International Conference on Indian history
Jan 9-11,2009, India International Centre, New Delhi
When, Where, Who , What and Why
ICIH2009
Call For Papers

The Fundamental Postulates behind the Convening of the conference

It is taken as largely axiomatic in the study of the History of the Indic peoples , that the civilization that remains extant has been brought into the area by migrating races such as the Aryans , and in fact some would argue, that such a statement holds also for the so called Dravidians of India. According to such a narrative everything that was worth preserving has been handed down to us over the centuries by migrations, within the last 3 1/2 millennia, into the subcontinent, from somewhere else. Such a viewpoint was first expressed by Hegel who took the view , subsequently internalized by Indics after being told ad nauseum by a whole slew of British historians from James Mills to the latest Oxford and Cambridge Histories that India was always a derivative civilization. It is not our contention that all historians have taken such a jaundiced view of the Indic past. There has been a school of historians and philosophers who have taken a Civilizational view of the Indic past, among whom we count Arnold Toynbee, Will Durant, Karl Potter, Fernand Braudel and Samuel Huntington, who while they may agree with the chronology of the Occidental Historians of India, disagree profoundly with the notion that India is a derivative civilization
It is also true that the history that is taught the children of India today is vastly at variance with the puranic accounts handed down to us over several millennia. It is to state it without any embellishments, a revised history that is completely at odds with the traditional history of India. Such a state of affairs persists even today, and most schoolchildren everywhere in the world are taught the erroneous chronology and that India lacks historical agency
The premise of this conference is that the current narration of the History of the Indic people is seriously and fatally flawed
both with respect to the chronology as well as in content
Philosophy behind Conference
1. In order to understand the civilization, one must mine the Civilizational knowledge that accompanies it , the fundamental pramANas, the metaknowledge that forms the underpinning of the civilization. Even so great an intellect as Amartya Sen fell prey to the temptation of assuming that the schism in the occident between religion and science operates in India too. But in India there never was such a schism (until we were told by the west that such a schism is unavoidable in every society). If Aryabhata was not believed by his successors, on his remarks on the rotation of the earth, it is primarily because they did not have sufficient data convince themselves he was right and not because of religious dogma as Amartya Sen would have you believe. In any event, these are the issues we should be studying. We need to devote sometime in the conference to issues relating to Civilizational knowledge

2. I make no apologies for my choice of the mathematical sciences as a Canonical example of the Civilizational knowledge of the ancient Indians. My interest in the history of mathematics is of long standing and I came to Indian history through the circuitous route of studying Greek Mythology and the Greek contributions to mathematics. It also happens to be the most mature of human endeavors and an area where the Indics have made a signal contribution. Many Indian philosophers were also excellent mathematicians and to use a word more prevalent today were 'polymaths'. Many classical indian historians shy away from commenting on the mathematics of the ancients, because they are not comfortable in a mathematical milieu. and not because it should not be studied in a holistic manner. This however does not mean that we exclude other Civilizational hallmarks of the Indic peoples

3. The Occidental has tried his best to prevent us from seeing the Indic civilization in its totality, by denying us the autocthonous origin of various disciplines. He was extraordinarily vehement in defining the new chronology and was careful that no discovery should be attributed to India prior to the Golden age of Greece. And soon it became an axiom of Indic thought that we had borrowed everything from the Greeks and Indians today are caught in the web of a circular argument, where we assume the answer to the question 'when did the Indics discover this . Typical of such Indian writers (and almost no Indian writer has challenged the basic steel frame of the Indian chronology of Vincent smith) was Gaurang Nath Banerjee who wrote about Hellenism in Ancient India, which was obviously written to placate occidental sensibilities in 1920.

There is another reason why we should rely heavily on the works of Indic astronomers, apart from telling us what they knew, they were quite precise in dating their own period and by making observations of the sky enabled us to date an event with remarkable precision.

