A great article on Aryan Invasion Thory. A Must Read and Share.

AIT theory over last 2 centuries - how it got developed, - who contributed to it(AIT) and what were vested motives, if any?
The First Pioneers of Indology It may be surprising to learn that the first pioneer in indology was the 12th Century Pope, Honorius IV. The Holy Father encouraged the learning of oriental languages in order to preach Christianity amongst the pagans. AIT is a culmination of study of Indian culture by orientalists for over 100 years. For over 100 years the orientalists from Europe between the period 1700 to 1850 studied the texts and scriptures of Indian religions and interpreted it in thier own way and accroding to their understanding. Fredrich Max Mueller (1823-1900) was born in Dessau and educated in Leipzig, where he learned Sanskrit and translated the Hitopadesa of Pandita Visnu Sarma before coming to England in 1846. Mueller was first commissioned by the East India Company to translate the Rg Veda into English. The company agreed to pay the young Mueller 4 Shillings for each page that was ready to print. He later moved to Oxford where he translated a number of books on Eastern religion. His magnum opus was his series The Sacred Books of the East, a fifty volume work which he began editing in 1875. It goes without saying that by the end of his career, Mueller had amassed a comfortable sum of money. At the time of his death he was venerated by none other than Lokamanya Tilak as Veda-maharishi Moksha-mula Bhatta of Go-tirtha (Oxford). Although Mueller is on record as extoling India's ancient wisdom, his letters (printed in two volumes) tell an entirely different story. When Duke of Argyll was appointed Secretary of State for India in December 1868, Max Mueller wrote to him- "India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again and that second conquest should be a conquest by education once the ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?" Mueller may also be credited with the popularization of the aryan racial theory, Writing for the Anthropological Review in 1870, Mueller classified the human race into seven categories on an ascending scale - with the Aborigines on the lowest rung and the "Aryan" type supreme. Max Mueller who, in 1853, introduced the word Arya into the English language as referring a particular race and language. He did this in order to give credibility to his Aryan race theory . AIT may not have been planned in the begining but colonial intellectuals have always wanted to create a class of natives who would look at the world as in the eyes of colonial rules. To rule a country they need an elite community among the natives who would have world view similar to them. To have a world view similar to them(rulers) they either have to be of the same religion/race or have a history which would be common among them. In India they have a difficulty due to unique race and history and they would not find anything common. The only thing that they found common is a caucasian features among natives in some parts of the country whom they found affinity with. After the discovery of Sanskrit in 1830s they figured out some common features with the European languages. From these two common features they have to create a common history which the natives would be able to identify with the white colonial rulers If one reads Tilak and other pre-indepedence authors we see that they identified themselves as 'aryans or causcasians who are long lost brothers and found each other again.' This social affinity towards the white rulers was very crucial to the colonial powers to get support and helped them in creating an elite among the native population. In 1863 the AIT was formed as historical narrative to 'explain' the various nature of the Indian subcontinent including the presence of various 'races' and their various religious customs. IT took from 20-30 years before an generation of native Indians started to beleive in it since it was the world view that the colonail masters looked at them. A system of research and scholarship was funded in Oxford/Cambridge and various universities in India ( 1850s -Madras/Bombay/Calcutta) which created scholars every decade who beleived in AIT. THis created an artifical academic world of AIT and indology who were looked upon as the intellectuals of Indian population and who could converse with the western elite with the same world view. This worldview was encouraged by the western powers also in their universities so that they had similar social group of people who had similar view of AIT and world and were in search of the homeland of Aryans. Indology departments are still funded in western capitals for more than 100-200 years. Germans got caught in this history creation to escape from their pre-aryan world view and made a mess of their adoption. In the process they discovered their nationhood. Indian National Congress party is a class of elite Indians who were educated in the British system and were mostly lawyers. THey wanted to ape the British in their lifestyles and formed an political social group which had similar world view and vision for the country. It was helped by the British to establish and grow as a native elite class which could be used for proxy political governance. They created a political view point which the colonial rulers could manipulate without even being part of that political party. From 1885 when it was created the party took until 1940s to ask for purna swaraj! INC is the party which continued even after independence with set of people who held the same view point about the world. After Independence the propogation of AIT is another story for later post. Education played an important part of the post independence control of the Indian elite along with media control. Conclusion.: AIT was a masterstroke in creating an alternate history for the European as well as a new class of Indian elite who could identify with this history and created a social group which could perpetuate indefinitely for more than 150 years. The original purpose of AIT may not have been what we see today among the academic circles Swami Vivekananda, who possessed both deep scholarship and true spirituality, said more than a century ago: Study Sanskrit, but along with it study Western sciences as well. Learn accuracy, ...study and labor so that the time will come when you can put our history on a scientific basis. ...Now it is for us to strike out an independent path of historical research for ourselves, to study the Vedas and Puranas and the ancient annals (Itihasas) of India, and from them make it your sadhana (disciplined endeavor) to write accurate, sympathetic and soul-inspiring history of India. It is for Indians to write Indian history ... you never cease to labour until you have revived the glorious past of India in the consciousness of the people. That will be the true national education, and with its advancement, a true national spirit will be awakened. More than a century later, this is yet to happen though a few tentative steps are being taken. It will happen only when Indian scholars shake off their inferiority complex and the last vestige of colonial 'scholarship' is rooted out. The sad fact is that after nearly two hundred years Western Indology has still failed to understand India, her culture, her soul or her history. It has progressed little beyond Eurocentric and missionary stereotypes, only adding Marxist, Freudian and other modern stereotypes to these, naively believing that these western ideologies are somehow dramatically enlightening to India and its profound spiritual culture, when they are usually irrelevant or inferior and have already failed in the West. Meanwhile it has discovered little more in the vast treasures of Vedic culture than any primitive culture. Western Indology does not understand the philosophy of India, its emphasis on dharma and karma, liberation and enlightenment, or its great traditions of Yoga and meditation. It does not acknowledge the value of its rishi/yogi culture and its Vedic origin. Nor does it recognize any such higher yogic spiritual tradition as behind any ancient civilizations or behind humanity as a whole. From its perspective, Indian spirituality is a self-serving fantasy hiding what is unscientific, inhumane or archaic. Western Indology and AIT has created a powerful political lobby in India and western country which do not want to leave their well funded domain and space forever. 

