Blog

Why India should not have a secular Army

Editorial illustration for “Why India should not have a secular Army”.

One of the oft-repeated proud facts about the present Indian Armed Forces is that it is secular in nature and has no religious connotations associated with it. But is this a good thing? The question is — does religion and composition of army play any role in the defence of the nation? After all, religion is one of the strongest binding forces for any nation. From the North East to Kashmir, every state in India where Hindus are in a minority has an insurgency problem — a fact which cannot be brushed aside as a statistical anomaly. If not for the lack of geographical continuity with Pakistan and the role of Sardar Patel, Hyderabad would have definitely ended up with Pakistan due to the religion of its ruler.

The secular ayatollahs in India claim, without any sense of reason, that the Indian nation state is secular and hence the army of the nation — which is supposed to preserve and protect it — has to be secular as well. It should not discriminate on the basis of religion and allow Muslims among its ranks, even though our primary national threat is a Muslim majority Pakistan which positions itself as the caretaker of the Muslim world. But the question is — should the army continue with its secular hiring policy and appoint Muslims in high-ranking positions? To answer this question one has to look at the history of betrayals by Muslim soldiers when fighting against other Muslim armies, in cases where their own country was non-Muslim.

Evidence from Soviet-Afghan war

The Soviet Union is the best case study to look at Muslim behaviour, given it was the pinnacle of a secular and godless society — something India cannot ever hope to achieve. They monitored the mosques and used state-appointed bureaucrats to oversee the operation of all mosques in their country to ensure that Muslim kids raised in their schools got secular education and were taught to put Soviet interests over their own religion. However, despite their strong efforts, this secularization crumbled as soon as they entered the Soviet-Afghan war and got betrayed by a large number of Muslim soldiers.

At the start of the war, the Soviet high command bet heavily on its Muslim units of Central Asian origins and deployed them in Afghanistan to help their Afghan Communist allies — to ensure better coordination among the Soviet and Afghan soldiers in their fight against the Jihadis, given their language affinity. This was a huge miscalculation because desertions and betrayals from their Muslim units started as soon as the war broke out. The incompetence of these units was so high that the Soviet Union decided to pull them out just after three months into the war and replaced them with units formed by Slavic soldiers.

The threats posed by the Muslim soldiers were on different levels — some of them fraternised with the locals, while others were reluctant to fight and some outright showed open disloyalty and joined the ranks of the Jihadis. According to some estimates, the desertion rate was as high as 60–80% during the first year of the war. Since the Soviets had to replace all their Central Asian units with European units, it severely reduced the size of Soviet forces deployed in Afghanistan and left a long-lasting impact on the war. Although the Central Asian Muslim troops played a crucial role as interpreters on the field, post initial desertions they were only deployed in mixed units and formed a very small part of counter-insurgency operations. In hindsight one can say that the Soviets learnt their lessons the hard way.

Evidence from Medieval India

When the Islamic forces were running amok over entire India, the Vijayanagara Empire in the south held on to India’s Hindu roots. The Hindu kings of the empire were fair to all their subjects and did not discriminate on the basis of religion in their day-to-day activities — so much so that they even hired Muslim soldiers in their ranks. But they were in for a surprise and were betrayed at a crucial moment in the war with the Deccan Sultanate at the Battle of Talikota. The battle — which was going in favour of the Vijayanagara Empire — was lost when there was confusion in the middle of the Hindu army, as they got attacked from the back by their own Muslim commanders and soldiers.

Despite all these disadvantages, the greatest factor was the betrayal of the Vijayanagara Army by two Muslim commanders (Gilani Brothers). At the critical point of the war, Muslim officers in the Vijayanagara army launched a subversive attack. Suddenly Rama Raya found himself surprised when the two Muslim divisions in his ranks turned against him. The Muslim troops of the Vijayanagara army had opened a vigorous rear attack on the Hindus and captured several artillery positions. Several cannon shells landed near Rama Raya’s elephant and he fell from it as his mount was struck by a cannon shard.

These Muslim soldiers were all well decorated in the Vijayanagara army and were treated as equals — but that was not sufficient to stop them from betraying at the crucial moment. All that was needed to turn them against the kafir Hindu king was a call to safeguard Islam by their fellow Muslim army a day before the battle. The results of this war were far-reaching as the Muslim armies then marched and sacked the capital city of Hampi — which now lies in ruins — and set in motion the decline of the Vijayanagara Empire.

The same mistake of trusting Muslims was repeated by the Marathas and was one of the chief reasons for their loss at the Third Battle of Panipat. In the previous wars, Shuja-ud-Daula’s father was helped by the Marathas against his enemies and was supposedly one of their allies. However, when the Marathas needed his help against the invading Afghan army, Shuja-ud-Daula instead of helping the Marathas decided to backstab them and attacked their supply lines. This act of betrayal is also an interesting case study from the point of view of exploiting Shia-Sunni rivalry. Shuja-ud-Daula — a Shia — was often ridiculed and mocked by the Sunni Afghans and Rohillas for his un-Islamic beliefs, but he brushed aside these differences when the opportunity came to prove his loyalty to the Ummah and fight against the Kafir Marathas, despite constant goading from his mother who suggested he join the Marathas given the constant help they had given to his father.

Evidence from Indian National Army (INA)

The Hindu-Muslim riots form a crucial part of pre-partition history of British India. Since the political dispensation in post-independence India has belittled the role of the INA in the Indian independence movement, it ensured that people did not take a deep look at the INA’s shortcomings — especially the behaviour of its Muslim soldiers. To give some background, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a big Islamophile himself and went out of his way to make Muslims comfortable, often claiming that Hindus being in the majority should be magnanimous while dealing with Muslims. However, Muslims being what they are only saw this magnanimity as a sign of weakness.

Muslims formed a core part of the INA led by Netaji and were present in most of its units. A large number of them joined the INA because the Allies were fighting against Turkey, which was still seen as the remnant of the old Ottoman Caliphate. Since Netaji ignored this fact, he was in for a big surprise during the latter stages of the war when the INA experienced Muslim desertions and betrayals on a large scale. The event which triggered this desertion was the change in Turkey’s stand as it joined the war on the side of the Allies. While some of them deserted the INA, others went on to rejoin the British army.

Netaji tried to give geopolitical reasons behind the change in Turkey’s stand but failed to stop this desertion. Once again the Muslims proved that they preferred their pan-Islamic identity over national identity and chose to be slaves under the British — an ally of Turkey — rather than fight for their national independence. Not to forget the fact that the newly minted Pakistani army in 1948 made a good harvest from these former Muslim soldiers in the INA. This is in sharp contrast with the behaviour of Tamil Hindus of Malaysia — most of whom had not even seen India — but joined Netaji in his fight against the British army and remembered him as their hero till the end.

Present and Future

Even today, there are many examples of Indian Muslims in the army working as spies for Pakistan. Despite being only 2% of the Indian army, Muslims contribute a much larger number of spies that are caught working for the Pakistanis. This is because nationalism is almost identical with iconoclasm in Islam. This was the reason why Deobandis at the time of partition did not want partition of India — as there is no concept of nation state or nationalism in Islam, only allegiance to Islam and Allah. This is the reason that we hear in everyday news about Muslims opposing even secular slogans like Jai Hind, as Islam does not allow praise of any other entity other than Allah.

This is not to say that all Muslims serving currently in the armed forces are traitors. There are brave Muslim martyrs who have won the highest military honours like the Param Vir Chakra. However, those numbers are too small in the grand scheme of things. Is the benefit of having a few Param Vir Chakra-capable nationalist Muslims worth the risk of betrayal that comes from assuming Muslim trust — especially when the risk is so huge that we might lose parts of our country to the Islamic barbarians in the west? In modern days the war is decided by intelligence reports rather than slug matches, which makes unit integrity even more important.