4.The connection between the strategic environment that the Indic civilization faces today and our history and the costly mistakes which result in a false reading of history, need not be belabored to this audience and hence my attempt at getting the strategic community in the same room as the historians. Typical of such decisions that our Government has made is the abandonment of Tibet to the clutches of the Asian Superpower
Goals of the conference
We cannot clean the Aegean stables even in 3 days, but what we can do is to spark the initiative of investigators, researchers, historians , think tank consultants, and yes even Autodidacts into setting the stage for a process whereby the framework for the Indian chronology is more in synchronization with the latest discoveries as well as encourage the use of new technologies in deciphering the Indic past while at the same time establishing a Forensic science that is devoted to such efforts. We can also educate the parents as consumers to demand a more authentic treatment of History in school text books. Hence the conception .
The conference has basically two objectives. One is to increase awareness of strategic thinking and to show that a strategic approach based on long term objectives is key to creating an environment for a civilization in which the future is less threatening and offers greater and better choices. The second objective is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate history of India and its impact on the future choices that a country can and should make in its vital interest.

Major themes of Conference
One major but unique complication in deciphering the Indic past is that one must make the distinction between the chronology of an event and the date at which it was first chronicled. This is because the chronicling of the Indic past is itself an event of considerable antiquity

Mainly Historical Themes
• Is it a valid premise to assume that the current history is seriously mangled and distorted? We believe an objective appraisal of Indian history as exemplified in the presentations at HEC2007 came down heavily in favor of such a proposition, but we will keep an open mind and hear those who would argue against such a thesis
• Identify key distinguishing characteristics and dates of the Indic civilization of relevance to the current strategic environment facing India
• Indicate those areas of Indian history which are egregiously in error and the resulting impact on the manner in which India is viewed in the world today
• The British Colonial period
• Historiography of Indian Arts
• Provide examples of policy based on an erroneous interpretation of History
• Propose methodology and criteria to evaluate the accuracy of the current or future proposed narratives of Indic history
• Discuss the present day nonchalance towards history and rekindle the interest in History
• Discuss the Recognition and Revival of traditional knowledge sytems in Republican India
• We know the history of a country affects the economic choices it makes, but how does the economic well being - or lack thereof -- in a country or the economic choices it makes affect the history of the civilization.
• In the seventeenth century, as during most of the history during the Christian era, the Indian GDP according to Angus Madison, comprised 25% of the world on a PPP basis. Examine the causes of the rapid deterioration in the economic well being of the subcontinent beginning after the Battle of Plassey, resulting in the First of the Great Famines of Bengal in 1777, and the death by slow starvation of 1/3rd of the population of Bengal.
• Discuss the potential impact of the new politically correct dogma , unique to India which goes under the name of Secularism and its impact on the historiography of India and the discipline of History, and more importantly the caricaturization of the Hindu as a Saffron Fascist
• Identity and Politics interact not only in history writing, but also in current affairs. How much of the identity politics today, including so called subaltern studies is a consequence of the massive distortion and reinventing of caste by the colonial overlord ? Did the 1971 war and Pokhran I cause the large increase in funding of South Asian studies
• Suggested List of theme titles
1. Perceptions of 'History' (with special reference to Indian history)
2. History and the Historian: Judging history versus pleading history
3. Colonial-Missionary distortions in Indian history
4. Impact of post-modernism and post-structuralism on contemporary Indian historiography
5. Post-Colonial distortions
6. Impact of history writing on identities and geopolitics today
7. Current status of the debate on Vedic-Harappan Identity
8. Ongoing debate on Indian history text-books in India and abroad
9. History of Indian Ocean Community
10. History of Indian Diaspora.
11.Women in Ancient India
The Occident and The Geopolitics of India
• Discuss the extent to which the current History of India is an Occidentalist Revision
• India and the US form the two largest English speaking regions in the world and the 2 largest Democracies In the past the relationship has been nevertheless a difficult one. what is the future of this relationship
• Discuss the extent of India's contribution to technology and the sciences in the past and the consequences for Indian policy makers in dealing with other civilizations and nation states. Discuss possible transfers of technology from India to Greece and later to Europe, and the impact it may have had on the resurgence of Europe, such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. For instance there is ample circumstantial evidence that the Gregorian calendar was fixed in 1582 after the Jesuits learned about sidereal measurements and the accurate trigonometric tables from the Jyotish in Kerala.
• Discuss the potential Indic origin of the realist imperative (e.g. John Meerscheimer and Hans Morgenthau) of the Occidental in his formulation of foreign policy (It is our contention that the imperative has been a significant strand in the Indic strategic weltanschauung, ever since the time of Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, . The efficacy with which he plied his craft is attested to by the fact that he was equally trusted by both parties in the war
• Discuss the implications of the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization on the posture of Pakistan, if any, and the relationship between India and Pakistan
• Encourage and Report on independent study of Mesoamerica by Indics to assess whether the Occidental has applied a similar Eurocentric approach to the historical narrative of the Incas and the Aztecs
• Discuss the various ways in which the Occidental has caricatured the Indic such as for example by reinventing the caste system as the prime determinant of the Indic civilization.
• Discuss the manner in which Indian Literary and Scientific historiography has been characterized by the Occident and the almost total ignorance of the works of such stalwarts as Bhartrihari among the youth of India today.
• The Goan inquisition and its impact on Indian society, especially in the Konkan area

