A spin on history: Gujarat 2002

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra on PGurus: {lightly edited transcript}

 

Sri Iyer: Next question, please!  Thank you!  Rajesh {asks} "Can you explain what exactly happened in the Gujarat riots?

 

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra:  Yes, it was very simple. Modi anticipated.  What happened was the Godhra train got burnt by people from the outside.  It wasn't from the inside as some nonsense investigators told you.  They expected things to blow up.

 

Modi realized things were going to blow up.  He desperately asked for Central troops, he asked for police reinforcements from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra.

 

The center said no because, remember at that point of time, there was a massive mobilization, Parliament attack had happened and Operation Parakram was on, where the entire Army had been mobilized across the border.  So, they could not spare troops to come to Gujarat.  What else happened was that the three neighboring states said no and within about 24 hours as expected the riots broke out.  

 

Modi did the best he could with the small number of police he had with bolt action 303 rifles which you have to keep loading, one extracting, one loading, one extracting one bullet; you can't really do crowd control with that, and he tried his best as much as he could. You have to make some very tough choices--you can protect these neighborhoods, you can't protect these neighborhoods.  You decide to sacrifice some neighborhoods.  This is one of the ugly things about law-and-order maintenance which you have to do.

 

 He did, given what few troops he had and police he had, and that's exactly what happened and remember it was controlled within about 48 to 72 hours. Also, it wasn't a one-sided program, never forget that.  Yeah, both sides died and the other side, the so-called victim side also died in very significant numbers, never forget that,  many of them shot by police during rioting caught on camera. So it wasn't one-sided at all.

 

Sri Iyer:  One thing that BJP needs to do is to go on the front foot on this. The Congress knew Modi, that he was going to be a threat to the center,  to the Sonia Gandhi family even though they were not in power yet they understood. This is like a snake knowing another snake's legs.

 

The Poison Ivy League

The Jerusalem Post headline says it all: Ivy League heads: Calls for genocide on Jews are context-dependent When New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” is against the universities’ respective codes of conduct, all three presidents said the answer depends. --- The above is about the most degraded that I have seen the American Left. As is almost always the case, ideology seems to paralyze the rational faculty. Perhaps if they had said that calling for the genocide of Jews or anyone is always against the universities' codes of conduct; but the severity of the sanctions against the offender(s) depend on context, it would be far less offensive. --- FYI, I am currently in the 10-15% of the population that does not react to urushiol (I understand that a rash response can develop with repeated exposure to poison ivy).

I do not subscribe to Anglosphere solidarity

 I do not subscribe to Anglosphere solidarity.

 ---

The idea that since the US government has supported Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's allegations against India in murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the allegations must be credible is not logical.

 

Among the allegations that Trudeau has raised against India, there is one that can be readily checked.  

 

In stripping 41 diplomats of their diplomatic immunity, Trudeau claims that India is in violation of international law and in violation of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations. [1]

 

"Trudeau made the remarks in Brampton Ont. a day after his government confirmed that 41 Canadian diplomats had left India after New Delhi threatened to revoke their diplomatic immunity."

 

"This is a violation of the Vienna Convention governing diplomacy," Trudeau said. "This is them choosing to contravene a very fundamental principle of international law and diplomacy. It is something that all countries in the world should be very worried about.

 

The US government supports Canada on this [2]:

 

"Resolving differences requires diplomats on the ground. We have urged the Indian government not to insist upon a reduction in Canada’s diplomatic presence and to cooperate in the ongoing Canadian investigation," the U.S. State Department said, adding that it expects "India to uphold its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations."

 

Fact of the matter is that the Canadian mission in India is much larger than the Indian mission in Canada. Around September 20th,  India asked Canada to reduce its mission to parity and gave Canada up to October 10th to do so. [3]

 

This is perfectly fine per the Vienna Convention [4], Article 11, specifically Article 11.1.

 

Article 11

 

1.In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.

 

2.The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a non-discriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category.

 

Canada did not comply by October 20th and so India withdrew their diplomatic immunity.  That is perfectly fine per Article 9 of the Vienna Convention.

