Display of Samudra Manthan (churning of the milky ocean) at Thailand airport!
Can this happen in India!?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Speak out and say yes to unity
28 Sep 2008, 1847 hrs IST (Times of India)
Do we get bad leaders in spite of having good people?
If our people are great, why do we have leaders who fail?
Where are the people if the leaders are not doing what we think they should be doing?
A people so intensely under attack by the terrorists claim to be brave by sitting silently and petitioning state clerks. Those who fear get what they fear.
While China, having superbly completed the Olympics, sent a man for a space walk and Sarah Palin "delighted" our PM in the US with a handshake, India seems to be descending dangerously into communal polarisation, reinforced and powered by a secular lobby. In the process, the morale of the police and other security forces is being affected for they are facing the brunt from terrorists as well as the secularists in the government and the media who are running them down, doubting their intentions and integrity.
Suddenly yardsticks for our judgment have changed. Opinions, morphed as judgments, are passed not on merit or weighing its consequences for the society, but by the yardstick of the colour events wear. The Nanavati Commission's report is to be discarded even before its pages are browsed because the Narendra Modi government instituted it and it shows Hindus as victims. The Bannerjee report is to be trusted because the secular Lalu Yadav instituted it and shows Hindus as aggressors. Strange logic.
Who speaks for the Indian?
Inspector M.C.Sharma's funeral is not to be attended because he shot at Muslims. When the men in khaki arrested the Kanchi Shankaracharya, not a single secular channel or newspaper cast any doubt on the police reports and statements. But when the men in khaki arrested a few from Jamia Milia, doubts were raised immediately and investigative journalism flowered.
Anything written about patriotism, even a good word about Inspector Sharma, is sought to be embarrassed under a general head Hindu media. I read this term being used first time in the aftermath of the Jamia controversy. Anything that Muslims show as a sign of solidarity with the rest of the India and condemnation of terrorism is either blacked out or shown apologetically.
Last week, 21st September to be exact, a few hundred young professional Muslim youth from Okhla and Jamia Nagar organized a silent procession at India Gate in New Delhi. They were condemning terrorism, asking for the harshest punishment for terrorists who use Islam for their crimes, and they wanted to be recognized as patriots. I didn't see the coverage it deserved. Why?
Who is speaking for the Indians who were killed in the Delhi blasts? Why did they have to be turned lifeless in a sudden stroke?
Suddenly a blast occurs and their life is changed. You are going to see a movie, and next moment found dead. Someone bringing his daughter home from school suddenly both are dead in a blast. Gone to market for shopping minutes later a phone call at home says 'Please come to claim the dead body'. Terrorism has changed our lives, our behavior, our language and relations. Yet we feel hesitant to speak out.
What happens to those who were dependent on the terror-struck victim nobody knows? They are not news. Can't we speak about Simran whose father and grandfather were killed in the previous blast – and about Santosh, the sweet little kid who got killed in Mehrauli blast on Saturday?
"Son, what's your religion?" – should that be our first query and decide what is said next?
Hard law is bad, because it was "used" against a particular community. Police is bad because it's arresting and targeting a particular community.
Terror is secular, khaki is suspect
While the nation and her security forces that includes the police too, stand firm to combat terrorism, the state power and the seculars are providing focused support to terrorists and enhancing their morale through statements and casting doubt on the motives of the anti-terror action. India's secular cabinet ministers demanded lifting of a ban on a terrorist organization, proposed Indian citizenship to millions of illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators, refused to say a word of encouragement to the security forces fighting terrorists but publicly assured help to the accused whom police, a part of the government, arrested for blasting Delhi and killing citizens.
All these secular statements had just one consideration __LongTerm__ religion of the groups they want to support or oppose. The seculars have become the worst kind of communal hate spreaders, with their extreme one-sided postures and acidic language. In a way these rabble-rousing seculars have become a security threat affecting the societal fabric and the morale of the policemen and soldiers.
They ordered a communal head count in the army, ignored and downgraded celebrations of Bharat Vijay Diwas, 16th December, and Kargil Vijay Diwas, stopped observing the Pokharan test anniversary in Delhi and failed to show due respect to Field Marshall Manekshaw. All this can't just be exceptions; they show a trend, an attitude.
