Koenraad Elst: Singing Bhajans to British Gods to an Indian Audience or The Game Is Over

 

British were not the worst says Koenraad Elst. They killed some people. That is all. Just some fifty times more than Islamic raiders and invaders.

Koenraad Elst’s writing has been distasteful – and his ‘scholarship’ suspect.

A 2ndlook reader, Dr.OP Sudrania, drew my attention to a new post by Elst. Unlike 2ndlook, Elst does not respond to comments or criticism – probably, because he has none.

For reasons of time, I would not normally spend much time with verbiage of the Elst variety – excepting this was too easy.

Elst writes

Lord Louis Mountbatten, only accepted Partition because the Muslim League threatened and started violence.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Is it beyond your Catholic-Christian intelligence to see how British could put Gandhiji behind bars for threatening non-violent protest! The British had no qualms (and artificial regret later) when O’Dyer opened fire on unarmed people in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar?

But could not do anything when Jinnah threatened and started violence? Your Christian-Catholic logic escapes my ‘Hindu-Indian’ thinking.

Completely.

Viceroys Lord Victor Linlithgow and Lord Archibald Wavell told Jinnah to his face that they would not countenance the division of their nice and neat Indian empire, not even in the event of decolonization. Their successor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, only accepted Partition because the Muslim League threatened and started violence.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

I presume it is below Elst’s Catholic-Christian intelligence to provide proof and citation of this. Day, date, time, place, witnesses, subjects discussed, duration of the meeting(s), other participants? Catholic Christian Elst gives no details.

Was Catholic Christian Elst the proverbial fly-on-the-British-wall, who witnessed these events first hand, in his previous birth?

brainwash the Indian Muslims into becoming India-loving Hindus

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

I presume again that is is below Elst’s Catholic-Christian intelligence to provide data or source which shows that Indian-Muslims do not love India – as much as Hindus?

And what are ‘Hindus’ supposed to do? Send Indian Muslims to concentration camps?

Like America did with Americans of Japanese descent during WWII? Or Britain did to Boers during the Boer War? Or the Spanish did with Cubans in the War of Freedom by Cuban Slaves?

Or are we to follow the example of your king, Leopold of Belgium who managed to annihilate more than 1 crore people of Congo, who he deemed to be his ‘personal’ property?

British had nothing to do with Partition, and that this was a purely Muslim operation necessitated by the present democratic age’s belief in numbers.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Is it below Elst’s Catholic-Christian intelligence to accept evidence from Jinnah’s statement when Jinnah said how “suddenly there was a change in the attitude towards me. I was treated on the same basis as Mr Gandhi. I was wonderstruck why all of a sudden I was promoted and given a place side by side with Mr Gandhi.”

I will argue that the British had nothing to do with Partition

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Mr.Elst, you will make your Catholic-Christian arguments without citations, evidence, links, quotes, sources, because the Hindu is polite to stop you?

It is only the fledgling Cold War that made the British and also the Americans see a silver lining in the Partition, viz. that one of the parties would join the Western camp and provide it an outpost to monitor the Soviet threat

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Is it beyond your Catholic-Christian intelligence to do some background study about the The Great Game that was played out between the Tsarist & Soviet Russia and the British from 1840-1940?

How Russia was seen as the biggest threat to the Indian Empire by the British Raj?

To be sure, the British were guilty of many things, and the fixation of Hindu nationalists on them is understandable. Principally, they caused several very serious famines, they dismantled the technology and economic structure of India, and they imposed a foreign ideology that harmed the natives’ self-respect. This did not make British rule “the biggest crime in history”, as L.K. Advani claims on his blog (15 July 2012), but it was pretty bad.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

After killing more than 25 million Indians – which is about 50 times more than what the Islamic invaders and rulers killed and enslaved, your Catholic-Christian intelligence believes that the British were not the worst killers in the history of humanity – way beyond Hitler.

I would agree with you on one thing here.

The Hindu is too polite – and should actually go after your Catholic-Christian *#@* with all that he has in all his god-given Hindu departments … and a crowbar, to prove his courage!