 

Article 9

 

1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

 

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

 

The above thus establishes:

 

1. The Canadian Prime Minister made a patently absurd allegation against India.

2. The US, UK and the Anglosphere nevertheless supported the Canadian Prime Minister on this patently absurd allegation.

 

The only plausible reason for the US Department of State to do such a thing is Anglosphere solidarity.   But if they would do so an easily demonstrated absurdity, then it places in doubt the "credible allegations of a potential link" of Indian agents to the murder of Nijjar, for which no information has been provided at all.  It could simply be Anglosphere solidarity.

 

The Indian Minister of External Affairs, Dr S. Jaishankar has said, while in the US and elsewhere , that such foreign operations are not India's policy. [6]

 

The Canadian Prime Minister's unsupported allegations are credible only to those who share an Anglosphere solidarity.  I am not among those, and in addition, I have shown you how threadbare is the Anglosphere's charge of "violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" by India.

 

[1] India making life 'unbelievably difficult' for millions by ordering diplomats out, says Trudeau, CBC News, Peter Zimonjic, Posted: Oct 20, 2023 12:56 PM EDT

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-making-life-difficult-1.7002961

 

[2] US and UK back Canada in dispute with India over diplomats, Reuters, By Kanishka Singh and Costas Pitas, October 20, 20239:13 PM EDT https://www.reuters.com/world/us-backs-canada-dispute-with-india-over-diplomats-2023-10-20/

 

[3] Diplomatic row escalates, India asks Canada to downsize missions, pauses issuing visas, The Deccan Herald, Anirban Bhaumik DHNS,  Last Updated 21 September 2023, 11:18 IST 

 https://www.deccanherald.com/world/canada-asked-to-downsize-diplomatic-presence-in-india-2695819

 

[4] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, United Nations, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

 

[5] India withdraws immunity from 41 Canadian diplomats, EFE, 20 October 2023,

https://efe.com/en/other-news/2023-10-20/india-withdraws-immunity-from-41-canadian-diplomats/

 

[6] ‘Foreign ops not part of govt policy’: Jaishankar in US, Hindustan Times, By

Prashant Jha Sep 28, 2023 04:26 AM IST

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/foreign-ops-not-part-of-govt-policy-eam-in-us-101695839606336.html

Snakes in the backyard

“You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. You know, eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” ― Hillary Rodham Clinton, addressing the media in a joint press conference with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, October 21, 2011.

If Hamas was permitted to flourish by Netanyahu and the right-wing in Israel, as a prophylactic against a two-state solution, it is time someone had the same joint press conference with them.

There is no choice but to kill the snakes.  This is going to involve enormous losses of people.

The question is whether there is going to be a change in course, or will the cultivation of snakes  continue after this particular battle is over.

-----

 Hamas’s attack shows Benjamin Netanyahu failed Israel - Vox

https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history

Second, a columnist at Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-09/ty-article/.premium/another-concept-implodes-israel-cant-be-managed-by-a-criminal-defendant/0000018b-1382-d2fc-a59f-d39b5dbf0000) unearthed evidence that Netanyahu has intentionally propped up Hamas rule in Gaza — seeing Palestinian extremism as a bulwark against a two-state solution to the conflict.

Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

These exact comments have not yet been confirmed by other sources. But the Times of Israel’s Tal Schneider wrote on Sunday that (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) Netanyahu’s reported words “are in line with the policy that he implemented,” which did little to challenge and in some ways bolstered Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Schneider notes, “the same messaging was repeated by right-wing commentators, who may have received briefings on the matter or talked to Likud higher-ups and understood the message.” Some Netanyahu confidants have [said the same thing ( https://twitter.com/DanielSeidemann/status/1711338210679304483 ), as have outside experts.

The first link above in Ha'aretz is to Gidi Weitz, who precedes the Hamas quote with: [Another Concept Implodes: Israel Can’t Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant - Israel News - Haaretz.com](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-09/ty-article/.premium/another-concept-implodes-israel-cant-be-managed-by-a-criminal-defendant/0000018b-1382-d2fc-a59f-d39b5dbf0000)

His {*Netanyahu's*} life’s work was to turn the ship of state from the course steered by his predecessors, from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Olmert, and make the two-state solution impossible. En route to this goal, he found a partner in Hamas.

