martyrs for our pet causes.

Let us face some facts here. India is under the spell of the Hindu right. The rise of Modi and the BJP to a 282 seat majority in the LS in 2014, and the subsequent state assembly wins in many states, even despite disasters like demonetization; despite (and maybe even because of) the high profile murders of people like Mohammad Akhlaque of Dadri, Pehlu Khan of Alwar, and Junaid Khan of Ballabgarh; and the murders of social activists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, MM Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh - all this tells us that the majority of the people of this country support a militant right-wing Hindutva philosophy.

People in Bollywood create films. That's their profession. That's what feeds their families. If people stop watching their films, for any reason, they are out of a job. Nobody likes being out of a job, including people with money — even 75-year-old Amitabh Bachchan. In addition, a Bollywood actor needs to act responsibly. If people do not watch your movie, it is not just a loss for you. The producer, the director, the other actors in the movie, and the entire crew of the movie — everyone suffers in one way or the other. There are tens or hundreds of crores of rupees at stake.

The reality of the situation today is that if you speak out publicly against the BJP, against Modi, or against Hindu right-wing behavior, and you are a public figure, you will be punished.

Aamir Khan tried making a comment about rising intolerance in 2015, and we all saw what happened. People tried to create financial losses for him by boycotting his films and by boycotting his sponsors. It scared him so much that he made many conciliatory statements, including a plea to people not to punish his films. I have nothing but sympathy for him.

Do not call this behavior spineless. What else would you do if you depended on public approval to survive, and the public decided to punish you?

People are blaming Amitabh and others for being silent. Why should he put his livelihood at risk? As long as he is apolitical, people will watch his movies, prostrate to him when they meet him, and watch every episode of KBC. Let him criticize the right-wing establishment over Padmavati, and tomorrow the producers of KBC may be pressured to find a new host; offers in movies may start drying up; and he may stop being the brand ambassador of Swacch Bharat and the state of Gujarat — for which he is well-compensated.

Activism has serious consequences.

Some people will make the misguided comparison with Hollywood, and how so many Hollywood stars openly criticize Trump.

But there is a big difference. A recent poll showed that Trump only had a 35% approval rating, the lowest ever for an American President. In contrast, a recent Pew survey showed that Modi had an 88% approval rating in India. People in Hollywood have to face no consequences for criticizing their President. They are cheered for taking him on. People in Bollywood could lose their careers. They are jeered for their impudence.

So do not blame Bollywood for being afraid; blame the people of India for their huge swing towards the right; for being so tolerant of intolerance; and for supporting those who are trying to suppress free speech and expression by intimidation.

Modi is not the problem. He is merely the symptom of the malaise that has affected India. The country has taken a huge turn to the right over the last 25 years, and Modi is immensely popular because he identifies with the same causes as the majority of the people. Modi is merely an instrument of the wishes of the people. It is the current environment that turns up the leaders of the times. India is right now in a strong right-wing mood, and that is why Modi has risen to the top.

The lesson to remember is that democracy is not synonymous with liberal values. Democracy simply means that the majority rules. And today, this is the mood of the majority.



Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

Friday, 24 November 2017

Why Indian Civilization Should Be Grateful to Alauddin Khilji


The Mongol Invasions That Never Succeeded - Why Indian Civilization Should Be Grateful to Alauddin Khilji

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 24 November, 2017


Abstract

There has been much controversy around a highly-awaited Bollywood movie, “Padmavati”, based on a fictional story written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi in 1540 CE, which itself uses Alauddin Khilji's conquest of Chittor in 1303 CE as a backdrop. The movie has been accused of denigrating the honour of the Rajput queen of Chittor, Padmini, and glorifying the Muslim conqueror Khilji, even before the movie's release, based solely on rumours.