Hindus who blame the British for Partition, show that they are afraid of the truth, and afraid of Islam. It is far easier to accuse the British, who have safely departed, than to lay the blame at the door of Islam. Blaming Islam opens a can of worms, it is difficult to deal with this religion. It is a challenge to one’s courage, but it is mainly a challenge to one’s intelligence. If you are deficient in these departments, then go ahead and blame the British.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Is there a deficiency in your Catholic-Christian departments that you should deal with facts, documents, sources, evidence, quotations – and not in hate, name calling?

Can a Catholic-Christian intelligence rise above it’s vile, genocidal ways of the last 2000 years?

It is here that I have more reason to worry. Though Hindus have shown great intelligence in the literature of the past and ICT initiatives of the present, they have mostly failed to apply their intelligence to the Islam problem, though this is staring them in the face every day. But I am confident that now you will do something about it.

via Koenraad Elst: The British were not guilty of Partition; somebody else was.

Your Catholic-Christian mind has a good reason to be worried. Indians are seeing through the Christian-Progressive-Liberal Game – and you may be out of business.

Faster than you imagine.

Related Articles

• British Raj: Expansion In India was Swift and Easy says British-American Historian (2ndlook.wordpress.com)
• Demonization: Method; Mechanics & the Madness (2ndlook.wordpress.com)
• How Jinnah was made Important; became Somebody & got Pakistan (2ndlook.wordpress.com)
• Bangladesh: A Step Behind Pakistan or a Step Behind India (quicktake.wordpress.com)
• Why Do We Love Our Invaders So Much? (2ndlook.wordpress.com)
• Mumbai Muslims Protest: Collusive Democracy At Its Best (quicktake.wordpress.com)

---

 

Demonization: Method; Mechanics & the Madness

 

The day when Churchill will join Genghis Khan, Taimur Leng, Adolph Hitler for the top honors of being the greatest killer of humanity is not far off.

Extract from one of Churchill’s 1897 newspaper reports | Image source & courtesy – dailymail.co.uk | Click for image.

For instance, in the Swat Valley, during the First Mohmand Campaign (1897-1898) in the picturesque part of North India (now in modern Pakistan), Churchill

gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, writing: “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.”

He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages.”

When the first concentration camps were built in South Africa, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering” possible. At least 115,000 people were swept into them and 14,000 died, but he wrote only of his “irritation that kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men.” Later, he boasted of his experiences. “That was before war degenerated,” he said. “It was great fun galloping about.”

As war secretary and then colonial secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tans on Ireland’s Catholics, to burn homes and beat civilians. When the Kurds rebelled against British rule in Iraq, he said: “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” It “would spread a lively terror.”

Churchill believed the highlands, the most fertile land in Kenya, should be the sole preserve of the white settlers, and approved of the clearing out of the local “kaffirs.” When the Kikuyu rebelled under Churchill’s postwar premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps, later called “Britain’s gulag” by the historian Caroline Elkins. Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured.

Didn’t everybody in Britain think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye’s research is that they really didn’t: even at the time, Churchill was seen as standing at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Gandhi began his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” He later added: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused,by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of thousands died.

This is a real Churchill (via Book Review – Churchill’s Empire – By Richard Toye – NYTimes.com).

Winston Churchill in the Hussars just before he saw action in North India | Image courtesy – dailymail.co.uk | Click for image.

Churchill was someone who excelled at reducing other people with a non-stop flow of derogatory labels, till the tide of opinion turned.

This ‘reduction’ process works in four stages:

• Stereotype
• Demonize
• Genocide
• Apologize

Let us see how this process has been used in the USA. This kind of

dehumanization can have deadly consequences.

Saturday, June 23, is the 30th anniversary of one of the watershed events in the formation of the Asian American community as we know it: The killing of Vincent Chin in Detroit, Michigan, by auto workers Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz. Chin, due to be married in two days, was celebrating his bachelor party at a strip club called the Fancy Pants when Ebens and Nitz began verbally haranguing him. “It’s because of you m_____f_____ that we’re out of work,” shouted Ebens. A fight broke out, after which all of the participants were encouraged to leave.