The second link, to Tal Scheider, includes: [For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)

Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015. 

According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2018, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. 

While Netanyahu does not make these kind of statements publicly or officially, his words are in line with the policy that he implemented.

The third link is to a tweet: https://twitter.com/DanielSeidemann/status/1711338210679304483

Gen.Gershon Hacohen, emphatically rightwing and confidante of [Netanyahu], said the following: "Truth be told, Netanyahu's objective is to prevent the two-state option and therefore turned Hamas into his closest ally.  Openly, Hamas is an enemy, beneath the surface, an ally".

Gen. Gershon Hacohen refers to Hamas: [After evacuating Gaza, a lonely general of faith struggles for Israel's salvation | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-evacuating-gaza-a-lonely-general-of-faith-struggles-for-israels-salvation/)

This is also why, he added, “I prefer Hamas to Abu Mazen.” Because Hamas “helps me prevent a two-state solution” and is, covertly “an ally, because neither it nor I want a final solution and neither in my terms nor in its is there something that is everlasting.

Four talks

External Affairs Minister of India at the Hudson Institute:

External Affairs Minister of India at the Council of Foreign Relations:

External Affairs Minister of India at a Press Conference:

The National Security Advisor:

The Future of The University in India

On Audrey Truschke

 

The best short takedown of Audrey Truschke's lies that I have come across so far.

About Free Speech in India

J. Sai Deepak is a lawyer, self-described 85% commercial litigation, 15% Constitutional Law. He is also an author and public speaker; his detractors call him an Ultra-Nationalist and so on.

The first eleven minutes of this Youtube has some remarks of J. Sai Deepak from a public debate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-UIVvWHyg 

 

 

{lightly edited and annotated Youtube transcript}

 

J. Sai Deepak:  

 

This is the Shri Ram College right, Jai Shree Ram! 

 

So first of all, thanks to the organizers for putting together such a fantastic event and the audience for turning up in such brilliant numbers as usual.

 

I think the aisles have been converted into pathshalas {traditional India school where students sit on the floor}

 

Thank you so very much!   You know, I was wondering - I was just going through the e-mail that was sent to us on the topic.  The topic was "Can western narratives and Indian narratives or western media and Indian media co-exist?"

 

If I were on the other side, I would have stuck to the topic.  This is a textbook instance of

Aa Bail Mujhe Maar {literally, "'Come bull, do hit me!", figuratively , "invite trouble upon oneself"}.  You've opened the Pandora's box by speaking about freedom of speech when instead the topic was slightly different. A good can of worms has been opened,  so,  let the flood gates open.

 

Democracy in Crisis

Once upon a time, to board a domestic flight was almost as easy as getting onto a bus at a bus terminal. Global terrorism put an end to that.  Is this a reduction in freedom?  Absolutely.  The requirement of the right kind of government-issued ID to board a flight is an intrusion into individual liberty. 

 

Is it a reduction in democracy?  Absolutely not.  The people remain free to make the government change the regulations, repeal them altogether, or as is more likely, to make obtaining the required ID and the security checks less onerous.  

 

Professor Salvatore Babones, an American sociologist at the University of Sydney in Australia, uses this kind of distinction, and argues that India remains a democracy, though less free than Australia or the United States, for instance in freedom of speech.  Watch this debate between Salvatore Babones and Anand Rangarajan.  (Trigger-alert: Anand Rangarajan is boorish; and Salvatore Babones loses the audience because he acknowledges learning about India from a trio of journalists whom the audience happens to despise.)   But Babones' arguments are sound.   

 

Let's examine this further. In one of the many "India's Democracy in Crisis" panel discussions,  there is the criticism of the Modi government that it does not do enough to curb hate speech.  On the other hand, district authorities have been given the power to simply shut down the internet, and in 2022, of 187 shutdowns of the internet world-wide, 84 occurred in India, and the Modi government is criticized for this, too.