Much of the controversy is fuelled by ill-feeling towards Khilji, based on the fact that he was an oppressive ruler to his Hindu subjects. However, what is not well-known is that Khilji, for all his faults, saved the Indian subcontinent from a much worse fate than even his rule — that of the murderous Mongols, who tried to invade the Indian subcontinent six times during his reign as the Sultan of Delhi, and failed miserably, thanks to Khilji's brilliance as a general, the quality, discipline, and bravery of his army and its generals, and their superior military tactics.

Given what we know about what Mongols inflicted on the nations that they conquered in war (Persia, the Caliphate of Baghdad, Russia, and others) — a genocide of the population of the nation; the destruction of its infrastructure; the destruction of its native culture, its literature, and its religious institutions; their habit of leaving conquered countries as wastelands that would not spring back for at least a hundred years; and their tendency to rule even the regions they settled in, such as Russia, in an exploitative and backward way — one can safely argue that Alauddin Khilji, for all his faults, did save the syncretic culture of the Indian subcontinent of that time — which included Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jain subcultures — from enormous destruction, even if preserving the culture of India may not have been his intention.

The point of this analysis is to illustrate that it is impossible to describe historical figures and their impact in black-and-white portrayals — they are far too layered and complex for that. Khilji is rightly viewed negatively for his cruelty and brutality; but he should also, in fairness, be seen as the saviour of Hindustan that he unwittingly ended up being, by repelling the formidable and ruthless Mongol hordes.

Further, a careful examination of the historical record also reveals that Khilji's cruelty was impartial; that he was equally cruel and brutal with both his Hindu and Muslim subjects, and thus was not really a bigot. He was an equal-opportunity brute and monster.


Note: If you are seeing repeated text, then this is a browser issue. The repeated text is actually supposed to appear in highlighted boxes, but this is not happening for some people. I am currently trying to resolve this.

The possibility of a romance of a Muslim “villain” with a Hindu queen being depicted on screen, even as a fantasy, as has been rumoured, infuriates Hindu right-wing groups.

There is a lot of controversy regarding Alauddin Khilji in the wake of the new Bollywood film, “Padmavati,” which purports to depict Khilji's conquest of Chittor in 1303 and his supposed obsession with Rani Padmini of Chittor, most of it based on a poem of questionable authenticity – Malik Mohammad Jayasi’s poem from 1540 CE, Padmavat.

Why does this controversy exist?

Alauddin Khilji is seen by many as a brutal king who, as the Sultan of Delhi, conquered many Hindu kingdoms and treated his Hindu subjects cruelly. So the possibility of a romance of a Muslim “villain” with a Hindu queen being depicted on screen, even as a fantasy, as has been rumoured, infuriates Hindu right-wing groups. It should be mentioned that no one, apart from those involved in the making of the film, has actually seen it and knows what exactly is being portrayed in the film, at the time of writing; and hence the entire controversy is based on rumour and speculation.

All aspects of Indian civilization — Hindu, Muslim, Jain, and Buddhist — would have definitely suffered tremendous destruction if it had not been for Alauddin Khilji.

But, in fact, villain or not, the people of this subcontinent owe a great debt to Alauddin Khilji, for he saved Indian civilization from the warriors known the world over as the “Scourge of God” — the Mongols (Curtin, 1908).

Given the size of the Indian subcontinent, the Mongols probably could not have destroyed Indian civilization completely — after all, even Islam recovered from the catastrophic Mongol invasions — but all aspects of Indian civilization — Hindu, Muslim, Jain, and Buddhist — would have definitely suffered tremendous destruction if it had not been for Alauddin Khilji.

The Scourge of God - The Mongols

The Mongols were largely illiterate, and so much of their history was written by the people of the lands they conquered, such as the Islamic lands of the near east, and of China and Russia. Both western (e.g., Curtin, 1908) and later Islamic scholars (e.g., Ibn Iftikhar, 2008) have pieced together their history based on the writings of scholars such as Rashid al-Din and other Islamic scholars who lived in the time of the Mongols.