1. Distortions in Indian History during Various eras
POSSIBLE SESSIONS
1. The era of the Ancients and the beginning of River valley Civilizations (7000 BCE to 4000 BCE)
Key event The battle of the Ten Kings (the Dasarajna battle)
Key Paradigm The composition of the Vedic literature
2. The era of Geographical Expansion and consolidation of Civilizational values (from the ancients up to 1000 CE)
Key event Development of Darshanas, Astronomy, development of numerical symbols and the place value system
(including the Brahmana era, the Sutra era, and the Upanishadic era)
3. The Era of conflicting Paradigms (1000 CE to 17th Century)
Key event Islam asserts its presence in the Indian Subcontinent
4. The Indic Renaissance (16th century to present) and the Age of Colonization
Stimulus Response Debate: The Policies of the Colonial State and the Indian Response
Key Event The Impoverishment and malnourishment of India
5. The Republic and the Occidentalist Caricature of the Indic(1947 to present)
Key event – Independence is not accompanied by independence of thought

2.Geopolitical and Strategic Issues confronting India today and in the future
Realism and the Realist imperative today and its roots in Indic tradition
Geopolitics of US, India and China
3.The development of the Arts, Science and Technology beginning in the ancient era and the possible transmission to the west
The Indic Mathematical Tradition
Negation of India’s contribution to the Sciences and to Linguistics
Was the Calculus invented in India
Historiography of India Arts

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='color:blue'>Yesterday, I attended Mayoral debate at Sugarland, Tx organised by IAPAC(local chapter of Indo American Political Action Committee).
The purpose of putting it here is that ultimately, we have to translate ideas into reality and organise events.
United we stand.
Now, the mute point:
Whether you agree or not but POIs(People of Indian orgin) are more interested in wholesale politics(e.g. Vice Prez, Governors, State politicians and so on) than retail politics whereas retail politics like Mayor is supposed to be nonpartisan.</span>

Lack of fully developed ideology for living and livelihood is a major lacuna for all the right wing political parties in our country. I suppose this is true in the case of all democracies in the world. Though unworkable and unrealistic, the theocratic parties have their religious books and leftists have their international standards in the form of Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto. Barring some stern positions in few contentious issues, none of the rightist politicians venture to spell out their ideology about aspects that affect the living and livelihood of ordinary folks. The lone exception to this serious shortfall was the outstanding effort by Pundit Deendayal Uapadhya. His unique thesis on Integral Humanism, given in a series of speeches in Bombay from 22nd to 25th April, 1965, form the basis of a system of governance that is suited to the Indian nation and its people, regardless of caste, religion or region, as the alternative for all round human development. India lost one of its best right wing brains with his untimely demise in 1968.