In the wake of the Sachar Committee report, there has been a debate about changing the religious composition of the army and increasing Muslim representation. But given the long history of Muslim betrayal in the past, this policy change will be a big compromise on Indian security. Instead of trying to create artificial secularity and give pseudo-justifications based on a false sense of moral righteousness, India should be pragmatic and limit the number of Muslim soldiers in its ranks. To quote George Fernandes:

The Muslim is not wanted in the armed forces because he is always suspect — whether we want to admit it or not, most Indians consider Muslims a fifth column for Pakistan.

— George Fernandes

If India disregards history and fails to learn from the experiments of Vijayanagara and the Marathas, it will soon join them as an entity in the history books of tomorrow and museums.

References:

Subhas Chandra Bose – Another Look Part 1: “The Seeds of Islamophile Secularism”

Christian Bleuer, Soviet Muslim Soldiers in Afghanistan

January 31, 2016
The Lost River by Michel Danino: Review

Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.

The Lost River: On the trail of the Saraswati — Michel Danino

What are the characteristics of a good book? It should keep you hooked and should have an element of mystery to be revealed at the end. The first quality is ensured because Michel Danino has made a good effort in putting a lot of information about the mighty river and Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). In addition, the fluidity in his writing style makes it an easy read. Since this topic has great consequences for the debate on Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, Danino has reserved that discussion for the end — which keeps the mystery element alive till the last chapter of the book. Given the vastness of the Aryan Invasion debate, we will not keep this article as a simple book review but add our analysis about how the Saraswati river forms an essential part in this jigsaw puzzle.

One of the biggest misconceptions that this book clears up is that the association of the Ghaggar-Hakra system with ancient Saraswati is not a recent discovery based on new evidences from satellite imagery. What the recent satellite pictures do is further corroborate the presence of the paleo-channel of Saraswati as predicted by other fields like geology, linguistics and archaeology much before these satellite images became available. Danino builds a compelling story by adding pieces of small discoveries about Saraswati that started in the early 19th century after the first surveys of Rajasthan and Punjab were conducted by the British Raj.

The first section of the book deals with the work of past two centuries that has gone into the understanding of this river as we know it today. The readers are taken on this exceptional journey which begins by following the first explorations done by Colonel James Tod, who was deputed in Rajputana in 1812. The narration follows by recounting stories of some amateurs and other professional surveyors who bumped into the mighty Saraswati in one or another way — sometimes based on rural folk traditions or other times through hard archaeological and geological discovery. This understanding about Saraswati becomes perfectly clear after the advent of modern satellite imagery and Danino does a perfect job in summarizing the findings from these recent studies.

The story about the lost Saraswati becomes more interesting after the discovery of IVC settlements along the now dried-up Ghaggar channel in the dry and arid regions of the Thar desert, thus establishing the relationship between the IVC and the mighty river of the Vedas. This relationship is explored in further detail in the second part of the book, which takes a deep look at the IVC settlements along the Ghaggar. Surprisingly, the number of settlements along the lost river is much higher than those along the banks of the Indus river. Danino thus makes a good case for renaming IVC as Indus-Saraswati Civilization, as the current name reflects the partial knowledge that we had at the beginning of the 20th century. This is definitely a suggestion which will not go down easily among the current generation of leftist historians in academia.

The third section of the book is definitely the most interesting part for the readers who have closely followed the debate on Aryan Invasion Theory. Here again, Danino makes convincing arguments to connect the old IVC with the latter Vedic civilization. The evidences for this connection range from materialistic matters like weight measurements and arts to spiritual traditions like yoga. No surprise, the proponents of Aryan Invasion theory have wilfully disregarded all this evidence and are happy to concede that there was a big 800–1000 year gap — often called the dark age — between the last IVC period and the early Vedic civilization.

Where does this book leave us then? Following Occam’s razor, one has to go for the simplest explanation: that the mighty Saraswati once flowed through India and hence captured the imagination of all the Vedic poets. Why else would they recount the location of the river as in the NadiStuti verse, or later talk about its slow disappearance as in repeated references in latter Vedas, Mahabharat and other Vedic texts? On the other hand, one really needs to do a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the mythic Saraswati river is the Helmand river in current Afghanistan.

Once it is accepted beyond doubt that the current Ghaggar system was the mythical Saraswati as mentioned in the Vedas, it will have a great impact on the study of Indology. Not only will it completely discredit the whole Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, it will also require fresh research to put correct dates on the Vedic texts as well as the IVC. A new survey into geology will help put a precise date on the disappearance of Saraswati which in turn will help arrive at correct dates for the Vedas and other Hindu texts. The disappearance of a big river like Saraswati — which sustained the whole IVC — forms a credible case for the slow deterioration and disappearance of the mighty IVC, negating the need for any invasion or migration to be the primary reason. Also, this implies continuity of the Indic civilization, as its centre slowly moved from the banks of Saraswati to the banks of the now-revered Ganga. The only missing part in this whole story is the Indus script, which is not yet deciphered, but will complete our understanding of this great puzzle.

Verdict: A compelling, well-researched read that builds a powerful case for the Ghaggar-Saraswati identification and its implications for the Aryan Invasion debate. Essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of Indian civilization.

January 29, 2016
Ayodhya temple vs hungry people

Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.

The below video is a perfect example of Dhimmitude exhibited by the Hindus. Mohan Bhagwat was speaking at an event when a student posed him a question linking poverty and Ram Mandir.

[Embedded video: Mohan Bhagwat responds to student question on Ram Mandir and poverty] — restored contextual visual.

Random kid: Does making “Ram Mandir” ensure food for the poor? (Kya Ram Mandir banane se garib ki thali mein roti aayegi?)

Mohan Bhagwat: Ram Mandir has not been made yet — did it ensure food for the poor? (Kya ab tak nahi bani, to garib ki thali mein roti aa gayi?)

The above question had the spirit similar to The Economist’s cartoon when India launched the Mars Orbiter Mission two years ago. Then the theme was that India is so poor that it should not pursue space activities. Now the same logic is applied to building the Ram Temple.

Mohan Bhagwat explained it well in the last few seconds of the above video — that Ram is a cultural icon of India and his temple is just one way of remembering him and honouring our past. The Hindus need to stop chanting “Sarv Dharam Sambhav” in every situation and need serious lessons in nationality and religion to be able to answer such pointless questions.

There is an important story from Hitopadesh, where one of the characters reciting the “Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam” shloka is shown to be a brotherhood-preaching shrewd subversionist. It gives a clear warning against blindly welcoming any idea, individual or group without due diligence of studying their history, nature and intent. The story is about Subuddhi the Crow, Chitranga the Deer, and Ksudrabuddhi the Jackal. The moral of the story is that one should not blindly fall for calls of universal brotherhood.

A variant of the story from the Mahabharata is even depicted in Mahabalipuram, sculpted under the Pallavas, with an ascetic cat mimicking Arjuna’s devout pose.

[Image: Ascetic Cat sculpture at Mahabalipuram] Ascetic Cat — Mahabalipuram — restored contextual visual.

While Babri Masjid is just another mosque for Muslims, the significance of Ayodhya for Hindus is very different — it being the birthplace of Ram. The only reason that this issue has dragged on forever is probably due to the Dhimmitude shown by Hindus and the iconoclasm of Muslims. While Muslim iconoclasm has been bolstered by various laws passed by the Indian state since independence, the Dhimmitude of the Hindus is the plain and simple result of too many “Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam” style shlokas that are often repeated in popular parlance. It is high time that Hindus teach their kids some solid worldly lessons from Panchatantra and Hitopadesha!

Originally published January 29, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.

January 29, 2016
How to defeat the left

The leftist thought and memes are so deeply entrenched in modern culture that one does not even acknowledge it and plays a wilful accomplice in establishing the left agenda. But what is their agenda and how can you defeat it? The below video is time well spent on understanding this mechanism:

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

The biggest problem the world is facing today is that free market advocates and those on the right have not been very successful in destroying the left because they don’t seem to understand them well. Failure to understand them has led to the result that everyone who does not agree with the left’s agenda is immediately branded illiberal, fascist or with some other ugly and fancy word that leftists often coin to denounce their opponents. Most right wingers think that leftists can be defeated by right economics and making people rich. But if you see the video you will find that Marx was a cultural critic and not an economist in the actual sense of the word. Thus most of his work dealt with subverting society using the cultural agenda rather than just the economic agenda.