If the ruler accepted their suzerainty and paid the stiff tribute demanded, the Mongols would leave his kingdom unharmed. If he refused, they would raze that kingdom to the ground and leave behind a wasteland.

The Mongol dynasty was founded in 1206 CE, when a council of all Mongol tribesmen elected the warrior Temujin as their leader and conferred upon him, at the age of 44, the title of Genghis (meaning “Mighty”) Khan. Radiating outwards from Mongolia, the Mongols, first under Genghis and, after his death in 1227 CE, under his sons and grandsons, embarked upon a plan of global conquest that resulted in the largest land empire in the world in history – conquering China, Russia, Central Asia, Persia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and eastern Europe (parts of Hungary and Poland), and left a trail of death and destruction behind them.

The map below (taken from this site) shows the extent of the Mongol empire in 1294 CE, which is just 2 years before Alauddin Khilji ascended the throne of Delhi.

Upon Genghis Khan’s death, the empire was partitioned into four parts. Eventually, these became the Yuan dynasty in China, famous for Genghis’ grandson Kublai Khan; the Golden Horde in Russia, which was founded by Genghis’ grandson Batu Khan; the Chaghatai Khanate of Central Asia, headquartered around Uzbekistan, founded by Genghis’ son Chaghatai Khan; and the Ilkhanate of western Asia, founded by Genghis’ grandson Hulagu Khan. The Mongols were the dominant military power in the world from the rise of Genghis Khan until at least the middle of the 14th century – with the exception of a few minor defeats involving small forces in battle, such as the Battle of Ayn Jalut, no military could defend itself against their onslaught.

“The Mongols destroyed every living thing; even the cats and dogs in the city were killed by them.”

The Mongols, being nomads, usually did not settle in the lands they conquered. Their goals were simple: exact tributes and treasure from the kingdoms they had conquered, and take from them the latest technology they possessed, in addition to the most beautiful women for their harem and the most able-bodied men for their military, to take back to their home base. They would demand all this from any nation before actually attacking them. If the ruler accepted their suzerainty and paid the stiff tribute demanded, the Mongols would leave his kingdom unharmed. If he refused, they would raze that kingdom to the ground and leave behind a wasteland. As Curtin describes it, “The Mongols destroyed every living thing; even the cats and dogs in the city were killed by them.”

The Mongols did not just invade and conquer; they exterminated civilizations … the Mongols killed 1.5% of the world population in a single campaign.

The Mongols themselves had no unique religious identity, and the Mongol nation was a fairly secular multi-ethnic meritocracy from the time of Genghis Khan (Weatherford, 2004). Hence, religion was not a strong motivating factor in their attacks. As an example, Hulagu was a mixture of the traditional Mongol religion of Tengrism and Buddhism, and his wife was Nestorian Christian.

The Mongols did not just invade and conquer; they exterminated civilizations. To give just an idea, during Genghis’ invasion of the Persian Empire, these were the number of people put to death in some of the cities overcome by the Mongols in 1222 CE: Urgench, 1 million; Merv, 700,000; Nishapur, 1.7 million; Rey, 500,000 (an estimate based on the order that every male should be killed in a city of approximately a million people); and Herat, 1.6 million. That’s nearly 6 million people just from these cities, at a time when the world population is estimated at 400 million. In other words, the Mongols killed 1.5% of the world population in a single campaign.

The streets ran blood ‘like rainwater in a valley.’” … “The Mongols destroyed mosques, palaces, grand buildings, hospitals, and libraries. The Mongols raided the House of Wisdom itself. The Tigris river ran black from the ink of the books that were thrown into the river, mixed with the blood of the slain.”

When Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258, he killed at least 800,000 people and as many as 2 million. He single-handedly ended what is known as the Islamic Golden Age. Ibn Iftikhar, quoting Islamic scholars, writes, “the Mongols stormed the country and killed everyone they were able to find including men, women, children, old, young, sick, and healthy. People would try to hide inside wells, gardens, and they even fled towards the hills and mountains. However, the Mongols would continue on, finding even people on the rooftops of their homes and inside the mosques. The streets ran blood ‘like rainwater in a valley.’” He also reports, “The Mongols destroyed mosques, palaces, grand buildings, hospitals, and libraries. The Mongols raided the House of Wisdom itself. The Tigris river ran black from the ink of the books that were thrown into the river, mixed with the blood of the slain.” The destruction the Mongols wreaked on the Muslim world was so great – it came close to wiping out Islamic civilization – that most Muslims of the time viewed it as a form of divine retribution for the sins they had committed.

Dmitry Likhachev, the leading twentieth-century cultural historian of Russia, argued that Russia received extraordinarily little from Asia. Pushkin wrote that the Mongols brought ‘neither algebra nor Aristotle’ with them when they came to Russia. What they did was plunge Russia into its ‘Dark Age.’

The Golden Horde under Batu Khan invaded Russia in 1238-1240 CE with the same brutality as in the other cases described above. Entire populations of towns like Ryazan and Kiev were massacred (Cicek, 2016). But what is even more interesting about the Russian invasion is the effect of Mongol rule on a country in which they actually settled and ruled for 250 years. As Cicek explains, “Soviet historians argued that the Mongol invasion greatly delayed Russia’s economic development. Tribute payments and the destruction of commercial centers delayed the growth of a money economy. The town economies based on handicrafts were completely destroyed, throwing Russia back by several centuries. The economy of Europe, however, flourished in this period, preparing the necessary ground for the industrial revolution. The Mongols also prevented the agricultural development of Russia, which further worsened the commercial position of Russia, especially in comparison to the West. Russia not only lost the vital trade route of the Dvina River but also lost some of its territories in the west to Lithuania, Sweden, and the Teutonic Knights. To summarize, the net effect of the Tatar yoke on the Russian economy, according to Soviet historians, was overwhelmingly negative. The Mongols gave nothing but destruction and looting to the Russian people.”

Cicek also mentions that “Dmitry Likhachev, the leading twentieth-century cultural historian of Russia, argued that Russia received extraordinarily little from Asia. Pushkin wrote that the Mongols brought ‘neither algebra nor Aristotle’ with them when they came to Russia. What they did was plunge Russia into its ‘Dark Age.’” Another destructive legacy of the Mongols in their 250-year rule of Russia was the institution of serfdom.

The Mongols were renowned for their brutality. Their reputation usually preceded them, and helped persuade their victims to submit to their demands without a fight.

Alauddin Khilji’s Repulsion of the Mongol Invasions of India

Alauddin Khilji was born in Delhi in 1266 CE, lived his entire life in the Indian subcontinent, and ruled as Sultan of Delhi from 1296 CE - 1316 CE. By any definition, you would have to call him an Indian, not a foreign invader.

Alauddin Khilji was born in Delhi in 1266 CE, lived his entire life in the Indian subcontinent, and ruled as Sultan of Delhi from 1296 CE - 1316 CE. By any definition, you would have to call him an Indian, not a foreign invader. As a ruler, he would prove himself to be one of India's greatest warrior kings and one of the world's great military geniuses.

The historical details about the Khiljis are obtained from fundamental sources such as Ferishta, who lived during the time of the sultan of Bijapur, Ibrahim Adil Shah II, and Ziauddin Barani, who lived at the time of Mohammad Bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq. These accounts are well-summarized in the works of eminent contemporary historians such as KS Lal, Satish Chandra, and Peter Jackson.

The attacks that occurred during the reign of Alauddin Khilji were not the first time that the Mongols had invaded India. But, as Lal puts it, “All these were minor invasions as compared with those that occurred in the time of Alauddin; and it was the good fortune of India that the most tremendous assaults were delivered to this country when a strong monarch like Alauddin was the ruler.”