The brilliant pundit had summarized the essence of Integral Humanism as follows:-

• An assurance of the minimum standard of living to every individual and preparedness for the defence of the Nation.
• Further increase above this minimum standard of living whereby the individual and the Nation acquire the means to contribute to world progress on the basis of its own Chiti.
• To provide meaningful employment to every able-bodied citizen, by which the above two objectives can be realised, and to avoid waste and extravagance in utilising natural resources.
• To develop machines suited to Bharatiya conditions (Bharatiya technology), taking note of the availability and nature of the various factors of production (Seven Ms).
• This system must help, and not disregard the human being – the individual. It must protect the cultural and other values of life. This is a requirement which cannot be violated except at the risk of great peril
• The ownership, state, private or any other form, of various industries must be decided on a pragmatic and practical basis.

He would have developed and modified it further, and India would have been firmly under the control of a right wing ideology by end of twentieth century. But it was not to be so. It should now be the solemn duty of each and every right thinking Indian national to contribute his or her ideas for the development of such a full fledged socio-economic-political ideology that can take us to the top of the world once again. Here is my own, which I would call as the Philosophy of DWELL (Dharmic Way of Enlightened Living and Livelihood). Some brief outlines on the most important aspects of life would provide the directions to proceed and develop further.

Dharmic Living

The basic tenet of any form of social governance in India must be Dharma. And Dharma is that which sustains. Dharma Rajya must ensure religious freedom, and must not be a theocratic State. Dharma is something that is very basic to human nature and it has nothing to do with any religious faith or belief. We should always bear in might that what is right or wrong is often different from what is dharmic or adharmic. As an example, it is always wrong to kill, but it is dharmic for a soldier or butcher to kill. Hindu Rashtra or Ram Rajya may be objectionable to many Indians, but Dharma Rajya must be acceptable to all Indian nationals. By the way, a nation does not spring up from mere co-habitation. As indicated by Punditji “When a group of persons live with a goal, an ideal, a mission and look upon a particular piece of land as their own, this group constitutes a Nation. A lot of trouble in the West is due to the fact that they confused the State with the Nation, they considered the State synonymous with the Nation.”

Modern India and ancient Bharat have a unique meeting point in the land of Dharma, and if we do not utilize this basis we are digging our own graves. For a Dharma Rajya to dawn, our legislations, socio-economic systems and government policies must undergo the litmus test of Dharma. Only those which are Dharmic must be allowed to be passed and practiced. In a truly democratic and secular set up, it will be difficult to have disputes regarding dharma and adharma. If at all there are cases where such disputes arise, a Dharma Sabha comprising of spiritual leaders from all religions in direct proportion to their population must be convened to reach a consensus decision.

Dharmic Livelihood

Dharmic livelihood is equally important as dharmic living. There are many who lead religious, generous and selfless lives with money generated from adharmic sources. We have heard of smugglers and robbers who are more popular among laymen than righteous leaders. Then there are corrupt politicians who have turned Gandhians after the loot. In a Dharma Rajya these scenarios must never be encouraged. Dharmic living must be necessarily coming from dharmic means of livelihood. Occupation of all types must pass the digital test of Dharma, which gives either a positive or negative result. There is nothing like a half-dharmic or somewhat-dharmic job. All sorts of adharmic occupations must be banned, discouraged and looked down upon by the society.

Enlightenment Goals

Enlightenment must be the declared goal of all individuals in a Dharma Rajya. There are enlightened individuals in all sections of the society and they should be recognized as such. Enlightenment is something that is attained and not inherited. Truth is God and learning to know the truth is the path to enlightenment. Swamis, Moulavis, Clergy, scientists, artists, leaders and in fact all of us are in such a path of enlightenment, but at different stages depending upon our caliber and efforts. It is important to recognize and respect those who are ahead of us in the path.