Dangerous Game Of Communist Parties In India.

The Dangerous Game of Communists In INDIA

Where do the Left and Islam Intersect..?

          Curious? How the godless left and Islam share a critical aim. They both wish to subjugate infidels, though how infidel is defined differs. But who the infidels are? We are, of course, the infidels. We who hold to other beliefs. We’re obstacles to glorious futures for both. Both want us consigned to dhimmitude. Yes, dhimmitude. That’s second class status, with tribute being paid for the privilege.

           Marked differences and tensions exist between the left and Islam, to be sure. But is the left using Islam for its ends, and Islam -- for the time being -- willingly being used? For some time, an argument has been made that the liberal left, in refusing to examine the problems of Islam, has betrayed its Enlightenment roots. That is, while secular, feminist, and protective of free speech in dealing with its peers, the liberal left has been accused of abandoning its heritage in its quest for political correctness regarding Muslims.

             In truth, however, the left has a distinguished background of courting Islam as a weapon against capitalism. Its most representative figures from the past did so frankly. Today, though, it isn’t just capitalism that the left wants Islam to sic. It’s the totality of other Civilization. Leftism has expanded its agenda beyond Marx-focused economics. For the left to get us to dhimmitude, that means “deconstructing” our culture and society; upending our mores and traditions; shattering our institutions; demeaning faith and marginalizing the faithful.