If you have noticed, communists usually attack the cultural icons of society wherever they are — Christianity in the west or Hinduism in India — because communists have a deep hatred for the present cultural order, which stops them from implementing their agenda. That’s why they are attacking Christmas in the west and want to secularise it. While they are calling for secularisation of Christmas, on the other hand, they are simultaneously asking for the inclusion of Ramzan and other non-Christian festivals as part of western culture. Back in India, they try to secularise Hindu festivals like Pongal, Onam and Durga Puja while pushing to incorporate Christmas and Ramzan as part of our culture even though these festivals have nothing to do with Hindus.

But why do leftists wage a serious attack on culture? One has to understand that Communism arose in the west and has deep Judeo-Christian roots — religions which have subverted a large number of local cultures and religions across the world. So given their historical experience, the left knows very well that if they have to implement their agenda, they need to estrange the people from their local culture, just like their imperial religions did in the past. Once it is achieved, only then is it possible to defeat the bourgeois and usher in a new revolution and social order.

After having successfully destroyed the cultural milieu, the leftists have now set their eyes on the family — the last bastion of social order. Their attack on family values is consistent with Marx’s views on family and culture and has been taken forward by their sub-branch in the form of the feminist movement. They have almost completely succeeded in destroying family and personal responsibility in the west to the point of forcing everyone to be dependent on the state. If you think carefully — a fatherless child needs a welfare state while a family with strong ties despises begging the government. A family-oriented woman would be much smarter in choosing her partner while a “liberated” woman would sleep around carelessly getting unwanted children, which would necessitate state care and welfare. Men having families would have to be responsible with their spendings and savings and would hate government interfering with anything in their life, while men hooked to welfare and support systems would be totally dependent on a nanny state.

All this is very consistent with the agenda to advance their goals of a strong and intrusive state which has more power over the individual than the individual themselves. Black families survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but they are completely disintegrated in the wake of the civil rights movement and assimilation. While in the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families, today more than 70% of black children are born to single women. 14 million black babies have been aborted since 1974 — that’s what feminism and planned parenthood has done to their society. Look at any black-dominated city and it is overflowing with crime. There was something called the “Black Wall Street” back in the early 1900s, but now these same enterprising people are completely dependent on welfare and affirmative action and many spend their time back and forth between prisons. In the US, a fatherless child is more likely to commit crime and on average, blacks commit more crime than whites. But the statistics become equal as soon as one accounts for fatherless children in both communities i.e. fatherless children are more prone to engage in crime. Since blacks suffer more from broken families, they also form a bigger share of criminals.

The same agenda is now being played in India — glorification of single womanhood and destruction of our family values with marital rape and other highly biased laws. The same crass individualism which is now promoted in India has left the west with around 50% divorce rates, 50% single mothers, one-third of children not knowing their actual father and 2000% higher rape rates than India. Having successfully destroyed family values in the west, they now want to portray how such a miserable lonely life is great when compared to the family-oriented life in India. Given the leftist bias in the media and entertainment industry, soap operas and other media outlets today have more serials extolling the greatness and joy in extramarital affairs while dishing out propaganda against traditional marriages and family norms. We have big stars like Deepika Padukone openly promoting extramarital affairs as a female rights issue in an attempt to make this regressive idea look normal.

In fact, the US would not have needed expansion of welfare to such an extent if their culture had not degraded so much with so many single mothers who need constant state support to provide for their kids and hence vote for continuous expansion of welfare and government. This has ultimately turned the US into the socialist hell hole that it is today. So even if economic right wingers did manage to destroy the left in economic ideology, we would still be left with the leftist influence on our society which will eat us from within and finally turn our society into a hell hole that western countries have turned into today. So economic liberalisation must go hand in hand with cultural revival and family preservation to permanently defeat the left. It is only in the latter case that we would be able to take our country to its former glory of being the moral, religious, scientific, economic and intellectual capital of the world like it was one and a half millennia ago.

So how can you defeat the left? The first and only important goal should be to thwart the attacks on our culture and traditions — as focusing on economics is not enough. We will need to preserve our family structure for this plan to succeed. This is where most right wingers and libertarians have failed as they only envisaged it as an economic battle and not a cultural one. While Americans laughed at the economic demise of the USSR in the 1990s, Marx must be laughing right now at the cultural demise of the US. Strange are the ways of revenge!

January 28, 2016
Shabrimala to Shani temple- tale of anti-Hindu feminists
Editorial illustration for “Shabrimala to Shani temple- tale of anti-Hindu feminists”.

Feminism is a good concept in theory but in practice it is just another Marxist tool to destroy cultures around the world. Since the Mohammedans will not listen to banning females from praying alongside men, or clad them in burqa, or giving divorce by saying triple talaq — nor will the Christians declare a female as the next Pope — the next best target for beloved feminists are Hindus. Since they are a fragmented lot and do not organize nationwide protests, they form an easy target.

For all its ills that modern feminism poses, the recent outrage is one more addition to the attempts where they are using state and mob power to push reforms down the throat of commoners. Whether forceful entry into a specific temple can be disguised as a Hindu reform is another important point to ponder. These outrages are nothing but part of a global agenda to destroy native customs and cultures under the guise of modernity and liberalism. The Jallikattu ban also falls under this category and is well analysed by us here. Let’s go into the details of why this recent outrage by a few women has been over the top and unjustified.
1. The most pertinent point is that a temple is not public property where people can party or drink alcohol (except in the Bhairav temple!). A random stranger cannot barge into your house because it is private property. People are allowed to form organizations and restrict their membership as well as determine the use of their premises. Similarly a temple, like any such organization or society, is formed by its local devotees who have the sole right to decide entry criteria.
2. Hinduism is not a religion driven by canon like Islam or Christianity and does not prescribe do’s and don’ts to everyone. All regions have their local customs which need to be respected and if needed reformed by the locals — and cannot be imposed by the champagne-sipping elites in Delhi circles. Women not only enter temples but engage in various religious activities in Hinduism, and so specific traditions guided by local mythology (like in the case of Sabarimala or Shani temple) should not be over-emphasized or blown out of proportion. In this particular case, women are allowed to enter the temple but cannot touch the main deity stone because Lord Shani is a celibate Brahmachari. Logic follows that if you are a believer you would follow and respect this tradition — otherwise why would you want to enter a specific temple where you are not invited, since you can always choose another one? The vandalism by these activists only proves that this was an organised protest to gain political mileage.
3. Given points 1 and 2 above, it is no longer difficult to understand why entry restrictions by these temples are not similar to discrimination against Dalits in pre-independence India — a point frequently raised by self-proclaimed reformists who like to equate these issues. While Dalits were systematically discriminated against in many of their village temples, it is not the case with women. Just as some temples or rituals are open to men, there are many other temples and rituals which only allow women — like Attukal temple or Navratri Puja, where only girls are worshipped. So there is no reason for Indians to blindly ape the fake equality notions from the west and kill their traditions.
Given the flexibility provided by Hinduism, these women who are opposing this particular temple tradition could have proved their case much more easily by building their own temple and worshipping Lord Shani. It would have been the most natural and Dharmic way to take this debate forward, but instead they created a ruckus to generate cheap publicity. Since reform was not part of the agenda, they have achieved what they wanted — another controversy.