Chin challenged Ebens to continue the fight outside. Ebens responded by going to Nitz’s car and procuring a Louisville Slugger baseball bat (ironically, a Jackie Robinson model). After chasing Chin and cornering him in McDonald’s parking lot, Nitz held Chin down as Ebens pummeled him with the bat, sending him into a coma from which he never awoke.

Ebens and Nitz were convicted in a county court of manslaughter. They were given three years probation with no jail time, fined $3,000 and ordered to pay court costs of $780. Though Ebens was later found guilty of violating Chin’s civil rights in federal court, and sentenced to 25 years in jail, the decision was overturned on appeal.

Neither of Chin’s killers spent any time in prison for his death.

News of the case galvanized the Asian American community, forcing many who had resisted political involvement in the past to consider the grotesque implications of Chin, a Chinese American, being mistakenly identified as Japanese, and then blamed by proxy for the decline of the U.S. car industry.

The upshot is that Chin’s killing was like a bad ethnic joke gone horribly wrong: “Chinese, Japanese? What’s the difference?” (via Is Your Font Racist? (Tao Jones) – Speakeasy – WSJ).

British officers and Indian troops from the 45th Sikhs Regiment in 1897 at Chakdara fort sent to subdue Indian militants | Image source & courtesy – dailymail.co.uk | Click for image.

Or for that matter, it can also be brown-skinned people.

In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history’s worst. Official documents and oral accounts of survivors paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill’s only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.

British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill’s conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. “I hate Indians,” he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for “breeding like rabbits.”

Some of India’s grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn’t experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government’s attitude to India “negligent, hostile and contemptuous.”

The way in which Britain’s wartime financial arrangements and requisitioning of Indian supplies laid the ground for famine; the exchanges between the essentially decent Amery and the bumptious Churchill; the racism of Churchill’s odious aide, paymaster general Lord Cherwell, who denied India famine relief and recommended most of the logistical decisions that were to cost so many lives.

Churchill said that history would judge him kindly because he intended to write it himself. The self-serving but elegant volumes he authored on the war led the Nobel Committee, unable in all conscience to bestow him an award for peace, to give him, astonishingly, the Nobel Prize for Literature — an unwitting tribute to the fictional qualities inherent in Churchill’s self-justifying embellishments. (via Books: Churchill’s Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine – TIME).

For Indians the crucial lesson is that an enemy’s enemy need not be our friend.

He may be the second enemy.

---

Related Articles

• Op-Ed Contributor: Why Vincent Chin Matters (nytimes.com)
• Hope Against Hate (psychologytoday.com)
• Forging a More Successful Multicultural America – Ron Takaki and Asian American Leadership (psychologytoday.com)
• The Magna Carta and Our Shared Anglo-Saxon Heritage with the UK (Open Thread) (wtpotus.wordpress.com)
• The Fourth Reich: Abortion Holocaust (cnsnews.com)
• The Devil Made Him Do It (esquire.com)
• Genocide and identity conflict (oup.com)
• TV review: The Churchills; Obsessive Compulsive Hoarder – The Big Clear Out (guardian.co.uk)

 

1900-2000: How much change can 100 years make!

A little over a hundred years ago, Western power, wealth and technology seemed overwhelming. How a hundred years can change everything. Everything.

Russia, Japan, Germany and England as Shylocks gather round a kneeling China (Antonio) and demand their pounds of flesh for the Boxer Rebellion, while Puck urges the US to step in as Portia and rescue China. by John S. Pughe for Puck Magazine / Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Collection; Subtitle on the cartoon reads:

The Dark Before Dawn

In the year 1900, China, seen as an effete, weak nation, could be bullied into submission. The West, suddenly rich, with wealth from piracy, slavery, sugar, tobacco, gold from America and Australia and Africa was in a position of supreme power.

In Cahoots

Ancient civilizations like India and China seemed to be in an interminable grip of the West. In the year 1900, the Chinese kingdom saw its 1857 moment. When the Chinese nation rose as one against the Western powers – under the leadership of Society of Right and Harmonious Fists (- 義和團 I He Tuan or I Ho Ch’uan; Boxers in English).