Nation First

‘Nation first and notions next’ must be the key slogan for management of human resources in a nation. In India, it must be the feeling of Indian Nation that should be first and foremost in the minds of all Indian nationals. All other notions of religious, regional and linguistic divide must become subordinate to our national feelings. We must be willing to give up all other identities if they are against our Indian nationality. Cross-border fraternity and international brotherhood must be secondary to the feeling of co-nationality in a Dharma Rajya.

Distribution of Wealth

It is the duty of a responsible state to provide legal and transparent channels for distribution of wealth. The unconditional acceptance of inequality among individuals is the distinguishing feature that differentiates the rightists from leftists. In any society of unequals, there should be provisions for those at the top to contribute their might for the upliftment of those left behind. Helping and charity are in the basic nature of any human being, and it should be more so in a dharmic society. Given an opportunity for parting with reasonable part of income for helping others, it is natural for any normal individual to oblige. A dharmic society must always provide such avenues for sharing.

In India there is nothing better than a drastic re-definition for the religious places of worship to achieve this. Temples, mosques and churches should become the authorized centres for compulsory distribution of wealth. There should be comprehensive legislations that should ban any place of worship from accumulating wealth beyond its own reasonable operating costs. The underlying dharmic principle is very simple – omnipotent and omnipresent Ishwar does not need any material wealth. All wealth and income accumulating in any place of worship must be distributed among its own users on an equal per-capita basis without any discrimination (those who do not need can always decline).

Reservation and Minorities

In a Dharma Rajya, there is no place for minority status for any one. All are equal, equally important and equally responsible. There should be any form of reservation only for the following:-

• Mentally or physically challenged
• Adivasis (ie. people who would prefer to live in forests)

However, the State should guarantee minimum requirements of food, clothing, shelter and primary education to each and every individual Indian national. The best option before the government is to provide a minimum quality life assurance coverage policy to each Indian national when he or she attains the age of say 5 years. For those who do well later in life the same policy can be used to yield higher annuity returns when required.

Population & Control

India as a nation has existence only till the time the demography is preserved at least in the current proportions. Otherwise it will go the way Pakistan or Bangladesh or East Timor or Kosova. To avoid this disaster, religious conversions in all forms must be banned. Individuals should be allowed to covert from one religion to another, in a highly difficult manner, only if they want to marry into another religion and that too only once in their lifetime.

Modern India and Indians have a lot to learn from our own much boasted family planning campaign in the past and how such good intentional programs have been cleverly undermined by some sections of the society. It is widely believed that the sabotage had the full blessings of those who initiated the same. The fact that almost all the educated Catholics in India (and uneducated others) have at least three children speaks volumes about the amount of ‘family planning’ that has gone into the silent exercise of making a fool of others. In Dharma Rajya there should be no scope for such dirty tricks - there should be no state control or guidelines for procreation. Even while providing all modern facilities for birth controls it should be purely left to the individuals to decide on the number of children they should have.

Education & Sports

A dharmic society must encourage only dharmic education, which should equip individuals with ability to understand and develop skills for a livelihood. To become a good Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc., one has to become a good Man first. Learning the truly secular ways of getting knowledge and skills for livelihood are pre-requisites to enter any path of enlightenment. Any form of religious education before of the age of ten is useless and fifteen is counter-productive to the intended objectives. Children should necessarily attend their own religious classes only after attaining the age of fifteen. By that time they would have become good human beings and good Indian nationals too.

State intervention in sports and games is welcome when there are unhealthy trends developing in these fields. The disproportionate and unhealthy interest in the gambling game of cricket presents such a scenario in India now. Games & sports must be oriented towards development of physical health. Football, hockey, kabadi etc., must be encouraged at all costs.

Agriculture & Industry

In a broad sense, it is agriculture that has always sustained culture and it is the mother of all that we call as our culture. Emphasis given to sustainable methods of agriculture must be very high and a minimum of 25% budget allocation must be made every year for sustaining agriculture in our country. Loan facilities given to those in the agricultural sector must be liberalized and capping should be always made on the rate of interest chargeable. Performance of banks must be based on KPIs related to quantum of loans made and recovered, and not on the basis of profits. Industrial sector must always subsidize the agricultural sector, under the basic argument that agriculture is something very basic to human existence. There should be no conflict and competition between the two. In short, it is the basic dharma of industry to sustain agriculture.