These are the same elements who represent the governance and by virtue of being cabinet ministers, which ironically includes having taken an oath that obliges them to be loyal to the Constitution, succeed in facilitating comforts for the killers and create an atmosphere in which sympathies for the terrorists are generated and police become suspect with doubtful integrity. Words like __LongTerm__ "they have a soft heart", "they are our children and hence it's our duty to provide them help", "nothing can be said till they are proven guilty", etc __LongTerm__ are bandied about to warn the police and reassure those whom police caught at risk to their lives.
It's good and admirable to stick to a universal assumption that everyone is innocent till proven guilty. But during wartime words spoken publicly have to be weighed against their possible impact on the elements that shoulder the responsibility to safeguard the nation. If you start being celestially virtuous by sympathizing with the pains and difficulties of those who have waged a war on the state, it's bound to paralyze the enthusiasm of patriotic soldiers and civil resistance.
They know their side
In the secular dispensation, to be objective, liberal and broadminded and have sympathies on humanitarian grounds are reserved only for terror groups. Is it a secret that these seculars leave no stone unturned to create an atmosphere where procedural mechanism to punish the guilty is influenced and driven to believe that the arrested criminal is not the culprit, but the victim of an incompetent state apparatus.
Remember how a vigorous campaign to release a lecturer of the same Jamia Milia Islamia was launched in spite of Delhi police submitting a truckload of evidence about his involvement in the attack on Parliament? And the famous case of Abdul Mahdani, declared as the "main accused" in the Coimbatore bomb blast case, which left 58 dead? Karunanidhi went to see him in jail, provided all the facilities, including a regular masseur, and finally when on purely "technical" points he was released, Kerala's Left Front cabinet ministers came out and accorded him a public felicitation?
The charges against Mahdani were as follows:
"Accused No. 14 Mahdani is one of the key conspirators in the Coimbatore bomb blasts case."
"Accused of collecting and transferring explosives to the town, ripped by a series of bomb blasts on February 14, 1998."
"Charged under Sections 302 IPC (Murder); 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder); 153-A IPC (Creating hatred among communities); Section 5 of the Explosives Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act."
Public prosecutor Balasundarm, arguing against Mahdani, had expressed "surprise" over the judgment to release him and said he did a good job in assimilating the voluminous evidence of documents 1785 documents marked as evidence, 1300 witnesses and over 15,000 pages of investigation records. If indeed the case had been presented as thoroughly as claimed, why did it fail?
If such incidents do not open the eyes of the people leading our public life, then what's the course left for a law-abiding patriot?
In any other country facing such a serious serial terror assault, those who publicly empathize with the terrorists would have been tried along with the arrested accused of the blasts.
Speak out and say yes to unity.
It's the emergent duty of the media and political powers to help stop the dangerous polarization taking place in our social circles and polity post-bomb blasts and public shows of secular sympathies for the accused killers.
While care should be taken that no educational institution gets a bad name because of the actions of a few, it's also the duty of the faculty and the students to show solidarity with the terror-struck people. Muslim leaders have to come out openly re-enforcing a citizen's solidarity against terror. If students fail in duty and character, the teachers will have to share the responsibility for their bad behaviour. It's also wrong and false that a few wronged people have taken up guns. What wrongs and if it is indeed so, how many Kashmiri Hindus will have to take up guns?
Rather, the goodness of the religion needs to be publicized and there will be no dearth of other communities joining with such Muslims. So far it's only the Hindus who are coming out openly defending the goodness of the Indian Muslims and their religion. Nobody generalizes the community as terrorists, unlike in Europe and America. This difference remains unrecognized though. Maulanas are silent, teachers do not speak out and the common men suffer in silence. Is that the way we are going to deal with this war? If people dont forge solidarity and revolt and keep looking to politicians for all solutions, even god will think twice about helping them.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
vehicle for the jiva to reach Sri vaikuntham.
vehicle capable of transporting the jivan to Vaikuntham.”
it is for the Bhuddhi (charioteer) to control / rein
them using the manas.
properly , he can not take the Yajaman
In the journey, the chariot, namely, the body is an
important carrier because,
Yama concludes that the body is the
vehicle for the jiva to reach Sri Vaikutham.
that he may be capable of performing
endowed with the 16 types of wealth in order to
discharge his ‘jana samooha kadamai’.