The fact of the matter is that most of these self-proclaimed liberals and feminists engaged in such protests are the most illiberal kind and treat everyone else who does not toe their line as primates. They are just trying to fulfil a “brown men’s agenda” like the famous “white men’s agenda” of the past. Unfortunately, most Hindus do not understand the designs of the international cabal that is working to deconstruct each and every Hindu tradition and alienate them from their roots under the garb of modernity, feminism, or other famous cultural memes. Since most western social disciplines draw heavily from Judeo-Christian theology, like their cousin monotheistic cults, they want to force everyone to follow the same norms around the world. All these issues — from Jallikattu to the Shani temple — should be seen under this light and recognized as an assault on freedom of religion. Whether Hindus will be able to thwart these attempts against cultural genocide is something that will depend on how they perform in this war of memes.
January 27, 2016
What Net Neutrality Ayatollahs won’t tell you about FreeBasics

Editorial illustration for “What Net Neutrality Ayatollahs won’t tell you about FreeBasics”.

Net neutrality has been a hot topic for debate in India since Mark Zuckerberg decided to launch Free Basics in India. In case you were sleeping and just woke up, this debate is about saving the internet from the whims and fancies of big corporate players like Facebook, which plans to offer free but limited internet in India through Free Basics. Without going too much back and forth, let’s look at the arguments put forth by the main protagonists against Free Basics and see how weak they are. The list of arguments below is taken from the blog savetheinternet.in.

Claim 1

There are other successful models for providing free Internet access to people, without giving a competitive advantage to Facebook. Free Basics is the worst of our options.

Rebuttal

No one has stopped other firms from offering these models. If they are really better than FB, let the consumers decide. If one type of banana is bad and rotten, does it need government intervention to restrict people from eating it? Wouldn’t the free market ensure that if Free Basics is really the worst product, it will be thrown out of the market?

Claim 2

Facebook doesn’t pay for Free Basics, telecom operators do. By encouraging people to choose Free Basics, Facebook reduces the propensity to bring down data costs for paid Internet access.

Rebuttal

This is a one-sided argument. When buying a new product, people often choose limited services so they can try and make up their mind — like a limited cable TV subscription that can be later upgraded. Similarly, new users who get hooked to the internet will not be satisfied with a limited package of Free Basics, thus demanding the full internet package in the future.

Claim 3

Free Basics isn’t about bringing people online. It’s about keeping Facebook and its partners free, while everything else remains paid. Free Basics is a violation of Net Neutrality.

Rebuttal

It is proof by redundancy. First, define net neutrality as an inviolable concept and then by default anything that violates it becomes non-halal.

Claim 4

Internet access is growing rapidly in India. We’ve added 100 million users in 2015. Almost all the connections added in India the last 1 year are NOT because of Free Basics.

Rebuttal

How is this even relevant to the debate? Just because India added 100 million users in 2015 does not mean there are no other users to be added any more. The subscription base cannot be used to determine whether a new product should be launched or not.

Claim 5

Free Basics is not an open platform. Facebook defines the technical guidelines for Free Basics and reserves the right to change them.

Rebuttal

Facebook is offering a limited service for free and should be free to choose the technical guidelines. Android is free but Google still enforces technical guidelines for future developers. This is just one way to harmonize the products offered under Free Basics.

Claim 6

The only source of info on Facebook’s Free Basics is Facebook, and it misleads people.

Rebuttal

This is another bizarre argument. Since when did Amul start advertising for Mother Dairy’s milk products? The above fact is not even true, given that so much info about Free Basics is provided on the savetheinternet.in website itself. Review columns on newspapers and websites exist for the precise reason that they help in dissecting the noise from real value.

Claim 7

Facebook gets access to all the usage data of all sites on Free Basics and gives data to the NSA. This is a security issue for India.

Rebuttal

This is a worthwhile issue to debate — and Facebook can be asked to have its servers in India. But how is this argument related to the holy grail of “net neutrality”? Even without Facebook offering Free Basics, the current servers of Facebook are located in the US and open for abuse by the NSA.

Claim 8

Research has shown that people prefer to use the open web for a shorter duration over a limited set of sites for a longer duration.

Rebuttal

Well, if that is what people prefer to do rather than pay, why do the Gods of net neutrality find it indigestible? Eating hamburgers is bad for health and is proved beyond doubt, but should we have campaigns to outright ban them?

Claim 9

Facebook says that Free Basics doesn’t have ads, but does not say that it will never have ads.

Rebuttal

So if Facebook agrees to never put ads on Free Basics, will it somehow become kosher? Even currently, the entire internet is littered with ads — does that make it less useful? People who do not prefer ads either opt out or reduce consumption of internet sites which have too many ads. This would be true even for Free Basics.

Claim 10

Facebook has shown people as saying they support Free Basics when they haven’t.

Rebuttal

This can be challenged in the court of law if savetheinternet.in really thinks it is a criminal offence. But again, this argument has nothing to do with the net neutrality debate. How Facebook got those signatures is immaterial to allowing Facebook to offer another internet service in the market.

As can be seen from above, none of the arguments put forth by the opponents of Free Basics can withstand basic logical reasoning. But it is no wonder that years of socialist brainwashing in India has created deep distrust for the market economy while giving a free pass for indiscriminate government intervention that has time and again failed the common citizen. The only thing that interventions like this can achieve is setting bad precedents that would allow the hounding of any new customer service in the future by online petitioning. It will also open the possibility for incumbent firms to hire specialist agencies to create a stir against new rival firms, killing the creative destruction mechanism which forms the bedrock of any well-functioning market economy.

Another important argument that is completely missed in the whole debate is that the biggest threat to free speech and the open internet is from governments around the world — not from big corporations. Frequent banning of websites in different countries is a testament to this abuse of power. Using government to kill Free Basics, the net neutrality activists are only playing into the hands of government which will use this precedent in the future to censor negative opinion by passing ad-hoc laws. The only thing that net neutrality activists should defend is freedom of choice as well as freedom to innovate. As long as these basic principles are followed, the best product will win over the consumer market without the need to endorse the bigger evil — unchecked state power.

January 26, 2016
Aryan Invasion Theory: Other debunking evidences (Part III)

While the Aryan Invasion Theory/Aryan Migration Theory has been debunked beyond doubt by genetics, its proponents still try to claim ambiguity on other grounds — linguistics, archaeology, mythology etc. — similar to how creationists claim that Creationism is as plausible an explanation as Evolution.

Linguistics evidence

Since genetics debunks AIT/AMT, linguistic arguments are the first refuge for the AIT/AMT apologists. The reasoning is that the similarity between North Indian and European languages means Aryan invasion or migration must have happened. However, the problem with this assertion is that it derives its conclusion from partial information. The similarity of languages could have come from migration on either side — one cannot claim that Europe is the origin for the Indo-Aryan language family based on similarity of Indo-European languages alone. The British, who first propounded AIT/AMT, didn’t like the idea that the west might have had its origin from Indians, so they postulated that Europe gave rise to Indian languages and culture — and this is exactly what people trained in leftist and Marxist schools push even today.

However, recent analysis on linguistics is also making life difficult for AIT/AMT proponents. Recent studies show that Sanskrit has more in common with the proto Indo-European language — which gave rise to the Indo-European language family — than any other European language.

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

The most important finding from linguistic reconstruction is that Sanskrit has the most in common with the proto Indo-European language, and not the Central Asian or Eastern European languages. For example, Childe gives 72 basic cognate proto Indo-European words constructed scientifically, of which Sanskrit has 70 words, German 46 words, Baltic 23 words, Slavic 16 words, and Greek 48 words. Sanskrit is the only Aryan language besides proto Indo-European to have retained three genders, three numbers and eight cases intact.

Another evidence is presented using ancient mythologies. When you compare Greek and Vedic mythologies, there are many common elements. Similarly, German and Vedic mythologies share many common elements. But if you compare German and Greek, there are no common elements — meaning Sanskrit and Vedic mythology is the common element connecting the European language tree and mythologies. Also, Iranian Mythology has common elements only with Vedic mythology. But according to AIT, Aryans came from South Russia to Central Asia and then separated in Iran. This cannot be the case when Iranian mythology has nothing in common with any other European mythology of that time.