There are many who indulge in false propaganda that rightist ideologies are reactionary and anti-development. Nothing can be further away from truth than this propaganda by followers of failed ideologies. Ancient Indian concepts of Dharma are proving their relevance in modern times almost every moment. All the modern and evolving concepts of sustainability, social justice, eco-friendliness, renewable energy etc., fit in very well into a social system that is based on Dharma. Our India will be a much better place to live in for all sections of our society if we can voluntarily opt for an Indian way of living. In any case the days of DWELL Philosophy are not very far in India.

What is going on here? Why should advani say that he was not there? Why say this white lie? Obviously advani NOW knows how damaging it is for a home minister to travel with a terrorist on the same plane, but did he not know at that time? Probably thought it would be a photo-op like opening a building or a bridge. And why would Fernandez contradict advani? Either he is not in good terms with advani or is that brutally honest type. Either way advani should have known better. Wasn't paswan also in govt that time?

This problem is similar to the bosnia white lie issue that is dogging hillary clinton. to the un-initiated, hillary had visited bosnia in 1996 in the middle of the war to cheer up the US troops. Apparently she was warned about sniper fire and other dangers before they landed. during campaign, hillary claimed that she heard sniper shots during the visit and had to run to the plane under grave threat. One comedian who had gone with hillary immediately contradicted, saying the only threat they came under was "excess food" that they had stuffed themselves with. hillary said that comedian was mistaken. unfortunately for hillary, the entire video of the tour came out that showed no sniper fire and proving hillary to be a liar. after the video came out hillary said she made a "mis-statement". as a result hillary's campaign is tanking. politicians lying is a big thing in US as people in US expect their leaders to be honest and held to a higher standard, even if people themselves are not.

I think advani's mis-statement is more damaging as there is nothing wrong with a peaceful visit to bosnia but travelling with a terrorist on the same plane to exchange him is horrible. he should have just moved on, saying that at that time he was more concerned with the lives of the passengers more that about travel arrangements.

This brings to a more important questions... why do leaders that I support get caught like this???? <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fernandes drills hole in Advani hijack defence
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, March 28: George Fernandes has asserted that L.K. Advani did attend the meeting of ministers which decided Jaswant Singh should fly to Kandahar with the terrorists to be traded off for the passengers of a hijacked Indian plane.

The veteran ally’s remarks left the BJP speechless days after Advani had claimed he was initially unaware of the controversial decision, and came to know of it at the last minute.

“Yes, all of us were present,” Fernandes, the National Democratic Alliance convener, told interviewer Karan Thapar when asked whether Advani was at the meeting.

Fernandes was defence minister and Advani home minister in December 1999 when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government decided that foreign minister Jaswant should accompany the freed militants to Afghanistan.

When Thapar mentioned Advani’s recent claim, Fernandes suggested the BJP leader might not have been at the meeting “at that point of time” and said he didn’t think Advani was “lying”.

But when the interviewer suggested that Advani’s recollections could be faulty, the Janata Dal (United) leader, according to the transcript, said: “Yes, that can happen.”

BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar refused to answer questions relating to the interview, to be telecast on CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate on Sunday. The party had on Monday endorsed the version of Advani, now its shadow Prime Minister.

Fernandes’s remarks will provide ammunition to the Congress, which has anyway ripped into Advani’s claim.

Some BJP leaders expressed anguish at the ageing and ailing NDA convener’s “indiscretion”. They tried to play down the remarks, saying Fernandes’s memory has been failing him.

But many party leaders admitted in private that Advani’s attempt to wash off the Kandahar blot had breathed fresh life into the dying controversy. They declined to be quoted, saying it was for Advani to set the record straight.