Khilji greatly expanded the empire that he inherited from his uncle, Sultan Jalaluddin Khilji, after killing him. Many of his conquests were of Hindu kingdoms, including the kingdoms of Chittor, Devgiri, Warangal (from where he acquired the famous Kohinoor diamond), Gujarat, Ranthambore, and the Hoysala and Pandya kingdoms. He was able to do all this not because these other kingdoms were weak, but because he was a great soldier and general with a well-trained and disciplined army, using superior Turkic cavalry and infantry tactics, and had built a solid economic base which provided him with the resources to finance these campaigns.

During Khilji’s rule, the Mongols of the Chaghatai Khanate under Duwa Khan repeatedly tried to invade the Indian subcontinent. The attacks that occurred during the reign of Alauddin Khilji were not the first time that the Mongols had invaded India. But, as Lal puts it, “All these were minor invasions as compared with those that occurred in the time of Alauddin; and it was the good fortune of India that the most tremendous assaults were delivered to this country when a strong monarch like Alauddin was the ruler.”

Khilji, by his military brilliance, managed to defeat the Mongols not once, but five times, and avoided defeat a sixth time even when taken by surprise, even as the Mongols attacked with massive forces.

  1. The first invasion attempt was carried out in 1298 CE, and involved 100,000 horsemen. Alauddin sent an army commanded by his brother Ulugh Khan and the general Zafar Khan, and this army comprehensively defeated the Mongols, with the capture of 20,000 prisoners, who were put to death.

  2. In 1299 CE, the Mongols invaded again, this time in Sindh, and occupied the fort of Sivastan. Alauddin despatched Zafar Khan to defeat them and recapture the fort, which he did, even without the need for siege machines.

  3. This humiliating defeat prompted Duwa Khan to attempt another full-scale assault on India in 1299 CE, and he sent his son, Qutlugh Khwaja, with 200,000 soldiers, determined to finish off the Delhi Sultanate once and for all. The Mongol army came fully equipped for this assault on Delhi and for a long campaign, with sufficient food provisions.

    Alauddin’s own advisors were panic-stricken and advised him not to confront the dreaded Mongols who had come in such force. It should be mentioned here that Alauddin’s predecessor, Jalaluddin, had averted war with the Mongols in a previous attack by agreeing to humiliating demands from them. But Alauddin was made of sterner stuff, and was determined to fight to the end. As Lal describes it, he told his advisor, “How could he hold the sovereignty of Delhi if he shuddered to encounter the invaders? What would his contemporaries and those adversaries who had marched two thousand kos to fight him say when he ‘hid behind a camel’s back’? And what verdict would posterity pronounce on him? How could he dare show his countenance to anybody, or even enter the royal harem, if he was guilty of cowardice, and endeavoured to repel the Mughals with diplomacy and negotiations? ... ‘Come what may, I am bent upon marching tomorrow into the plain of Kili, where I propose joining in battle with Qutlugh Khwaja.’”

    With such resolution, Alauddin met Qutlugh Khwaja at Kili, and the day was won by the bravery and martyrdom of his general Zafar Khan. (That the Mongols retreated because of Zafar Khan's actions is the only explanation postulated by Barani, and quoted by Lal and Chandra; however, Jackson doubts this explanation and says the real reason the Mongols withdrew was that Qutlugh Khwaja was mortally wounded in the battle, a fact confirmed by other sources.) The defeated Mongols went back to their country without stopping once on the way.

  4. Duwa Khan was not satisfied. In 1303 CE, he again sent a huge force of 120,000 horsemen to attack Delhi, under the general Taraghai. This was, unfortunately for Alauddin, immediately after his long battle with and victory over the kingdom of Chittor. That Alauddin was busy with his attack on Chittor was known to Taraghai, and was one of the key factors in his planning. Alauddin was taken completely by surprise. His army was greatly depleted and had suffered great losses in equipment in the battle for Chittor. He tried to get reinforcements from other parts of the empire, but the Mongols had blocked all the roads to Delhi.