            Its gains are evident all around us. From Marx onward, the left has operated by a simple rule vis-à-vis Islam: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This, as Schwartz suggests, explains why the left is unwilling to identify Islam as a foe. It might explain -- why left is silent on Kashmir. Most indians have a hard time accepting that fellow citizens might knowingly act in ways injurious to the security and welfare of the nation. The 20th Century had more than a few Indians who worked to advance communism in opposition to vital national interests. In extreme cases, some indians acted treasonously. Do the names of Sita Ram Yechuri and Digvijay Singh or Owaisi bother us. The relationship between the left and Islam is complicated. The same leftist and secularists, who are supporting Muslim terror outfits, denouncing selectively and poorly, against various militant Muslim factions.

             What does guide  Communists to make Indian and Muslim policies? They make for some contradictions. Yet the thread of communist’s policies runs toward accommodation with militant Muslim factions (or nations). Perhaps our leftists appreciate that while Islam is useful, it’s also dangerous. The Muslims are valuable when managed (as best able). Not every Indian identifying with the left acts from malice.

             There are followers and fellow travelers. AAP may be a lefty, but it wouldn’t want harm to come to the country. There are gullible souls who think it’s all about Kumbaya. Spoken of here are leftist intellectuals, chattering classes, politicians, and career activists who either seek or welcome Islam’s role in “transforming” India and the world. The attack on Parliament may have dented, but hasn’t stopped, India’s elite from clinging to political correctness. Attempts continue to mollify increasingly restive -- increasingly violent -- Muslim populations. The attack was just a dramatic example of Muslim violence across the country. Concomitant with the rise in violence is an increase in anti-nationalism.

           More Muslim violence is targeting Hindus. Note, too, that anti-Hindu sentiment is on the upswing on the left. In our country, a backlash has begun to leftist policies that permit the creeping Islamization of the nation. Muslim violence is spurring the growth of rightist parties throughout the country. It may be a harbinger of things to come in India, though the Muslim population here is estimated at only 18 crores nationally. That’s up faster year by year. The reports attribute that “as a result of multiculturalism, a small number of radicals had set up a ‘fifth column’ in the country.”

              Multiculturalism is an invention of the left. "Let's block the clandestine INVASION immediately. Let's check by whom, how and why there is funding of MOSQUES and Islamic centres," A fatal conceit exists on the left in its use of Islam. It’s this: leftists are in every way superior to Muslims. Islam, violent and useful, though dangerous, is primitive and no match for the great minds and godless certitudes of “progressivism.” Islam can be used and then dispensed with. But the left underestimates the power of an ancient faith -- and its faithful -- at its own peril. Conceit was the first great sin, and led to a fall. Leftists may want to mull that.