Some in the party see a possible escape hatch in Fernandes’s suggestion that Advani may not have been at the meeting when the decision was taken.

Earlier, the BJP, asked how a home minister could have been so badly out of the loop, had claimed that Advani had indeed been part of the decision to free the terrorists but the meeting had not discussed the details of their Kandahar trip.

Advani, projected as a strong leader concerned about national security, has been at pains to disown the Kandahar capitulation. His recent “revelation” came after a failed whisper campaign about his opposition to the militants’ release.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Geneva'>Earth Hour: An hour of difference
29 Mar 2008, 0051 hrs IST,INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK
Print Save EMail Write to Editor


NEW DELHI: When the world switches off for Earth Hour between 8 and 9 pm on March 29, India may remain illuminated. As of today no Indian city has officially joined the campaign to black out to show that India too is in the crusade to reduce global warming. This can, of course, change if Indians, collectively and individually, will otherwise.

The Times of India urges its readers, especially in India, to join in the campaign. It is a small starting step, but a one that may eventually make the difference between survival and extinction. (Individuals can sign up to participate on the Earth Hour site.)

The Earth Hour, which was started by World Wildlife Fund in Sydney in 2007, is a way to spread the message that if the world switches off for an hour daily, carbon emissions can be reduced by 5 per cent annually. Andy Ridley, executive director of Earth Hour, says through the campaign, cities and communities will demonstrate "their leadership and commitment to finding solutions for climate change".

Currently, the initiative will be observed in 35 nations and across 370 cities, towns and councils worldwide. So far, 240,000 people have signed their support of the event. Celebrities such as singer-songwriter Nelly Furtado and the band Fall Out Boy have pledged to turn out their lights, as have the Phoenix Suns and Chicago Cubs. "We're asking for the whole hour ... and for cities around the world it is whenever that time rolls around," World Wildlife Fund communications manager Adam Harper says.

An estimated 2.2 million Sydney residents took part in the first Earth Hour last year, and it shaved 10.2 per cent off the city's energy consumption for the hour. Other cities are expected to follow Sydney into the campaign this year, and they include Christchurch, Bangkok, Seoul, Dubai, Antarctica's Casey Base, Manila, Copenhagen, Rome, Dublin, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco and Mexico City.

"One of the goals of Earth Hour is to have participants commit to longer-term benefits, such as replacing older lights bulbs throughout their homes with highly efficient compact fluorescents, and to commit to reducing energy consumption daily," says Carter Roberts, president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund.

Past Record

2008 would be the second year in succession when a clutch of cities in the world would be taking the initiative of using no electricty for an hour. Earth Hour was first started in Sydney when on March 31, 2007, 2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney business establishments turned off their lights for an hour.

With Sydney landmarks such as Harbour Bridge and Opera House going into pitch darkness and unique events such as weddings being conducted in candlelight, the world took notice. Inspired by the collective effort of millions of Sydneysiders, many major cities have joined the Earth Hour campaign in 2008, turning a symbolic event into a worldwide movement.



Print Save EMail Write to Editor </span></span>

<b>Congress in the name of development of minority(read muslim) districts is providing hard earned tax payers money to appease its muslim votebank.</b>

<b>Rs 3,500-cr scheme for 90 'minority' districts</b>
Link
Friday March 28 2008 00:00 IST
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NEW DELHI: The Centre will spend more than Rs 3,500 crore in infrastructure development projects in 90 minority dominated districts across the country as it approved the package for improving basic amenities in these areas.

With the UPA Government entering the last leg of its tenure, it announced the major minority-centric scheme called “Multi-Sectoral Development Programme” under which basic infrastructure projects would be undertaken during the 11th Plan in designated districts.

The Centre will bear the entire expense of Rs 3,780 crore while the local governments will help in implementation of projects. Under the scheme, basic infrastructure like roads, health centres, skill development centres and marketing facilities would be developed in the minority dominated districts, said a government spokesperson after a meeting of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) which cleared the scheme.