    Yet Alauddin did not lose heart, and fought a gallant defensive battle. Lal explains it thus: “Sultan Alauddin gathered together whatever forces he had in the capital, and arrayed his forces in the plains of Siri. As it was impossible to fight the Mongols in an open engagement with so small an army, Alauddin decided to exhaust the patience of the besiegers by strengthening his defence lines. On the east of Siri lay the river Jamuna, and on the south-west was the old citadel of Delhi, although by the time of Taraghai’s invasion it had not been repaired. In the south lay the dense jungle of Old Delhi. The only vulnerable side, therefore, was the north, where the Mongols had pitched their camp.” Alauddin dug trenches and built ramparts and created a strong defensive position that made it impossible for Taraghai to defeat him. After two months of trying hard to break Alauddin’s defences, Taraghai lost patience and returned home. This was clearly brilliant generalship under extremely adverse circumstances which would have meant certain defeat for anyone who was not as resolute and as resourceful.

    This close shave made Alauddin realize the need for stronger defence of the capital, and he took various measures, such as constructing a wall, repairing forts, and the like. As a result, Delhi was never again at risk of conquest by the Mongols.

  5. In 1305 CE, seeking to avenge their previous defeats, the Mongols invaded again, under the leadership of Taraghai, Ali Beg, and Tartaq, with a force of 50,000 horsemen. Taraghai was killed in a preliminary clash even before arriving in Delhi, but Ali Beg and Tartaq pushed on. Knowing Delhi to be strongly defended, they started plundering the countryside of Avadh. Alauddin sent a force of 30,000 to 40,000 horsemen with the general Malik Nayak to meet the Mongols and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mongols on December 30, 1305. Twenty thousand horses belonging to the enemy were captured, and most of the soldiers were slaughtered. 8000 prisoners of war were brought to Delhi, including the two generals, who were subsequently beheaded.

  6. Thus, Alauddin Khilji achieved what no other ruler in the world, east or west, had achieved – repeatedly repulsing (six times) and defeating large-scale invasions by the Mongols, who had been an unstoppable force wherever else they had gone — Russia, China, Persia, Iraq, Syria, Europe. He was able to repel forces of up to 200,000 Mongol horsemen. In comparison, the force that Hulagu took with him to Baghdad and completely destroyed the Caliphate with had only 150,000 horsemen.

    The last attempt to invade the Delhi Sultanate was made by Duwa in 1306 CE, just before his death, when he sent the generals Kubak and Iqbalmand with an army of 50,000 to 60,000 horsemen. Kubak advanced in the direction of the Ravi river, and Iqbalmand advanced in the direction of Nagor. Alauddin dispatched his favorite general, Malik Kafur, to deal with the Mongols. Kafur defeated Kubak in a battle on the Ravi and captured him alive. He then intercepted the second force at Nagor and defeated that as well. Only 3000 or 4000 soldiers remained of the Mongol invasion force.

Thus, Alauddin Khilji achieved what no other ruler in the world, east or west, had achieved – repeatedly repulsing (six times) and defeating large-scale invasions by the Mongols, who had been an unstoppable force wherever else they had gone — Russia, China, Persia, Iraq, Syria, Europe. He was able to repel forces of up to 200,000 Mongol horsemen. In comparison, the force that Hulagu took with him to Baghdad and completely destroyed the Caliphate with had only 150,000 horsemen.

The Mongols had not become weak and feeble since the sack of Baghdad in 1258 – this was not the reason for Alauddin’s success. As an illustration, his uncle who preceded Alauddin as Sultan of Delhi preferred to “make a settlement, giving the Mongols very favourable terms”, to use Lal's words. Alauddin's own advisors advised him in 1299 CE to submit rather than fight the feared Mongols; but the undaunted Alauddin Khilji proved superior to his formidable Mongol foes.

Khilji’s Legacy to the Indian Subcontinent

Had the Mongols conquered India, India would have likely been set back at least two or three hundred years in its development. A large part of the knowledge and culture that had been accumulated in India over millenia might well have been destroyed. Every library, every school, every temple, every mosque, every home would have likely been burnt to the ground.