Empress Cixi, A Manchu Queen, who ruled over Han China.

At the turn of the last century, with the European “Scramble for Africa,” as it was known, only recently completed, three assertive new major powers were fast emerging: Germany, Japan and the United States. Most of the world had already been claimed by more established actors. But decrepit, late Qing Dynasty China, with its hundreds of millions of people, centuries of accumulated wealth and vast territory, loomed as the final big prize on the imperial frontier. The New York Times at the time called China “the greatest potential market of the world,” and circling foreign powers, old and new, were drawn by its weakness and misrule.

The Boxer Rebellion. The war was the last of the West’s repeated armed confrontations with the Qing, but compared with other Chinese conflicts of the era, notably the midcentury, overlapping Taiping Rebellion and Second Opium War, it was a far smaller affair, both in duration and scale, essentially lasting through the long summer of 1900.

The war in a tradition that he says was long familiar to the British but brand-new to the Americans, one where empire is created “on the scene, and to the surprise of the mother county,” by free-lancing representatives of faraway Western capitals. In the case of the Boxer Rebellion, this meant a conflict that pitted the assembled forces of the world’s major powers against China. The unforeseen result, soon after the defeat of the Qing, was the end of thousands of years of dynastic rule and arguably the beginning of the end of the imperial age itself.

The Boxer Rebellion—its name derives from the uprising’s practitioners of martial arts—had its roots in China’s 19th-century demographic explosion, as well as crop failures and drought, which served as a catalyst for one of the era’s many Chinese peasant uprisings. What was different this time was the target. The Boxers, who arose in Shandong Province, were not mobilized against the Qing state but rather against the large Western presence in the country, especially that of Christian missionaries, who were attacked by the rebels in the summer and fall of 1899.

The Boxers’ problem was not with the Westerners’ religion per se. The rebels were incensed because, in the vacuum left behind by a failing Qing administration, the foreign church-based organizations were becoming local administrators. As such they were direct competition for the Chinese secret societies, like the Boxers, that were also moving to fill the void.

The Boxers were leaderless, largely illiterate peasant militants whose alliance in loose, improvised networks made them hard to stop. The movement quickly gained momentum in 1900, when spring rains failed to arrive: Unable to plant their crops, peasants were idled, frustrated and receptive to the Boxers’ recruiting efforts. In May, rallying under the slogan “Support the Qing. Exterminate the Foreigners,” the Boxers descended on Beijing and laid siege to the foreign quarter. Forced to choose sides, the Empress Dowager Cixi ordered foreign legations to quit the capital.

The war that ensued was fought by an uneasy but eager eight-nation coalition, including Austria-Hungary and Italy, who pushed to reach Beijing from the port of Dagu. Strange pairings were forged between rivals soon to be mortal enemies: the British and Germans, the Japanese and Russians, each eager to outdo the other.

China’s defeat—the country was forced to pay onerous reparations—marked the end of “a disastrous two years, part of a disastrous decade, [and] the end of a disastrous century,” Mr. Silbey writes. But the defeat also marked a turning point. British India, which had sent many troops to suppress the Boxers, was soon gripped by its own revolutionary movement. The Japanese learned from the war that “they held the whip hand in Asia” and would soon defeat Russia and later take over China.

Putting down the Boxer Rebellion had been a successful, coordinated display of imperial power—and a last hurrah. The new century had other plans for the victors.

From America’s recent, brief moment of unipolar pre-eminence, we have suddenly stepped into a new and uncertain age, with big, fast-growing new actors, China and India chief among them, rising to claim a place on the world stage. (via Book Review: The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China – WSJ.com; Links supplied).

Boxer rebels, 1900 photograph. From Tōgō Shrine and Tōgō Association (東郷神社・東郷会), Togo Heihachiro in images, illustrated Meiji Navy (図説東郷平八郎、目で見る明治の海軍), (Japanese), | Source Wikipedia. Click for image.

Soon after the Boxer War, China’s ruling dynasty, the Qing fell in 1911.

Civil war followed.