A pretty long life, even in good many births is
something great to ask for,
provided the jiva knows how to conduct its journey well
Friday, September 26, 2008
or Supreme Consciousness, read upanishads and Brahma sutras.
From Rig veda :-
Of those who dwell upon the earth. (1-7-9)
Bestow, ye Asvins, upon us. (8-9-2)
Lords of the Fivefold. People, these, Indra and Agni, we invoke. (5-86-2)
Wise, Youthful, Master of the house. (7-15-2)
And over the Five Races let our glory shine high like the realm of light and unsurpassable. (2-2-10)
Kashmir defines Indian identity
India should henceforth refuse to engage in any dialogue on Kashmir except one in which the other side accepts the whole of Kashmir as an integral and inalienable part of India.
Recently, some columnists have advocated that India should let go of Kashmir. While not wanting to wear patriotism on my sleeve, I would say that the silent suffering majority of India wants none of this. The 'Kashmir issue,' in fact, can no more be solved by dialogue either with the Pakistanis or the Hurriyat, leave alone the constitutional impossibility of allowing it to secede. This is because we do not know what kind of Pakistan there will be in a few years from now.
The Pakistan army today, according to all informed sources available to me, has a majority of captains and colonels who owe allegiance to the Taliban and Islamist fundamentalism. In another five years, these middle ranks will reach, through normal promotions, the corps commander level. We know that the government in Pakistan has always been controlled by the seven corps commanders of the army. Therefore a Taliban government in Pakistan five years hence seems a highly probable outcome. Jihad, that is, war against India will be the logical consequence of that outcome.
Since the Hurriyat in Kashmir is an organisation that cannot go against Pakistan, India has about five years to prepare for a decisive and defining struggle with Pakistan. We must prepare to win it to avoid the balkanisation of India. We therefore should refute those Indian columnists, academics, and politicians who crave or preen themselves on being popular in Pakistan, by sounding reasonable and secular on the issue of Kashmir.
Never part with it
Kashmir, in fact, is now our defining identity. It is a touchstone for our resolve to preserve our national integrity. The population of that State may be majority Muslim but the land and its history is predominantly Hindu. For our commitment to the survival of the ancient civilisation of India and the composite culture that secularists talk of, we have not only to win that coming inevitable war but also resolve never to part with Kashmir.
I will not blame the jihadis for the coming war. They are, after all, programmed that way by their understanding of Islamist theology. I will blame ourselves for not understanding their understanding of the fundamentals of Islam. It is foolish therefore in the face of this reality to expound the banal sentiment that "all Muslims are not terrorists or fanatics." Of course that proposition is true.
However, the Islam of the cutting edge of Muslim fundamentalism by leaders such as Osama Bin Laden is in Sira and Hadith, and now increasingly followed in Pakistan. It calls on the faithful to wage war against the infidels (who cannot strike back effectively) and crush them. This is why the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were driven out in the first place.
The struggle for Kashmir by the jihadis is thus not just for independence. By their own declaration, they want a Darul Islam there, with the state becoming a part of the Caliphate. We cannot allow, in our national security interests, such a state to emerge on our frontiers. Hence the question of parting with Kashmir cannot arise. We have to go all out to retain Kashmir as part of India wherein Hindus and Muslims can live in peace and harmony.
Pakistanis often cite the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir to argue for a plebiscite. This obfuscates the fact of accession of the State to India. The legality of the Instrument of Accession signed in favour of India by the then Maharaja of J&K, Hari Singh, on October 26, 1947 has to prevail anyway. To disregard it will create a plethora of legal issues, including what will become the status of the Maharaja if we abrogate this Instrument and re-open the question of Partition itself. In that case, for example, will Dr. Karan Singh, Maharaja Hari Singh's son, have a claim to be regarded again as an independent and sovereign King of J&K?
On the Junagadh issue, Pakistan held the Instrument once signed to be "final, irrevocable, and not requiring the wishes of the people to be ascertained [emphasis added]." That is the correct legal position. But the Junagadh Nawab, after signing the Instrument in favour of Pakistan, invaded the neighbouring princely states, states that had acceded to India. This violated the terms of the Indian Independence Act (1947) enacted by the British Parliament. So when the Indian Army was moved by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to defend these areas, the Nawab, fearful of the consequences, ran away to Pakistan. His subjects, mostly Hindu and abandoned, welcomed the Indian army to Junagadh.