From the knowledge of how other countries fared under the Mongols, it is fair to say that, had the Mongols conquered India, India would have likely been set back at least two or three hundred years in its development. A large part of the knowledge and culture that had been accumulated in India over millenia might well have been destroyed. Every library, every school, every temple, every mosque, every home would have likely been burnt to the ground. As the Russian experience shows, even if the Mongols had settled down in the Indian subcontinent (an unlikely proposition, given the hot Indian weather), the consequences for India would probably not have been savoury.

So the Mongols were not like any other invader. If Khilji had lost to the Mongols, it would not have been as benign as when Ibrahim Lodi lost to Babur. In that case, one Muslim ruler was replaced by another, but the Indian subcontinent itself did not suffer greatly. If the Mongols had won against Khilji, they would probably have wiped a large percentage of modern India’s and Pakistan’s cultural heritage off the map of the world.

If we have ancient traditions in India that survive to this day, a large credit for that has to go to Alauddin Khilji, one of history's greatest warrior-kings.

If we have ancient traditions in India that survive to this day, a large credit for that has to go to Alauddin Khilji, one of history's greatest warrior-kings.

By all accounts, Alauddin Khilji was not a benevolent king to his Hindu subjects. But he also was a brave soldier and a brilliant general who saved the Indian subcontinent from certain destruction. If the Mongol invasions had succeeded, it is conceivable that a weakened and largely depopulated India might not even have been the Hindu-majority country it now is – with the influx of Christian missionaries after 1500 CE, the whole country could have converted to Christianity. Of course, Khilji did not resist the Mongols to save Indian culture and civilization; he did what he did to save himself. But that is true of every ruler who defends their kingdom against a foreigner, whether that be Shivaji, Rana Pratap, or Laxmibai of Jhansi.

People are not monolithic — they are complex and layered. The man you hate as a Muslim bigot may also be the reason you are a Hindu today.

There is an important moral to this story.

These days, it is becoming increasing common to paint one-dimensional portraits of people: “Hindu hero,” “Islamic tyrant,” “Islamic hero,” etc. But the problem with such stereotypes is that people are not monolithic — they are complex and layered. The man you hate as a Muslim bigot may also be the reason you are a Hindu today.

And it is not just Alauddin Khilji. Every famous personality and, indeed, every person — whether that be a Shivaji or an Ashoka or an Akbar — has many different facets, some of which we may like and others which we may not. And so it is not so easy to love someone or hate someone in an absolute sense. We have to accept the good with the bad.

Was Alauddin Khilji a Bigot?

Khilji’s cruelty was impartial, and made no distinction between Hindus and Muslims.

Historians are generally agreed that while Alauddin Khilji was a cruel despot, he was not a bigot.

There is also another moral to this story — the need to understand history in its entirety. Just as most Indians are unaware of Alauddin Khilji’s role in stopping many Mongol invasions, even the image of Khilji as someone who persecuted Hindus is based on an incomplete understanding of history.

To be sure, Khilji was an extremely cruel, suspicious and vindictive man, and meted out barbaric punishments to those who antagonized him. But Khilji’s cruelty was impartial, and made no distinction between Hindus and Muslims.

Historians are generally agreed that while Alauddin Khilji was a cruel despot, he was not a bigot. He was a pragmatist.

One statement that has been widely circulated in recent times as proof of Alauddin’s bigotry comes from Ziauddin Barani, who mentions (Kulke and Rothermund) that Alauddin asked wise men to

supply some rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters rebellion. The Hindu was to be so reduced as to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life.

The first thing one needs to understand about this statement is the source. As Peter Jackson explains, Barani was an extreme bigot, writing in his Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shah that Hindus should be looted and enslaved and the Brahmins, in particular, should be massacred en masse. Some of what Barani writes about Alauddin, therefore, reflects his own prejudice more than Alauddin’s. In fact, there are many places where he disapproves of Alauddin as having been too soft on Hindus.