Archaeological evidence

The initial basis for AIT was based on the claim by Mortimer Wheeler when he found some skulls in archaeological sites around Harappa and used them to support AIT by claiming the skulls belonged to Dravidians killed by invading Aryans. However, subsequent archaeological research showed that the skulls were mere burial sites of IVC people and not the result of any fighting between invading armies and locals. In fact, there is no archaeological proof that any kind of invasion ever took place. This is the reason AIT proponents have recently changed their stand to Aryan Migration Theory — much like how creationists changed their theory to “Intelligent Design” keeping all but the name. But unfortunately for the proponents of AMT/AIT, even AMT falls flat on the archaeological evidence: there is no archaeological evidence for any kind of migration into IVC either.

Another popular argument used by the AMT/AIT side is that IVC had no chariots and it was the Aryans who brought chariots and horses into India. This is a preposterous claim. India is protected from the north and north-west by the Hindukush, and any invader had to overcome it. The Greeks, who were known for their chariots, had to leave them behind when Alexander invaded India. So it is nothing more than wishful thinking to assume that nomadic barbarians from Central Asia could have achieved the feat of bringing chariots into India through the Hindukush two thousand years before Alexander — something that even he didn’t achieve. Michael Danino presents detailed evidence showing that horses were present in India much before the supposed Aryan invasion, and some recent studies actually claim horses are native to India.

Ice Age evidence

The world came out of the last ice age roughly around 10,000–12,000 years ago. India was not affected by the ice age to the same extent as Europe and Central Asia because of the presence of the Himalayas to the north. So the population living in India at that time could have easily migrated north towards Central Asia and then Europe as the ice age began to end and glaciers began retreating. This is consistent with what is observed in the genetic studies.

However, AIT/AMT posits the opposite direction for migration. Why would Europeans and Central Asians, who were by then accustomed to ice-covered climate, migrate south into India specially at a time when the ice age had ended and the climate was getting hotter? It makes no sense that people who lived and survived in the ice-covered plains of Europe and Central Asia would abandon their native land specially at a time when it was turning greener and food was getting plentiful. Also, the cold temperature during the Ice Age would have supported smaller populations in Central Asia compared to India. So migration would have been possible only from the high-density area of India to Central Asia and Europe — not the other way around.

Cultural perspective

The latest attempt by AMT/AIT pushers is the theory of cultural assimilation — this way they don’t have to present any genetic or archaeological evidence, merely stating their assertions are true. As per this version, Aryans were not invaders but a small number of migrants — too small to be detected by any genetic or archaeological evidence — who over a very large period of time successfully managed to force millions of people living in IVC to give up their religion and language in favour of Indo-European languages and gods.

This is by far the most absurd explanation for the Aryan Invasion Theory — it assumes that millions of Dravidians living in IVC, which was at that time the most populous region on the planet, had no good language or religion of their own and thus gave up their own civilisation and copied the few hundred migrating Aryans whose numbers were so low that current archaeology or genetic studies can barely detect them. Many people prefer such mental gymnastics rather than the much simpler explanation that the Aryan invasion or migration never happened and that the Aryan-Dravidian divide was an artificial construct of the British.

Even after all these attempts, the Aryan Invasion Theory leaves behind many more questions than it solves. There are crores of temples for Dravidian Gods — Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma — all over India, while the Aryan gods — Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc. — have very few temples dedicated to them. Unless one is wilfully disingenuous, it makes no sense that the Aryan invaders or migrants who supposedly defeated the Dravidians would have adopted the gods of the Dravidians as the primordial deities above their own Indra or Vayu.

This brings to an end this series of articles. The articles here have tried to debunk the most common arguments used by the supporters of AIT/AMT. Given the amount of propaganda and politics which supports the pro-AIT lobby, the mounting evidence against this theory will take some time to change things on the ground. Till that happens, the job of debunking this theory should continue at all levels.

January 24, 2016
Aryan Invasion Theory: The Genetics (Part II)

Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) has been debunked by almost all of the recent datasets and studies on genetics, linguistics, mythology/religion and archaeology. Yet this theory keeps cropping up in one form or other, especially in its milder form as the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) — which is just the invasion theory rephrased as migration due to the lack of any archaeological evidence for invasion in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) at 1500 BC. Most often, the proponents of AIT or AMT cite either outdated studies or half-truths to push their ideas. The most blatant case of misinformation is from the field of genetics — which unlike linguistics is a hard science with little room for guesswork.

One of the most often used justifications for AIT is that North Indians have genetics similar to Europeans and hence this theory is true. The proponents even cite various genetics studies to show this point. However, this is a classic case of presenting half-truths. This similarity is higher between North Indians and Europeans than between South Indians and Europeans. While this genetic similarity does show that Indians and Europeans are related, it fails to show the direction of that relationship — it does not give information on whether Indians migrated to Europe or Europeans migrated into India. The proponents of AIT just push invasion from Central Asia and Europe as per their pre-conceived notions, and are almost always silent on the time period of this invasion or migration.

But unfortunately for AIT proponents, deeper genetic studies can now give the direction of movement of population as well as the time period for this mixing. The recent studies on the genetics of R1a1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies have helped understand the migration pattern of humans during the late Holocene period better. Y chromosome is found only among males and is inherited only by sons, giving valuable insight into patrilineal gene flow. Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively derived from the mother, helping understand matrilineal gene flow. By tracing Y chromosomes, one can trace the fathers and grandfathers of a group; by tracing mitochondrial DNA, one can trace the mothers and grandmothers.

Lucotte G. is one such major study on genetics which studies the distribution pattern of R1a1 haplotype in detail among Europeans, Central Asians and Indians. The principle behind this study is that newer groups of people would have far fewer variations among them while older population groups would have a higher frequency of variations. This is how modern humans’ ancestry is traced back to Africans — because Africans have the highest amount of genetic variations among all groups of people today.

In the present study we have extended the field of detection of haplotype XI/haplogroup R1a… We found high haplotype XI frequencies values in Afghanistan (18.4%), in Iran (26.5%), in Pakistan (28% and 30.4%) and in India; in this last subcontinent, the maximal value of 61.3% was found in Punjab… Datations show that the Z93 Pakistano-Indian group is the most ancient (about 15.5K years); in Europe, the Eastern populations are the most ancient (about 12.5K years) and the Northern ones the most recent (about 6.9K years).

— Lucotte G., study on R1a1 haplotype distribution

So the data gives evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest, the Central European haplotype is in the middle, and the Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion and migration theories — if AIT or AMT were true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype is the oldest and the Indian haplotype is the youngest, since AIT claims Europeans came as invaders/migrants to North India. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern European population is 6.9k years old — and the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.

As per Aryan Invasion Theory, IVC ended because of migration or invasion by Aryans around 1500 BC — 4,000 years ago. In the light of the above and similar genetic studies, the Aryan Invasion Theory is off the mark by at least 10,000 years. Since North Indian population is at least 15,000 years old, the claim that Hinduism is not native to India falls flat on its face — it makes Hinduism indigenous to India and India alone.

The actual population composition of India

As per the latest genetic studies, population of India is derived from two separate population groups — ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). The data suggests that ANI came to India at around 60,000 BC and ASI at around 45,000 BC. But the ANI and ASI are not synonymous with Aryans and Dravidians as some AMT/AIT enthusiasts try to make it seem. North Indians on average have about 60% ANI genes and 40% ASI genes while South Indians on average have 40% ANI and 60% ASI. The South and North Indian names for ASI and ANI denote their relative contribution to each group — not distinct Aryan or Dravidian entities. This is also the reason why South Indians share genetic similarity with Europeans. Since North Indians share 40% genetic material with South Indians, and Europeans share 60–70% genetic similarity with North Indians, Europeans have 20–30% genetic commonality with South Indians. This mixture of North and South Indian ancestors must have happened before 12,000 years ago — only then would South Indians share the DNA of Europeans. This also puts to rest the theory that Aryan invaders became upper castes and Dravidians became lower castes, as Hinduism originated roughly 5,000 years back — almost 10,000 years after the ANI and ASI had mixed.