 

It does happen in India that social media is used to spread "hate-speech" and start a riot or lynching.  It may be rare on a per capita basis (1.4 billion people in the denominator!), but it does happen.  The district authorities can nip this in the bud by simply turning off the internet for a period.  "Hate speech" is poorly defined, there are no standards, and asking the district authorities to selectively censor social media will bring in their bias.  Turning off the internet makes sense.  Whether this is a good strategy requires research into its effectiveness in keeping the peace, and not some theoretical notions about freedom.

 

Regarding the disruption to life by an internet shutdown, India is prone to "rasta roko"/"rail roko" -- people block roads or railway lines - and city-wide or state-wide bandhs, where the entire area is coerced into shutting down business.  This kind of protest is part of India's political culture and has a history.  Lack of internet is yet another disruption to add to this.  

 

But it is up to the Indian people to decide whether all this is acceptable or not.   Right now, perhaps the safety of life and property, and the avoidance of disruption of life by violence outweighs the loss of the internet.   Maybe some time the balance will change and then the voters will make a political issue of it and force a change.

 

Which leads to another observation - the Indian Constitution is relatively easy to change, with the Supreme Court on guard to preserve the basis structure of the Constitution.  From January 1950 to October 2021, there have been 105 amendments.  America's Constitution has had 27 since 1789.  It is much more difficult to amend, and popular causes such as regulating money in politics, or making the Presidency be determined by the popular vote rather than the Electoral College which overweighs states with tiny populations are stuck.  That is, the American people remain free to change their Constitution, but in practice, it is very hard.  

 

Freedom of speech is virtually absolute in the United States; the restrictions that can be placed by law are very limited.  We thus get the situation where e.g., Fox News can knowingly, even maliciously, propagate a democracy-damaging falsehood, and the only recourse is for a private party who suffered economic damage by the lies to take them to court.  If the situation gets unbearable, Americans will no doubt try to change this, but the barriers to change are enormous.   

 

Does comparing among countries the ease of amending the Constitution make any sense?  I don't think it does, any more than the freedom indices and such.  India's Constitution and America's Constitution were written to meet the needs of their respective people with their histories and circumstances.  The ease or difficulty of amendment was also decided because of history and circumstances.

With any democracy, what one can meaningfully ask is, are the people free to change their laws and regulations and do the laws and regulations that get made diminish that freedom in any way?  Only in the latter case need an alarm be raised (e.g, Hungary or maybe even Israel).  

When in the debate mentioned above, Anand Rangarajan feels patronized when Babones says India is less free in some respects than Australia or America and asks why he can't be as free as an American, he is asking for India to be America; but India's history and circumstances can't be so readily erased.  Nor is less freedom necessarily bad - in aviation, it keeps terrorists at bay.  

It is up to Indians collectively whether they want a perfect Jeffersonian Republic, or whether the trade-offs to preserve their way of life are acceptable to them; and Anand Rangarajan has the freedom to try to persuade them as to which would lead to their greater flourishing.

Man-made and hence a fairy-tale?!

Does the substance of what is called Pythagoras' Theorem remain true whether or not humans are aware of it? If yes, this is something not-found-in-Nature but not-a-fairy-tale; man-made but transcending man. There is thus no real problem with religious compositions having been created by man, apart from the claim that they were god-given, which by itself is not a problem (e.g., Ramanujan thought that his results in mathemetics came from Namagiri Devi). The real question is do they embody knowledge? The claim of knowledge cannot be simply because "it is god-given"; our usual methods of validating knowledge must be applied. Exactly like Ramanujan's results in mathematics have to be validated by the methods of mathematics even if the results originated with the Devi.

Supersymmetry vs QCD

Inspiring discussion - Dr. Peter Woit finds a declining trend in the number of articles on Supersymmetry (SUSY) since about 2015. See here. 

But what meaning can we draw from the absolute number?  I find it meaningful to compare with some other subject in particle physics.  I think "QCD" (quantum chromodynamics, the strong force) is a relatively stable subject of study, and it is about something real, unlike SUSY, which has proven to be quite speculative.

So here it is.  The data had to be collected by hand, so there might be transcription errors.

But the downward trend in SUSY relative to QCD begins around 1999.  Maybe particle physics is a bit healthier than expected.