The motivation for the oppression was fiscal, not religious.

The next things to understand are Alauddin’s real motivations for keeping the Hindus in an impoverished state. The main revenue of the state came from agriculture, and most of the farmers were Hindus. Alauddin needed to finance his expensive military campaigns, and for this, he levied heavy taxes on the farmers — and hence the Hindus. This was rightly viewed as oppression; but the motivation for the oppression was fiscal, not religious.

The second motivation for Alauddin in impoverishing the farmers was that there was a constant threat of rebellion against him. This threat arose both from the wealthy farmers as well as from the Muslim nobility. Alauddin accorded himself with equal brutality in suppressing both threats. A poor farmer was not a threat.

“I do not know whether this is according to the sharia, or against the sharia; whatever I think for the good of the state or suitable for the emergency, that I decree.”

—Alauddin Khilji

Another instance of brutality that Alauddin engaged in was in his conquests. It just happened that many of his conquests were of Hindu rajas and, as Lal explains it, “It is true that during the process of conquest atrocities were committed, but in times of war suffering is inevitable. With the establishment of peace and order, no organized persecution of Hindus was possible.”

That religion and religious doctrine were anyway secondary to administrative policy for Alauddin are clear from an exchange that Barani notes between Alauddin and the cleric Qazi Mughis, in which Alauddin says (Chandra; Kulke and Rothermund):

To prevent rebellions in which thousands perish, I issue such orders as I conceive to be for the good of the state, and the benefit of the people. Men are heedless, disrespectful, and disobey my commands. I am then compelled to be severe and bring them to obedience. I do not know whether this is according to the sharia, or against the sharia; whatever I think for the good of the state or suitable for the emergency, that I decree.

Even the much-reviled religious tax, the jaziyah, was levied rather inconsistently, as Chandra points out: “jaziyah as a separate tax affected only a small section in the towns. As such, it could hardly be considered a device for forcing conversion to Islam.”

In conclusion, it seems clear from various historical sources that the rule of Alauddin Khilji was not characterized by bigotry. And it would not have been practical, in any case, to indulge in large-scale discrimination against the Hindu majority — not only for Alauddin, but for any sultan, for the rulers were in the minority. As Barani says, Iltutmish, one of Alauddin’s predecessors, once explained to his clergy that Muslims were as scarce in India as “salt in a dish of food,” and hence he could not afford to be too harsh with the Hindus.

References

  • Chandra, Satish, Medieval India – from Sultanat to the Mughals (1206-1526), Har Anand Publications, 2007.
  • Cicek, A., “The Legacy of Genghis Khan – The Mongol Impact on Russian History, Politics, Economy, and Culture,” International Journal of Russian Studies, 5 (2), pp. 94-115, 2016.
  • Curtin, J., The Mongols – A History, Da Capo Press, 1908, reprint 2003.
  • Ibn Iftikhar, The Near-End of Islam: The Story of the Mongol Invasion and Muslim Genocide in the 13th Century, Amazon Asia-Pacific Holdings Private Limited, 2014.
  • Jackson, P., The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization), Cambridge University Press, 1999.
  • Kulke, H., and Rothermund, D., A History of India, 4th Ed., Routledge, 2004.
  • Lal, K.S., History of the Khaljis (1290-1320), The Indian Press, 1950.
  • Weatherford, J., Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, RHUS, 2005.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people for reading drafts of this article and offering valuable suggestions that have greatly improved it: Ajoy Ashirwad, Anirban Mitra, Prof. Harbans Mukhia, Prof. Partho Sarathi Ray, Ramdas Menon, Siddharth Varadarajan, and Sandhya Srinivasan. I would also like to thank all those who participated in discussing an earlier and much shorter version of this article that I had posted on Facebook — those discussions have helped sharpen the focus and improve this expanded version.



Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.