Furthermore, on what legal basis can we de novo seek to ascertain the wishes of the people of J&K as Pakistan asks, when the Indian Independence Act makes no provision for this? After all, it was this same Act that created a legal entity called Pakistan, carved out from united India. India under the Act was a settled and continuing entity out which the British Parliament made a new entity called Pakistan. Never in previous history was there was a country called Pakistan. The idea itself was conceptualised as recently as 1940 and legalised only in 1947.
By what mechanism then can Pakistan seek to amend or even disregard the Act, without unwittingly undermining the legal status of Pakistan itself? That is, if the Instrument of Accession is called into question, will not Partition itself be subject to challenge as without legal basis on the same consideration?
I raise this question also because of the constitutional futility of pursuing the issue of the secession of Kashmir. In the case of Beruberi in Eastern India, the transfer of that area to Bangladesh, although agreed to, has been enmeshed in prolonged litigation in the Indian Supreme Court. This is because Article 1 of the Indian Constitution bars the de-merger of any Indian territory after 1950.
Another argument advanced by these columnists is that if Kashmiri Muslims do not want live in India, it is against human rights to force them to do so. That argument is contradicted by the Bangladesh example. The area of that country was first created by Partition. In 1971, Indian army jawans created Bangladesh out of Pakistan in circumstances well known to all. But despite that, millions of Bengali Muslims have come into India as illegal immigrants and are quite happy to be working with Hindus in India. But Partition was agreed to by Hindus for those Muslims whom Jinnah said could not bear to live under alleged Hindu hegemony. Now, after getting their territory, a large number of Bangladeshis Muslims are voting with their feet to proclaim that they are happy to live in India with Hindus.
Similarly, after getting Kashmir as an independent country, Kashmiri Muslims may, like their Bangladesh counterparts, come to live in India anyway! What then is the point of severing Kashmir from India as these columnists suggest?
India should henceforth refuse to engage in any dialogue on Kashmir except one in which the other side accepts the whole of Kashmir as an integral and inalienable part of India. The people of Kashmir should be left in no doubt in their mind where the overwhelming number of citizens of India stand on the future of the State. Therefore, those who, at this crucial juncture of our history, advocate any dilution of this stand are leading the people of Kashmir to more misery. They are encouraging the forces of jihad to keep at their nefarious activities by raising hopes that, with rising costs, India will capitulate. Any democratically elected Indian government knows that it can never capitulate on issues of national integrity and risk an upheaval. The Ramar Setu and Amarnath issues have proved that beyond doubt. Advocating letting go of Kashmir therefore is a dangerous exercise in futility.
(The writer is a former Union Law Minister.)
KASHMIR IS THE DEFINING ISSUE OF INDIAN IDENTITY
by Subramanian Swamy
This article was submitted on july 16, 2008. It was a lecture delivered on July 9, 2008 to Indian students and American scholars at MIT.
I believe that the Kashmir "issue" can no more be solved by dialogue either with the Pakistanis or the Hurriyat This is because the Pakistan army has now a majority of captains and colonels owing allegiance to the Taliban. In another five years, they will reach, by promotions, the corp commander level. We know that the government in Pakistan is controlled by the seven corp commanders of the army. Therefore a Taliban government in Pakistan is inevitable and a jehad against India the logical consequence of the same. In turn the Hurriyat is an organization that cannot go against Pakistan.
Hence India has about five years to prepare for a decisive and defining war with Pakistan and we must prepare to win it. We therefore have to throw out of office in the coming elections all those Indian politicians who crave or preen themselves on being popular in Pakistan by sounding reasonable and secular as also equivocating on every issue. For the survival of the ancient civilization of India we have to win that inevitable war and recover the whole of Kashmir.