This civil war lasted until Communist forces under Mao Zedong’s gained control over China in 1949.

Looking for a pattern.

There are a few things in common between War of 1857 and the Boxer War of 1900 in China.

One – No Leaders They Say

Western historians have a knack of describing all anti-Western uprisings and wars as leaderless. The War of 1857 was Mutiny. The War by the Boxers too was an Rebellion.

Even though the West did not rule over China, yet it was rebellion. Even though the War of 1857 saw major engagements across India, over 18 months, it was a Sepoy Mutiny.

Leaderless.

Killing Over Spoils

Just 15 years after this China’s Boxer War, the same 8 nations that had made an unholy alliance to subjugate China, were at each others throats.

More than 10 million people died in World War – I.

15 years before China’s Boxer War, billed by the hosts as the Kongokonferenz, or the Berlin Conference (1884-1885) in English, was organized by the Chancellor of a newly formed nation, Germany. Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s Iron Chancellor called for this conference to demarcate Africa between European Powers (plus the Ottoman Empire & USA).

These eight European powers could unite when it came strategy for undermining target-populations – and were equally capable of unprecedented slaughter when it came to sharing the spoils of loot.

A point though mentioned last,  as important as any preceding points, is how European residents in China could easily act and call upon their national Governments for aggressive military actions. European Tai-Pans in China or the Company Bahadur in India could easily switch roles from being traders to an extension of the European State.

Even today?

When you get up again

Looking back over the last 100 years, the most edifying observation that can be made is about India and China.

In 1900, it would have appeared to most that China and India would never recover. Today, both India and China have recovered.

But the real question today is – Will former colonial powers like Spain, Portugal, Britain and France go the way of Rome, Greece and Egypt.

Never to rise again.

A Troublesome Egg to Hatch by J.S. Pughe | 1901 cartoon as Industrial powers’attempt to exploit China. US & Japan look on. Image source & courtesy – historytoday.com | Click for larger image.

---

Related Articles

• June 20 1900 Boxer Rebellion begins in China (chinadailymail.com)
• Chinese Empress Cixi declares war on foreigners (oup.com)
• The charms of Qing TV (economist.com)
• An American Patent Dispute in the Qing Dynasty (chinaipr.com)
• China’s crackdown on foreigners raises specter of xenophobia (edition.cnn.com)
• Private kitchens: Hong Kong’s hidden treat (edition.cnn.com)

Bharattantra Break Out: Julian Assange is a Sign

Even as Julian Assange was working on his break-out, there were signs. Take this, Captain Ahab.

Julian Assange follows भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra.

It is a secret that even Wikileaks has not revealed. On his Julian Assange Show, while moderating a recent discussion, between competing Desert Bloc ideas, Assange consistently used भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra refutations.

This interesting discussion featured a communist-turned-conservative, David Horowitz and a communist-dissident-turned-Leftist, Slavoj Zizek (pronounced स्लावोए झिझेँक). (video embedded below).

Right-Wing-Horowitz, at an exquisite moment in the discussion, said,

David Horowitz: People are the problem, They are greedy. (hands waving for emphasis) They lie. They are deceitful, they manipulate. You know they are ego-centric. (nearly spitting in hate.).

We understand that. And people in Government are the just the same dangerous people with more power. So that’s why we have the checks and balances. And I am all for more scrutiny, and this and that. (Texts in italics supplied; Between: 9:08-09:38).

Adam and Eve were born in sin. Every human being is sinful. Human beings are dumb.

Indian thought however, keeps repeating how it takes 8.4 million stages of evolution (or species) before a man is born. Human life is precious. Find moksh, nirvana. Find freedom. Like four purusharth, of भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra.

They must follow the One God that is Allah and worship his one true messenger, Prophet Mohammed. भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra always portrayed one-man religions as Asuric – Prahlad and Hiranyakshipu.

Now see, how Julian Assange rebuts Right-Wing-Horowitz .

Julian Assange: David, the striving for towards utopia the striving for towards better position. Even if that position is liberty, it is more liberty. That is a striving, a direction that people wish to have.