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

ANI migrations

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

ASI migrations

Technical summary on using genetics for dating migration patterns

The first part is sample selection — random samples are taken from a selected population group and a particular gene loci is selected to study. Gene loci have multiple expressions. SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) are changes in a gene at a single nucleotide that do not change the behaviour of the gene significantly, producing no discernible phenotype difference. Because SNPs don’t confer any genetic advantages, they can be used as tools for studying distribution and migration of populations. A tallness gene, by contrast, cannot be used for studying migrations because survival advantages would confound the study.

Let’s say there is a parent population A with a gene called R1a1, present in a place called X. After a few centuries, a sub-group of population A moves from place X to a new place Y. Since X is far from Y, any new mutations in A at X won’t be found in the population at Y. So while new mutations might occur in Y, X will have more variety of variations as the parent population. The higher the degree of variations in the genetics, the older the population must be. This is how scientists concluded that modern humans came out of Africa — because of the highest density of variations there.

When scientists study X and Y populations and their SNPs, the population with a higher density of variations is the older one. This is how the above mentioned study by Lucotte concluded that Punjab, with the highest density of R1a, is the oldest population group among those studied.

Other References:

1. European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 18, No. 4 — R1a1 M458 chromosomes speak against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including India, at least since the mid-Holocene.

2. Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 54, No. 1 — Highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins suggested as a founder lineage, with extended phylogenetic analyses supporting autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India.

3. Indian Academy of Sciences study — Among R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes, “the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA”, declining toward Europe where maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete.

January 23, 2016
From fall of Olympics to Jallikattu ban

Editorial illustration for “From fall of Olympics to Jallikattu ban”.

The Abrahamic war on Paganism has been perfected over the centuries and the recent ban on Jallikattu is a direct consequence of this old and perfected missionary tactic. One of the essential stages during the spread of Abrahamic religions over the world has been the destruction of paganism from Europe to Latin America to Africa. And the best way to kill paganism is to strike at its root by disconnecting the natives from their roots — turning sons against father, society and native religion. The cookbook of turning people against their forefathers has been refined over the centuries by these imperialistic religions. But how do you disconnect people from their roots?

The best way to achieve this objective is to chop down on native social traditions ranging from festivals, feasts, sacrifice and every social activity which defines the local society. Sometimes this objective was achieved in an overt fashion as exemplified by Mohammed destroying the idols of Arabic pagan Gods on his return to Mecca. With this single masterstroke, Mohammed completely disconnected the Mecca residents from their traditional culture which revolved around their pagan deities. Without common identity, customs and rituals to bind them, the old pagan society crumbled under Islamic barbarity in Arabia. If the sword was not powerful enough to censor ritualism, other machinations were deployed to achieve this objective.

But Islam only picked up these techniques later, much after Christianity had used them for several hundred years and was already a prominent religion. So it is important to look at the methods used by early Christians to destroy pagan societies and see whether the Jallikattu ban follows the old Church template. The only difference being that now western governments use secular institutions like NGOs and think-tanks to denounce native practices and de-link people from their traditions. Such societies then become easy fodder for proselytization attempts by the Church.

The suppression of Olympic games by the Church

The ancient Olympic games were the most important part of Greek identity but in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I announced Christianity to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire, the Olympic games became the first victim of zealous Christian clergy. In 391 AD and 392 AD, Theodosius I further issued edicts to outlaw the pagan practices of sacrifice, libations, garlands, and divination throughout his territory. This would prove to be the final nail for the Olympics — celebrated in honour of Greek God Zeus — and other sports in their outwardly pagan forms. Finally in 426 AD, Emperor Theodosius II finished the work started by his grandfather and burned down the Temple of Zeus and other Olympia buildings including the great stadium of Olympia.

The burning down of the Temple of Zeus was the last step in establishing the supremacy of the monotheistic Christian God. But as mentioned above, the work to discredit pagan beliefs began much earlier as the Church actively used state power to ban different pagan practices. In 392 AD, Theodosius prohibited circus games on Sunday so that people would not be distracted from Sunday mass. The gradual decline of Gladiatorial fights under Constantine I, Constantine II, and complete closure under Honorius in 404 AD also happened under the influence of the Christian council as Roman kings restricted their soldiers from participating in these events and decreased the frequency of these events.

All these actions paved the way for removal of the statue of Zeus from Olympia. This statue was one of the primary attractions of the city and the Olympic games were discontinued soon after these events. No surprise that Olympia became a Christian town by the 5th century with its buildings falling into ruin or taken over by the Church.

The accommodations for the athletes and guests were at this point no longer used for their original purpose. Blocks from the gymnasium gate and perhaps from the palaestra too, and statue bases from the nymphaion were reused in the church.

— Sofie Remijsen, The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity

The template thus used by the Church was very simple — look down upon all native traditions and either ridicule them to stop them covertly, or use the power of the state and mob and suppress them overtly. A gripping account of the destruction of ancient pagan culture and along with it the scientific temper was the subject of the movie “Agora” released in 2009:

[Embedded: Agora (2009) — trailer or clip on destruction of pagan culture] — contextual restoration.

But it was not all easy for the Church as the pagans did fight back for some time. There was a brief period between Constantine II and Valentinian where Julian the Apostate did his best to revive paganism by reviving games and festivals — but the poor fellow failed because the Church had become deeply entrenched in the Roman power structure and society by then. Paganism lost hold on Greek minds as they became victims of rational philosophy, escapist mystery cults and the reforming zeal of Christians who stamped out the pagan sacrifices, idolatry and rituals.

The suppression of sports and rituals in India

The targeting of Akali Nihangs and decline of Sikh martial traditions under the British Raj also followed the same template. Gatka, which was predominantly a battle art, was turned into performance art as the British hanged and imprisoned the Ustads and hunted down the Nihangs out of Punjab. This was done with such clinical precision that not only Sikhs forgot and gave up their traditional practices but also became one of the most loyal servants of the British.

The British made other similar attempts and banned Ayudh Puja as well as most other martial arts traditions like Silambam and Kalaripayat. Although these decisions had the objective to protect British colonialism in India, one should not miss the cultural aspect — the British had a deep desire to “civilise” the local Satan worshippers.

The recent fashion to rid Hinduism of its original pagan form while absorbing Hindu spirituality in the name of secularising Yoga, Advaita etc. should also be seen under this light. Once these philosophies are de-linked from their Hindu roots by banning the outward pagan rituals, the task of luring people into monotheistic creeds or hedonistic consumerism becomes much simpler.

The forces behind these bans

The current attempts to ban Jallikattu should be seen as a continuation of past attempts to suppress local traditions in pagan societies. The only thing that has changed is the players in the game. Instead of overt participation of the Church, now we have NGOs and other pressure groups who want to subvert local traditions. No surprise that in almost all cases, the customs and rituals under the scanner have an association with Hinduism — the last citadel of global paganism.

Most Hindu traditions are local in nature and closely related with local social life. This makes them easy targets as it is difficult to rally support from other Hindus in case of suppression by the state. Given the past success of proselytization attempts post destruction and vilification of native pagan traditions, one should expect that these attempts will only increase in the future in India — sometimes under the garb of animal protection and other times to promote equality, gender or otherwise. The recent judgements against temple elephants, Dahi Handi during Mumbai Gokulashtami celebrations, or the Sabarimala and Shani Shingnapur worship traditions are the disjointed pieces of this puzzle that one needs to put together to understand the big picture.

In this whole drama, the most worrying aspect is the fact that most of these decisions have come from the Supreme Court which has no mandate to interfere selectively and pass judgements against some local traditions while closing their eyes on other more reprehensible social practices. This probably gives a sense of infiltration of the deep state or current liberal memes in Indian judiciary. Also, the hurry shown by the SC to entertain such PILs, when many other important cases are pending, only leads to further distrust in the institution.