I will not blame the jehadis for the coming war. They are after all programmed that way by Islamic theology. I will blame ourselves for not understanding the fundamentals of Islam as propounded in the Sira and the Hadith. It teaches that if Muslims are in a majority, they must rule [Darul Islam], and then everyone else is a dhimmi and a kafir who do not have equal rights of worship. Thus in Saudi Arabia, you cannot even display a picture of a Hindu god inside your own home! When Muslims are in a hopeless minority, then Sira and Hadith urges Muslims to make a deal with the majority and make no demands [Darul Ahad]. In US and Australia for example, Muslims will therefore never ask for separate shariat personal law. If Muslims are not hopelessly in a minority, then Islam directs that true Muslims conduct subversions and act against all human values to leverage their position [Darul Harab] to become of defining influence in the polity and ultimately rulers. We saw this in Kashmir recently when the government was made to cave in on the most humane gesture of allotting land to make Hindu pilgrims feel comfortable while on arduous journey to Amarnath caves. And we have it on the authority of the Chief Minister of the state that the agitation against the allotment was financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
It is foolish therefore in the face of this reality to expound the banal sentiment that "all Muslims are not terrorists or fanatics". Of course that is true. Or that Koran is a message of peace. May be it is. However, the Islam of the cutting edge of Muslim thought propounded by leaders such as Osama Bin Laden is in Sira and Hadith, which calls on the faithful to wage war against the infidels who cannot strike back effectively and crush them.
The struggle for Kashmir by the jehadis thus is not just for independence. They instead want a Darul Islam there and for the state to become a part of the Caliphate. Hindus are a special target because despite Iran, Iraq, Egypt and other countries becoming majority Muslim after less than two decades of conquest and brutalization, India after a thousand years of massacres, mayhem and rape remained dominantly Hindu. This is a living affront for the fundamentalist Muslim, and in their seminaries and madrassas in Iran and Saudi Arabia, they even today debate and agonize over it.
Contrary to the British imperialist propaganda, Hindus did not just lie down and be conquered by foreign invaders. Hindu fighting spirit had never dimmed even if weakened by traitors within. Periodically Hindus rose in revolt symbolized by the Vijayanagaram empire [which lasted 300 years] or in Shivaji's bravery, or Guru Gobind Singh's campaigns or the Mahratta national onslaught.
Most of us thus remained Hindus, defiant, even if in poverty and misery singing Vande Mataram. This is the true history of India which the fundamentalist Muslim and the British imperialist historians cannot bear to acknowledge.
Accommodation and compromise with Islamic terrorists is self-defeating and suicidal. We have instead to fight back, for which Kashmir is the starting point. Hindu renaissance, long overdue, will be nurtured if we look for an opportunity to seize back the occupied areas of Kashmir, and make the jehadis feel that in India there can only be Darul Ahad for Muslims. We had opportunities earlier to demonstrate that: e.g.,in 1948, 1971, 1999, and 2001. But we let it go.
Hence, let there be no more intellectual confusion about the identity of India as a Hindu Rashtra [Nation], which means a land of Hindus and those others who acknowledge proudly that their ancestors are Hindus. If Muslims acknowledge this truth, then they are welcome as a part of our family. And those who do not so acknowledge cannot be equal citizens in India. Hence, we shall not agree to any more truncation of Indian territory
We have to therefore disown UN Resolutions and India-Pakistan treaties such as signed in Simla  as unauthorized Nehruvian policy blunders. The legality of the Instrument of Accession signed in favour of India by the then Maharaja of J&K on October 26, 1947 has to prevail. Otherwise it will create a plethora of legal issues including what will become the status of the Maharaja if we abrogate this Instrument. Will Dr. Karan Singh, the son of Maharaja Hari Singh, have then a claim to be regarded again as an independent and sovereign King of J&K? In the Junagadh issue, Pakistan had held the Instrument once signed is "final, irrevocable, and not requiring the wishes of the people to be ascertained". That is the correct position. But the Junagadh Nawab after signing the Instrument in favour of Pakistan, invaded the neighbouring princely states, states which had acceded to India. So when the Indian Army was moved by Patel to defend these areas, the Nawab ran away to Pakistan. His subjects were mostly Hindu who then welcomed the Indian army.
Furthermore, on what legal basis can we de novo seek to ascertain the wishes of the people of J&K when the Indian Independence Act  passed by the British Parliament makes no provision for the same? After all it was this same Act which created a legal entity called Pakistan, carved out from the united India. India under the Act was a settled and continuing entity out which the British Parliament made a new entity called Pakistan. Never in previous history there was ever a country called Pakistan. The concept itself was formulated only in 1947.
By what mechanism can then Pakistan today seek to amend or even de-recognise the Act without unwittingly undermining the legal status of Pakistan itself? That is, if the Instrument of Accession is called into question, will not Partition itself be subject to challenge as without legal basis on the same consideration? I raise this question also because in the case of Beruberi in Eastern India, the transfer of that area to Bangla Desh although agreed to, has been enmeshed in prolonged litigation in the Indian Supreme Court because of Article 1 of the Indian Constitution which bars de-merger of any Indian territory after 1950.