That’s they can measure contemporary events by the direction of their hopes and ideals. Have we now abandoned that to religion, because, religion there is waiting in the gaps. Let’s just say that it is utopian vision. (Between: 15:00-15:30).

Julian, Desert Bloc never had liberty. They had ya fooled.

Having earlier laid the basis for concentration of power (man is evil), Right-Wing-Horowitz plays another ace. The Dissident-to-Communist Zizek fumbles and has no answer.

Look at how Julian Assange answers.

David Horowitz: War is the natural condition of mankind. There has always been wars, right? From the beginning. Ok and many of them. Peace occurs only when there is concert of powers or a single power that can intimidate would be aggressors. Now I ask you? Who would you like that power to be other than the United States? (triumphant).

Silence

Slavoj Zizek: I don’t know, but United States is no longer even the candidate for me.

David Horowitz: And the United States can … Well, that’s why we are facing such catastrophe. But you are contributing it by encouraging Leftists.

Julian Assange: Isn’t the way to keep the State accountable is to have a free market in States

Slavoj Zizek: You mean different political options

Julian Assange: Different political options … and then people who don’t like the conditions in one State can move to another State. They can move their businesses, they can move their assets they can move their families. (Between: 17:20-18:20).

Right-Wing-Horowitz is right. For the Desert Bloc, war is a natural condition.

Coming to भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra.

Now what Julian Assange is saying is exactly what Buddha meant. Have competing small kingdoms. Have many kings. When a bad king is replaced, by another, let non-violence or ahimsa be paramo-dharma. Which is why India does not feature on any major massacre list.

So this is what Buddha meant when he said have no attachments. Live lean and clean. That is how you can achieve moksh – liberty. If the misrule gets beyond you, just get up and go.

Keep all your wealth in gold. Now, see, what Kabir says 3000 years later.

चाह गई चिंता मिटी, मनुआ बेपरवाह। जिनको कछू न चाहिए, सोई साहंसाह॥

(Attachments gone, anxiety vanishes and the burden of responsibilities, lightens. To someone who does not need this and that, he is the Emperor).

For भारत-तंत्र Bharattantrato to become a credible option, a few Desert Bloc ‘concepts’ will need to be smashed. Julian Assange has done that – very well.

To many, भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra means ‘going back.’ Unfortunately, the world has never seen a ‘backward’ movement. Movement can only be forward – and each step towards भारत-तंत्र Bharattantra can only be based on context.

Take a breath. Go Julian.

You are the Whale of Hindu classical texts that will land us safely, while dharma is submerged and deep underwater.

Hopefully, Ecuador will be where you will come up for breath.

And this time too, Ahab will die trying, to kill this Moby Dick.

---

Alternate link to the video

Related Articles

• Julian Assange seeking asylum in Ecuadorian embassy in London (guardian.co.uk)
• Julian Assange requests asylum in Ecuador, foreign minister says (news.blogs.cnn.com)
• Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder seeks political asylum from Ecuador – Telegraph.co.uk (telegraph.co.uk)

has to be geared

Rajat Gupta – Take-Down-of-Indians Pattern Continues

How come never wire-taps were allowed in insider trading cases? Why only against Rajarathnam and Rajat Gupta?

Many in the US Senate and Congress are suspected of insider trading – but enjoy legal immunity | Cartoonist Chuck Asay in 2012 | Click for image.

Rajat Gupta, 63, denied illegally leaking boardroom secrets to Raj Rajaratnam, a former hedge fund manager now serving 11 years in prison.defence lawyers told the jury that the use of phone records and FBI wiretaps only created the illusion of illegal business activities.

“That is a gambit that can bamboozle people into thinking something was proven when it wasn’t,” defence lawyer Gary Naftalis said.

The trial focused on a phone call made to Rajaratnam on 23 September 2008, minutes after Gupta had listened to a private conference call discussing a $5bn (£3.2bn) investment in Goldman Sachs by Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway. The deal would be made public after stock markets closed that day.

According to phone records, Rajaratnam bought $40m in Goldman Sachs stock moments after the phone call, earning nearly $1m. (via BBC News – Ex-Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta guilty of fraud).