To counter this propaganda — and given the hold of Marxist thought in popular parlance in India — there is an active need on the part of Hindus to thwart any such attempts against local traditions. Given the presence of social media, it is much easier to identify and target the hypocrisy of individuals who want to ban Jallikattu while enjoying a piece of steak for dinner. But it is not enough, as Hindus usually try to brush off the strength of the enemy by citing that they have survived this onslaught for more than 2000 years. A cursory look at the epitaphs of various pagan societies from around the world should be enough to ring an alarm bell that they are not special and many other civilizations have been destroyed using similar techniques. So every attempt to ban and ridicule local rituals and traditions, no matter how small, should be thwarted at every level of society.

References:

Christianity and the Roman Games — Richard F. Devoe

The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity — Sofie Remijsen

The Fall of the Ancient Olympics: The Theodosian Code

January 22, 2016
Third battle of Panipat- Did Abdali win or Marathas lose?

Editorial illustration for “Third battle of Panipat- Did Abdali win or Marathas lose?”.

Today is the 255th anniversary of the third battle of Panipat, which was fought between the Afghans and the Marathas in 1761. There is a plethora of information available on the third battle of Panipat, down to the exact dispositions of the men and officers. This has been the most analysed battle in the ancient to medieval era in India. Thus this story can be recounted in exact detail.

The roots of the expedition lay in Afghan king Ahmad Shah Abdali’s repeated invasions of India. In 1757, he invaded again at the invitation of Najib Khan Rohilla, the leader of the Afghans who had settled in the Katehr region of UP. Because these Afghans had come from Roh in Afghanistan, Katehr’s name was changed to Rohilkhand — needless to say that the name has not yet been changed by the ‘secular’ governments that regularly trample upon the rights of Hindus.

The 1757 invasion of Abdali was a particularly brutal invasion. Not only was Delhi looted, but the Mughal princesses were forced into the bed of Abdali and his son. Mathura was sacked and the Yamuna was turned red for several miles with the bodies of dead people. Eventually the pile of dead corpses became infected and diseases broke out in Abdali’s army, which finally prompted him to retreat back to Afghanistan.

How it started

The Wazir of Delhi, Imad-ul-Mulk had kept a force of Marathas in his pay under Antaji Mankeshwar. They had been borrowed from the Peshwa. These gave a good account of themselves as they killed two thousand Afghan soldiers, but had to retreat as they were numbering only four thousand and were outnumbered.

The Indian Afghans under Najib Khan Rohilla now dominated not only Delhi, Haryana and the region between the Ganga and Yamuna, but also Rohilkhand. The Wazir Imad-ul-Mulk realised that only the Marathas could deliver Delhi from this menace and invited them to Delhi with a powerful force.

Marathas conquer Delhi and Punjab

The Peshwa sent his brother Raghunathrao (popularly called Raghoba) with a powerful force into North India. Raghoba immediately captured Delhi and Najib Khan became a prisoner in his hands. This was the right moment to kill Najib as he was one who was inviting Abdali and could invite again. Besides, he had the blood of innocent people of Mathura on his hands.

But Najib paid Malhar Rao Holkar, the Maratha ruler of Malwa, huge bribes to save his life. Malhar Rao prevailed upon Raghoba to spare Najib and thus Najib was set free! This was the greatest mistake of Raghoba as the treacherous Najib was to invite Abdali again.

Now Raghoba made a surprising decision and invaded Punjab, which was Abdali’s territory. His forces conquered Lahore and then advanced on to Attock on the Indus, which was considered by Hindus to be the boundary of India. Abdali’s son Taimur, the Afghan governor of Punjab, was defeated and fled. According to the historian Grant Duff:

The Deccan horse had slaked their thirst in the waters of the Indus!

— Grant Duff, History of Mahrattas

In the Maratha capital Pune, there was wild jubilation and the Peshwa talked about capturing Kabul and Kandahar, and ambassadors were sent by Iran on hearing this news. But this actually made Abdali the deadly enemy of Marathas, for Punjab was the breadbasket of his empire, which was otherwise made of arid regions like Afghanistan and Baluchistan.

Having captured Punjab, Raghoba however could not face the biting cold of Lahore as winter came and decamped back to the Deccan with the majority of his army, leaving only 15,000 troops behind. Sabaji Scindia was sent as governor, who went even further and captured Peshawar and garrisoned it with 10,000 men. But the total troops that remained in the province numbered only 32,000 — hardly enough to face Abdali in full force. The Marathas had created enemies in India without destroying them — like the Nizam of Hyderabad, Najib Khan, Hyder Ali of Mysore and others — so troops were needed to garrison other parts of the empire. In hindsight Raghoba’s expedition to capture Punjab must be called a mad expedition.

Abdali was ready for a policy of live and let live — his ambassadors made it clear that he was ready to accept Maratha domination over Delhi, Haryana and western UP, if they gave up Punjab. But the Maratha ambition was boundless and they rejected it. Marathas also made the mistake of not properly taking the help of the Sikhs, who were natural allies for them.

Abdali invades India again — Battle of Barari Ghat

Najib Khan Rohilla had already been making calls to Abdali that Islam in India was in danger. Abdali assembled a force of 60,000 storm troopers — one of the finest cavalry in all Asia, all battle-hardened troops and especially cruel, ferocious and merciless. With this force he advanced from Kandahar along the Indus to Peshawar. Looking at the size and ferocity of his force, the Maratha garrison had to flee.

As Abdali advanced to Sirhind, the news reached Dattaji Scindia, the Maratha Governor of Delhi. Dattaji had been besieging Najib at Shukartal but with Abdali invading India, he was now faced with a superior force of Afghans and Rohillas — more than 1 lakh men. He had about 50,000 men with him, clearly insufficient. The only choice was to retreat, but Dattaji was a proud man.

As Abdali and Najib linked up on the eastern side of the Yamuna, Dattaji prepared on the west bank to fight. It was at Barari Ghat that the battle took place. Dattaji was right in the forefront — a serious mistake, as ideally a general should be at the back to guide his troops. He was shot by Rohilla troops who had muskets, and killed. Immediately panic seized his army and they began to flee.

The Afghans found the body of Dattaji. Najib’s minister Qutub Shah cut his head and took it away as a trophy — and the Marathas had to cremate his headless body. Later the Marathas would take revenge on Qutub Shah for this perfidy.

Maratha expedition to Panipat

The news of Dattaji’s death fell like a thunderbolt on the Marathas when it reached Pune. Great preparations were made for war. The Peshwa’s cousin Sadashivraobhau was selected as commander, for he had recently won a splendid victory over the Nizam at Udgir. He was a great believer in the European style of warfare using long-range muskets handled by well-drilled infantry troops.

The core of the army was 9,000 Gardis with 200 heavy cannon. But this style of warfare went completely against the Maratha style of mobile warfare on horses. The Peshwa added to this army a vast retinue of servants, dancing girls, wives of soldiers and camp-followers totalling more than 200,000 people — totally changing the Maratha style of making war with only light cavalry. This was to have disastrous results.

The fighting men totalled 85,000. Scindias of Gwalior, Holkars of Indore and Gaikwads of Baroda all added lustre to the galaxy of generals. Considering the vast numbers, the army moved slowly and by the time it reached across the Chambal river, the rainy season was at hand.

Arrogance of the Bhau — the friendless Marathas in north India

Once the Marathas had crossed the Chambal, Bhau sent ambassadors to all princes in north India to join him. Only the Jat Raja of Bharatpur joined him temporarily. The ruler of Awadh, Nawab Shuja-ud-Daula joined Abdali. So did the Pathans of Farrukabad. No Hindu was willing to join the Marathas.

The reason was not far to seek. Everyone knew that if the Marathas won at Panipat, they would become the rulers of India — meaning the destruction of everyone, Muslim or Hindu. On the other hand, if Abdali won, not only would they be free of the Maratha menace but Abdali himself would go back. The Afghans did not have the staying power of the Marathas and were not about to create an empire in India. So everyone would survive in the event of an Afghan win. The Maratha behaviour of looting even Hindus had not endeared them to the Hindus.