Indian army jawans created Bangla Desh out of Pakistan. But despite that, and drunk with their Darul Islam status, the Bengali Muslims have not only driven out the Hindus or butchered them or forcibly converted them but millions of Bengali Muslims have sneaked into India and are happily working with Hindus in India. Partition was agreed to by Hindus only for those Muslims who could not bear to live under Hindu hegemony. And now after getting their territory, they cannot now say that they are happy to live in India with Hindus.
Hence, a virat Hindu Rashtra [nation] should tell Bangla Desh to take back their Muslims or hand over one-third of Bangla Desh territory as compensation. If they do not agree, then we must send two divisions of Indian army from Sylhet to Khulna and annex one third of north Bangla Desh as our due for bearing the economic and political burden of Bangla Deshis in our country. This will make our access to Assam and Northeast much easier too.But most of all it will send a powerful and salutary signal to Pakistani terrorists that Hindus will no more be passive.
These actions are possible if we gear up diplomatically for it. Today the world is sick of the terrorism and the greed of Muslims nations to make money out the sale of oil which they have got by sheer accident of geology. Hence, we must make strong allies. Israel is one such country. We must find ways to make China see our interests. It can be done if we know how to come to an understanding with them. This is essential for isolating Pakistan. At present China has begun to see the tinder box that Pakistan has become. Uighurs from Xinjiang have been to madrassas of Pakistan for training in subversion in Urumuchi and to sabotage the Beijing Olympics This worries China. It should concern us too.
Hence to lay the foundation for the liberation of Kashmir, we must have President's Rule for some time. India should refuse to engage in any dialogue on Kashmir in which the other side does not accept the whole of Kashmir as an integral and inalienable part of India. The people of Kashmir should be left in no doubt in their minds where the citizens of Hindu Rashtra stand on the future of the state: that it lies with us. Every Hindu has a claim on Kashmir. I for one claim it because my gotra [lineage, clan] is Kashyapa. It was RShi Kashyapa who invented Kashmir out the Dal lake. Hence my claim.
We should undo the "cleansing" of the state of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits by sending 1 million ex-servicemen and families into the Kashmir valley for re-settlement. Article 370 of the Constitution will have to be removed for that purpose, but according to the Constitution itself, it is supposed to be a "temporary provision" not requiring a Parliamentary two-thirds majority for amendment. It can be erased by a Presidential Notification on the recommendation of the Union Cabinet.
Then we await a war. We do not have to go to war with Pakistan on Kashmir because a Talibanised Pakistan will provide us with the opportunity. What I am advocating here is that we prepare mentally and militarily for that eventuality, and having been provided that opportunity, go for the jackpot -- to use an American slang.
Editor's End Notes (Not part of the Original article)
 Kashmir Issue. Because of agitation by Indian Muslims, India was partitioned in 1947 into two independent states: India and Pakistan. This was accompanied by a large population exchange. When the dust settled, Pakistan was mostly Muslim, India was Hindu with a sizable Muslim population. To read the excellent analysis by Jeffrey Weiss, "India and Pakistan -- a Cautionary Tale for Israel and Palestine," click here. Muslims have continued to agitate for more territory.
 The Hurriyat is an umbrella group of Muslim political, business and religious organizations, which have banded together to promote Kashmir separatism. As noted on www.satp.org: "Since the international community frowned upon the resort to violence by non-state actors, the Hurriyat was an ideal platform to promote the Kashmiri secessionist cause." The Hurriyat views Kashmir as the 'unfinished agenda of Partition.'
 Vande Mataram ("Hail to the Mother(land") is India's especially beloved song, its nationalist song, which since the late 1800s conveyed the Indian desire to be free of British rule. It visualizes the nation as Mother Durga, a Hindu goddess. It was rejected as the national anthem because its imagery was considered offensive to Muslims.
 Young man. Private soldier.
Subramanian Swamy is an economist, who has taught on the university level both in India and U.S.A. He was a founding member of the Janata Party in India and has served as a cabinet minister. He has promoted normalizing relations with China and Israel. Contact him by email at firstname.lastname@example.org