How come never wire-taps were allowed in insider trading cases? Why only against Rajarathnam and Rajat Gupta?

Was it a huge fraud? Even if the State case is true, the amount was in a few piffling millions – unlike the Boesky.

Ivan F. Boesky, once among the financial world’s most powerful speculators and now a symbol of Wall Street’s excesses, was sentenced yesterday to three years in prison for conspiring to file false stock trading records.

The three-year term is the third longest to have been imposed in a case related to insider trading. Mr. Boesky had faced a maximum penalty of five years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

A year ago, Mr. Boesky settled civil insider trading charges, paying a record $100 million. He had been charged with illegally earning more than $50 million by trading with inside information he bought from Dennis B. Levine, a former investment banker who pleaded guilty to criminal charges earlier and is now in prison. Mr. Boesky subsequently disclosed that he additionally earned more than $30 million by illegally trading with inside information sold to him for $700,000 by Martin A. Siegel, once one of Wall Street’s top corporate merger specialists. Mr. Siegel has pleaded guilty to criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing.

Last April, Mr. Boesky pleaded guilty to the single felony count, at that time one of the most important devel-opments in the widening Wall Street insider trading scandal. Mr. Boesky pleaded guilty to conspiring to file false documents in regard to a scheme in which he helped the corporate raider Victor Posner take over the Fischbach Corporation by buying stock in the company.

Mr. Boesky was unlikely to serve more than two years of his term, though. According to the standard guidelines that govern prison sentences. (via BOESKY SENTENCED TO 3 YEARS IN JAIL IN INSIDER SCANDAL – New York Times).

And if, you thought this was bad, look at what followed.

Michael Milken pleaded guilty to six felonies and agreed to put up $600 million, $200 million of that in fines, to settle the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry.

Mr. Milken’s public admission ends four years of obdurate denial of wrongdoing, virtually assures a prison term and opens the possibility of further fraud prosecutions.

The six felonies to which he pleaded guilty are serious yet technical securities violations and did not directly enrich him. His lawyer has even characterized them as an overzealous attempt to help friends.

The plea bargain allows theft to be cloaked as misguided loyalty.
The plea bargain reinforces another misconception. In his statement to the court, Mr. Milken explained that his ”business was in no way dependent on these practices. Nor did they comprise a fundamental part of our business.” That claim is, at best, a self-serving half-truth.

Opportunities to cheat clients, the Internal Revenue Service and regulators were numerous and lucrative. Drexel, for example, would lend money to investors who were buying stocks based on the predicted outcome of deals that Drexel itself was arranging. (via Michael Milken’s Guilt – New York Times).

Now these were cases that were ‘open’ secrets. Everyone knew these guys were brazenly flouting basic norms of professional etiquette – and should be disbarred from Wall Street.

Legally, any action against Boesky or Milliken was possible – short of a death sentence.

Did Rajat Gupta know that this how insider-trading cases ae settled? | A Carol Simpson cartoon from 2003 | Click for image.

After fraud and illegal earnings in hundreds-of-millions, they served a few years in jail – and resurrected Michael Milken, ‘it seems, has made the classic American transformation from despised villain to “controversial” figure.’

Rajarathnam crime.

Two big ones.

SEC wanted Rajarathnam to squeal on and implicate his brother Renjit. He refused. Secondly, apparently, he never banged his head at the altar of the American Dream.

Ditto for Rajat Gupta.

Forbes, had one article that summed up the case very well.

Zilch.

That was evidence, that could put away Rajat Gupta for life.

Gary Naftalis, Rajat Gupta’s lawyer asked, “Where’s the beef?” referring to the government’s lack of evidence. Unlike other insider cases, Neftalis has a point.

While the circumstantial evidence against Gupta is strong, there was no concrete evidence, a recorded conversation, that put Gupta on the phone with Raj Rajaratnam passing inside information. Sure there was the call in 2008 that Gupta placed to Rajaratnam after a Goldman Sachs board meeting and minutes later Raj placed a large order for Goldman stock ahead of the announcement of Warren Buffett‘s $5 billion investment in the investment bank.