http://rajesh1961.blogspot.com

@rajesh___ks

जेएनयू रिपोर्ट का मंतब्य-

तमाम हो हल्ला के बाद जेएनयू ने अब लीपा पोती की तैयारी कर ली है। जेएनयू की अपनी जाँच कमिटी ने न सिर्फ कैम्पस के उन सभी तत्वों को आरोपों से बरी कर दिया बल्कि दोषी छात्रों को बहरी बता कर अपना हाथ झड़ लिया है। JNU row: University report links azadi slogans to ‘outsiders’ with covered faces. The panel also found the organisers guilty of “wilful defiance” of authorities and JNUSU representatives, including joint secretary Saurabh Sharma of the ABVP. सारे देश ने देखा कि किस तरह उमर और अन्य छात्र देश विरोधी नारे लगा रहे थे, फिर भी विश्वविद्यालय प्रसाशन ने उन छात्रो को सिर्फ आदेश नहीं मानने का दोषी पाया है। A high-level enquiry committee, set up by the Jawaharlal Nehru University to look into the February 9 event where alleged anti-national slogans were raised, has said in its report that 10-15 "outsiders" who had their faces covered with a "cloth/scarf" raised the slogans. The panel said the presence of these outsiders was verified by security staff as well as eyewitnesses. The event was held at Sabarmati dhaba on the campus to mark Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's hanging. According to eyewitness depositions mentioned in the report, the "same group of 10-15 masked outsiders" was part of a procession from Sabarmati dhaba to Ganga dhaba, where similar slogans were allegedly raised. "The presence of a group of outsiders was noted by the security staff and confirmed by many other eyewitnesses. This group of outsiders had their head and face covered by a cloth/scarf most of the time. This group of people had engaged in shouting the following slogans: 'Kashmir ki azadi tak jang rahegi, jang rahegi', 'Bharat ko ragda de ragda... zor se ragdo, de ragda' and 'Go India, go back'," says the report. Some other slogans eyewitnesses said they heard include 'Hum kya maange -- azadi', 'Bandook se lenge azadi', 'lndian army murdabad', 'Pakistan zindabad' and 'Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi'. On the events which unfolded at Ganga dhaba, the report says, "As per witness depositions, the same group of 10-15 masked outsiders shouted slogans. The police had already arrived there, including the ACP and SHO of Vasant Kunj North Police Station." The truncated eight-page report, accessed by The Indian Express, has been divided into three sections -- the first part includes depositions of various people to ascertain the sequence of events, the second identifies 15 lapses that occurred on the day and the final part mentions the committee's recommendations. People whose depositions are part of the report include the Registrar, the Dean of Students, the Chief Security Officer, JNUSU joint secretary Saurabh Sharma, the operations manager of G4 security and the JNU security inspector. Several students had refused to depose saying they did not have faith in the committee. On the involvement of JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, who was arrested on charges of sedition and later released on interim bail, the report notes that there was confusion about when he was first seen on February 9. It also notes that the speech he made at Ganga dhaba, along with some others, was not audible to eyewitnesses. "According to some depositions, Kanhaiya came late to the venue while others say he only joined in the procession. As per many eyewitness depositions, Kanhaiya, Rama Naga and Anirban (Bhattacharya) addressed the gathering here (Ganga dhaba). However, what they said was not audible to them," the report states. The names of Umar Khalid and Anirban feature several times in the report as the event's organisers, with the committee also saying that it was Umar who took permission for the event. While the report says the two were present when "provocative slogans" were shouted, it does not say if they indulged in shouting these slogans. "As per the deposition of Mr O P Yadav, operations manager (G4S), they reached Sabarmati grounds, along with Mr Palni and a team of guards around 4.45 pm. Khalid and Anirban were found putting up posters and were setting up a public address system," the report states. "Students gathered there slowly, and Khalid, Ashutosh and Anirban addressed the meeting. This was followed by sloganeering and the following slogans were shouted like 'Kashmir ke log sangharsh karo, hum tumhare saath hain', 'Afzal Guru zindabad', 'Manipur maange azadi', 'Nagaland maange azadi', 'Kashmir maange azadi'...," it states. The panel also found the organisers guilty of "wilful defiance" of authorities, and all JNUSU representatives, including joint secretary Saurabh Sharma of the ABVP. "It is the considered view of the committee that acts of indiscipline were committed and certain norms of conduct were violated by the organisers of the event. There was a deliberate attempt to mislead the administration about the real nature of the proposed event. The organisers disobeyed the instructions from the administration about not holding the event. This amounts to wilful defiance," reads the report, signed by all five panel members -- Rakesh Bhatnagar, Himadri Bohidar, Suman Dhar, Ummu Salma Bava and GJV Prasad. "It is most unfortunate that the organisers allowed the event to be taken over by a group of outsiders who created a charged atmosphere by raising provocative slogans. This act by the outsider group has brought disrepute to the entire JNU community," the report says. "The committee also notes that none of the JNUSU office bearers acted with due responsibility. The office bearers had to behave with even more restraint and caution befitting the position that they hold... It is unbecoming of students representing that they should be found engaging in disorderly conduct or condoning it," the report states. The report also says that Ashutosh, Rama Naga, Shweta Raj, Chintu Kumari, Anant and Banjyotsna Lahiri were "busy organising the event". Further, it says that Gargi Adhikari, Shweta Raj, Rama Naga, Chintu Kumari and Banjyotsna Lahiri, Rubina Saife and Anjali "participated in the sloganeering", though it does not mention what these slogans were. The reports says that the students will be charged under "clauses of category II of misconduct and indiscipline (Statutes of Discipline and Proper conduct of students of JNU)" for which the maximum punishment is rustication for up to two semesters.