At Delhi, a war council was held in which both Malhar Rao Holkar and Jat Raja Suraj Mal gave sound advice to Bhau. They asked that the heavy baggage, women and camp-followers should be sent southwards, as it would prove a major impediment. In the event of defeat they could run away on light horses and escape to fight another day.

But Bhau rejected this advice! He insulted Malhar Rao by calling him a shepherd and insulted Jat Raja Suraj Mal by calling him a mere Zamindar. Thus Bhau resolved to take the women and camp followers into the zone of battle. Suraj Mal was so incensed that he abandoned the Marathas and went back to his domains. Malhar Rao secretly began talks with Najib Khan to save his own skin — and Najib agreed not to fight Malhar if he also did not attack Najib.

Afghans deliver the masterstroke of the war

From Delhi, Bhau moved northwards. He captured Kunjpura — a base of Abdali’s communications with Afghanistan — by bombardment, putting the entire Afghan garrison to death and finding Qutub Shah, who had cut off Dattaji’s head, and torturing him to death.

Abdali was stunned by the capture of Kunjpura but could not cross the flooded Yamuna. The Marathas enjoyed the huge foodstuffs found there and celebrated Dussehra — forgetting their main task and wasting time in praying.

Bhau made a serious mistake in not keeping strong patrols on the Yamuna. After desperate searching, a shallow crossing was found and the Afghan army crossed. They lost some 500 men to drowning but were finally across. This was truly the masterstroke of the war — Abdali was now south of the Marathas and in a position to cut off their way to the south. The Marathas were now trapped. Their supply line was cut. The Afghans were supplied food and provisions by Najib and allies. On the other hand the Marathas began to starve.

As they moved south, they found their way blocked by the Afghan hordes south of a super-unlucky place which had already seen the defeat of Indian armies twice before. This was Panipat — and this was going to be the third battle fought there.

The rival armies at Panipat

The two armies encamped at Panipat. The Marathas built ditches around their camp and ramparts with cannon at regular intervals. The first few weeks were dominated by the Marathas — their artillery kept firing cannon shells which fell onto the Afghans. Abdali had to move his camp farther south and out of range. The Marathas launched raids onto the Afghan camp.

In the dead of night, 5,000 Rohillas slipped through a weak point into the Maratha camp and started slaughtering them. The Gardi musketeers opened fire and killed more than 3,000 Rohillas — the rest fled. But Bhau’s personal friend Balwant Rao Mehendale was killed, filling Bhau with gloom.

From this point the Afghans dominated the plains between the two armies. All supplies to the Marathas were stopped and starvation began. A large force carrying treasure for the Bhau accidentally went into the Afghan camp in the dark and was annihilated. The vast retinue of servants, women and camp-followers quickly finished the remaining food at Panipat. Animals began to die for want of forage.

At last all men felt so weak that they gathered around Bhau’s tent clamouring for a fight to save their honour. Bhau agreed. Next morning the Marathas marched out with their faces pasted with saffron, as defenders of Hinduism. The date was 14 January 1761.

The battle of Panipat — phases I, II and III

The Marathas opened the action by firing their cannons, but the rapid movement of the Afghans meant that by the time the cannon were elevated and fired, the Afghans were ahead of the position on which they were aimed. The cannonballs fell harmlessly behind the Afghan troops. The cannons, which had proven decisive against static targets at Delhi and Kunjpura, proved useless on the fluid battlefield.

Bhau’s Gardi musketeers on his left then opened fire on the Rohillas and Afghans in front of them. The Gardis worked with clock-like precision — one line fired while the next reloaded. The Afghans on the right began to be decimated; between 8,000 to 9,000 of them lost their lives. The Afghan right seemed to be collapsing. Ibrahim Khan Gardi, their brilliant commander — a Pathan who had earlier rejected Afghan bribes and appeals to common religion, saying “my loyalty lies to the land which I have made my home, not from which I come” — led them magnificently.

However, jealousy grew among the cavalry of Damaji Gaikwad and Vitthal Shivdev posted to the Gardis’ right. They saw the battle being won by the Gardis while traditional Maratha cavalry did nothing. So they charged the Afghan lines before the Afghans had been fully decimated — bringing them within range of the short-range Afghan muskets. The entire charging force was cut to pieces at point-blank range. And since the horse-borne Marathas were now between the Afghans and the Gardis, the Gardis had to stop firing so as not to hit their own comrades.

Meanwhile, in the center the famed Huzrat cavalry scattered the Afghans and charged them, scattering thousands. For the Marathas, this was their golden opportunity. The Afghan right was turned and the center had melted. Considerable gaps had opened in the Afghan lines through which they could safely pass to the south, to safety and food!

But how could they! If they escaped to the south, they would have to leave behind the multitude of women, old and infirm people and servants — those who depended on them for safety. Could a Maratha soldier show his face in Maharashtra if he came back leaving these people to the tender mercies of the rapist Afghans? No. The Marathas after this charge had to return back to their original positions.

Abdali immediately sent his reserves and military police — numbering 10,000 — behind the fleeing Afghans with orders to browbeat them back. The situation was explained to them: they were in a far-off country and if defeated had nowhere to run. Finally they were brought back and re-divided into two groups, one to the centre and one to the right.

The Afghan troops back in position saw that the Gardi troops were now alone without cavalry escort — their protectors having been slaughtered by their own foolish assault. The Gardis were charged in full force. They fought as best as they could but were slaughtered to every single man. Ibrahim Khan Gardi himself was captured. But they and their gallant commander had honoured themselves on the battlefield by taking on a numerically superior force and nearly decimating it.

On the Maratha right, Malhar Rao Holkar had deliberately taken position opposite Najib Khan Rohilla — his secret friend. At a pre-arranged signal, Malhar Rao left his position and escaped from the battlefield. Najib did not attack him. This suddenly exposed the flank of the Scindia troops to his immediate left, who were attacked from the side and cut to pieces. Jankoji Scindia had to run to safety. The Maratha right wing was turned toward the center.

Abdali ordered his Zamburaks — swivel-cannons fitted on camels, more mobile than the static Maratha cannons — to attack. Then he ordered his Iranian troops with distinctive red headgear to attack the Maratha flank. A titanic battle developed. Both sides fought with swords, spears, battle axes and even daggers for more than two hours.

The Peshwa’s son Vishwasrao, the 17-year-old nominal commander, fought like a true warrior by the side of his uncle. When he mounted an elephant to bolster his forces, he was shot dead by an Afghan musket — exactly as Dattaji Scindia had been killed.

At this point, Bhau lost his head and forgot his duty as a general. He knew he could not show his face in Pune to Vishwasrao’s mother. He ordered his bodyguards, numbering hundreds, to accompany him as he plunged into the Afghan lines. Word spread among the Marathas that he had died. Many began to flee. The Afghans hounded them mercilessly. As they fled into the town of Panipat, they were chased and savagely massacred.

Some 75,000 of the 85,000 fighting men lost their lives — in all 2 lakh Marathas lost their lives. In Maharashtra not a single home was left which did not have to mourn the loss of a member. It was verily the doomsday of the Maratha people.

The news reached Shrimant Peshwa Nanasaheb, son of Bajirao, when he was at Sironj. An enigmatic letter came saying:

Two pearls have been lost, so have been 27 gold mohurs and the count of the copper lost is beyond count!

Needless to say, the gold were the sardars and the pearls were Bhau and Vishwasrao. Shocked by the news, the Peshwa breathed his last.

Abdali was not able to hold on to Punjab for which he had fought such an epic battle. The Sikhs took advantage of his weakened condition due to the losses at Panipat and wrested it from him in the coming years. But in Bengal, the race of white men were raising a Union Jack and were smiling at their good fortune.

References:

1. Advanced study in the history of modern India — J.L. Mehta

2. Fall of the Mughal Empire, Volume 2 — Jadunath Sarkar

3. Panipat 1761 — T.S. Shejwalkar

4. Panipat (Marathi novel) — Vishwas Patil

5. The battle of Panipat — Elphinstone

6. History of Mahrattas — Grant Duff

January 20, 2016