Granted, it does not look good, but is it enough to persuade a jury?

Galleon hedge fund trader, Rajaratnam was convicted last year of receiving insider information from various sources, some of whom were caught on FBI surveillance (tape) speaking directly with him about the confidential information. The government was actively taping many of Rajaratnam’s calls, so why don’t they have Gupta saying, “Here is some confidential information for you to trade on.”?

Who knows, but they do have other people on tape saying just that, and that person is not even on trial.

Goldman Sach’s David Loeb, who is still employed by the firm, was caught on phone calls tapped by the FBI passing inside information to Rajaratnam about Intel and Apple, both publicly traded stocks. Those tapes, Gupta’s lawyers argued, show that Rajaratnam had multiple sources of inside information, including others at Goldman besides Gupta.

However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff sided with the prosecution that such evidence was hearsay and not directly a part of this case. The jury never heard the tape. Loeb has not been charged, but if I were him I would be sleeping with one eye open.

Another piece of information that the jury will not hear is that Rajat Gupta (63) could spend the remainder of his life in prison if he is found guilty. The jury must decide guilt or innocence, but they will have no idea that the penalty they could be giving Gupta because that is not allowed.

There is no real “DNA”, a wire tape, that proves Gupta passed inside information to Rajaratnam. It does not exist, but the circumstantial evidence is powerful …. but that does not mean Gupta is guilty.

Last weekend, we learned that Commerce Secretary John Bryson was involved in a traffic accident where he left the scene, proceeded to drive along further and ran into another vehicle. Immediately the press wondered if there were alcohol and drugs involved with Bryson’s accident(s).

The real story that Bryson had suffered a seizure leading to the accidents. How quick we judge.

If this jury convicts Gupta, it is because they believed he had a close relationship with Rajaratnam and not that they had irrefutable evidence. Is that worthy of a life sentence? We will see.

via Rajat Gupta Case – It’s All Circumstantial – Forbes.

In case of Anand Jon, it is amazing how a murder accused, Phil Spector, was Juror No.6, of the jury that found Anand Jon guilty. While the Phil Spector murder case went on for nearly a decade. Anand Jon’s case that started after Spector’s crime, has completed quite a few years in prison.

Phil Spector, the rock music impresario behind hits like “Da Doo Ron Ron,” and “You’ve Lost that Lovin’ Feeling,” was convicted Monday of murdering a struggling actress at his mansion in 2003 after a night of drinking.

Mr. Spector, 68, faces at least 18 years in prison. The jury, ending a five-month trial, reached its decision after 27 hours of deliberating This was the second murder trial in the case; the first ended in a hung jury in 2007. Mr. Spector has been out on bail for most of the last six years, but was immediately taken into custody after the verdict on Monday.

Lana Clarkson, who was 40, starred in a 1985 cult hit, “Barbarian Queen,” and had a bit part in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” in 1982.

She was working as a hostess at the House of Blues on the Sunset Strip when Mr. Spector visited, struck up a conversation and took her out drinking.

They finished the night at his mansion, known as the Castle, but, when she spurned his advances and tried to leave, he shoved a gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger, prosecutors said.

The prosecutors argued that this fit a pattern of Mr. Spector’s drinking and threatening women with guns over decades. (via Phil Spector Found Guilty of Killing Actress – NYTimes.com).

Anand Jon never pulled a gun, to force wannabe-models to have sex. He got more than 50 years in prison. Phil Spector gets less than half.

Anand Jon was a Brown Indian – a segment of people who Uncle Sam wants to cow down and make subservient and submissive.

Unlike Rajat Gupta. Rajarathnam. Or Vikram Budhi.

These people may be guilty as hell – but they had a lot more grace and character under pressure.

Unlike many others, who hiding in their rat-holes.

---

Related Articles

• Rajat Gupta Jury Queries ‘Conspiracy’ as Evidence is Called ‘Circumstantial’ (business.time.com)
• An unlucky man (economist.com)
• Rajat Gupta defence takes aim at trader’s credibility (firstpost.com)