Battle for the ground control- JNU and Beyond.

हम सभी अपने अपने बच्चों को जी जान से चाहते हैं। हम अपने गाँव और मुहल्ले के बच्चों को भी उतना ही प्यार करते हैं। उनके उज्ज्वल भविष्य के लिए हम हमेशा सजग रहते भी रहते हैं। लेकिन जब कोई राजनितिक पार्टी हमारे बच्चों के लिए सड़क पर उतर आये तो सोचने की जरुरत पड़ती है। ऐसा लगता है कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी को हमारे ऊपर भरोसा नहीं रहा की हम अपने बच्चों को उचित शिक्षा और संस्कार दे पाएंगे। दर असल JNU के दंगल का अखाडा कही और है। इस संघर्ष के मूल में हमारे वो छोटे छोटे बच्चे हैं जो कक्षा 4 से 12 की पढाई कर रहे हैं। यह एक कब्जे की लड़ाई है जो कम्युनिस्टों ने कांग्रेस से अपने उस उधार के बदले लीज पर लिया था जो उन्होंने 1957 में नेहरू को तब दिया था जब श्रीमती इंदिरा गांधी के दबाव में देश में पहली बार दक्षिण के एक राज्य सरकार को बर्खास्त कर दिया गया था। कम्युनिस्टों ने तब से ही गुपचुप तरीके से इस लीज के जमीन पर अपने लिए एक किले का निर्माण शुरू कर दिया। यह जमीन थी भारत की शिक्षा तंत्र। उन्होंने शोध से लेकर प्रकाशन तक, Indian Curriculum का निर्धारण और उसमे पढ़ाये जाने वाले विषय वस्तु (Syllabus) और सामग्री (Content), विश्वविद्यालयों से लेकर राज्यों के बोर्ड (State Boards) तक में अपनी पकड़ मजबूत करते रहे और कांग्रेस इस लिए आँखे बंद किये रही क्योंकि नेहरू की नीति (Nehruvian Theory) कमोबेस बामपंथी समाजवाद का हामी था। इस तरह 1965 से लेकर अब तक लगभग दो पीढियां ऐसी शिक्षा लेकर समाज के सामने आ खड़ी हुई जो अपने आप पर शर्मिंदा है। समस्या तब सुरु हुई जब NDA की पिछली सरकार ने Indian Curruculum 1952 में सुधार की कोशिशें करने लगी। तब के मानव संसाधन मंत्री मुरली मनोहर जोशी कम्युनिस्टों के निशाने पर सबसे ज्यादा रहे। 2005 में कम्युनिस्टों ने कांग्रेस के साथ सौदेबाजी कर के Indian Curriculum 2005 लागु करवाया ताकि भविष्य में दुबारा देश प्रेम और भारतीय दर्शन जैसी मुद्दों पर कोई संवाद सम्भव ना हो सके। 2005 के बाद छोटे कक्षाओं के syllabus और content में जो बदलाव हुए हैं, उन पर काफी कुछ लिखा गया है। स्मृति ईरानी के हाल के लोकसभा का बयान मात्र एक बानगी है। बहुत सारे विषय हैं जिन पर फिर कभी। तत्काल सिर्फ इतना हीं कि कन्हैया वाही बच्चा है जो "ज" से जहाज की जगह जेहाद और "श" से शरीफा की जगह शहीद पढ़ रहा था। वैसे अच्छी बात ये है कि इस झगडे में कम्युनिस्टों और कांग्रेस का थोडा वजन घट जायेगा और "आप जैसी पार्टियों का वजन बढ़ जायेगा। क्योंकि आप" का मुद्दा भ्रष्टाचार है जो सबको जगाता है।लेकिन सबसे ज्यादा फायदा बीजेपी को होगा जिसका लाभ देश को भी मिलेगा क्योकि बीजेपी का मुद्दा विकाश और राष्ट्रवाद है जो सबको लुभाता है।