The official said the focus of the scheme will be on rural and semi-rural areas of the identified 90 minority concentration districts which will be given funds as “development deficits”.

The money will be given after seeking a commitment from the state governments that they will constitute a committee for implementation of the Prime Minister’s 15-point programme for the welfare of minorities.

The 15-point programme aims at improving education, creating employment opportunities and addressing the security issues for the minorities.

It seeks to involve minorities in the Integrated Child Development Services Schemes and calls for measures for preventing communal riots and fast track compensation for victims of communal violence.

<b>It also talks about modernising madarsas and introducing scholarships for meritorious students from the minority communities.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is an constitutionally mandated secular government providing money to muslim madrassa whose only contribution to the nation is the production of terrorists who kill people of other faith in the name of islam. We dont need more such jehad factories to be setup with money that we pay as taxes to the government. If the government has got so much extra money why does it not invest in building schools & colleges which will provide good education and mould the children to serve the country.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The implementation of the 15-point programme has not been on track with several complaints pouring in about laxity shown by the state governments.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Jindal offers power to Karnataka</b>
Link

Bangalore : Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Managing Director Bharatlal has said that the Jindal Steel Company has come forward to supply 100 MW of power during April and May.

Speaking to media persons on Friday, he said that talks in this regard are in the final stage. “The company wants to supply power at Rs 7 per unit during peak hour,” he added.

Besides, the centre has decided to restore Karnataka’s quota of 100 MW of power from the central grid. The additional power would help the KPTCL to meet the requirement during summer. Moreover, the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited’s Bellary thermal power station is also expected to commence generation during May.

The average overall power consumption this year has remained at 110 MU per day, he said, adding that due to showers in most parts of the State, the consumption has come down to around 105 MU during last week.

An Andhra Pradesh-based gas company, Konaseema, has come forward to supply power for a period of seven years at Rs 3.60 per unit. The company will supply around 80 MW this year and by the end of the period, it will be supplying around 600 MW.

Bharatlal said a joint venture thermal power company, being set up at Naitha in Jharkhand by Damodar Valley Corporation and the Tatas, has agreed to supply 250 MW of power from 2010. He said talks were also being held to get 180 MW of power from a thermal plant being set up at Vellore in Tamil Nadu, jointly by the Tamil Nadu government and NTPC.

The power purchasing agreements are being finalised by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.

<b>Government Employee works for 14 years after retirement without salary</b> <!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Mar 20, 2008

A former employee of a health centre in Howrah district continues his "job" even after 14 years of his retirement, and that too without remuneration, due to his passion to work.

Rabindranath Bhadra, a former employee of Jagatballavpur Block Health Centre, still gets ready and set off to work by 6.00 am daily as was his routine before his retirement in 1995.

"He feels ill if he stops working. Once, we had stopped him from following his gruelling routine. But he started feeling depressed and started developing cardiac problems and so we have allowed him to work so he stays fit and happy," said his wife, Suniti.

The health centre authorities and staff say that Bhadra is too good a worker to miss out and has become indispensable for the smooth functioning of the institution.

"We have become dependent on him after his retirement. If he doesn't come for a day day we face a lot of problems. He is indispensable," Medical officer of Jagatballavpur Block Health Centre, Rupanjali Biswas said.

Asked whether he wanted to be get paid for his services to the government, Bhadra said "I get my pension and that is enough for me and so why should I ask for more?"

He joined 35 years ago as a Group D employee at the Health Centre at a monthly salary of Rs 90.

Bhadra was transferred to other health centres in the district during his service and after his retirement, he returned to the place where he began his work life.

He now gets a monthly pension of Rs 2700.

Bhadra's work is to take down names of outdoor patients and clean up rooms before the arrival of doctors. He also provides primary treatment to the patients and even arranges food for doctors.

"He has become so much a part of our health centre that we can never think of him as an outsider. When he doesn't come it becomes a problem for us because none have been assigned the work he does," said one employee.

Bhadra, on his part, said "I want to continue to work till I die." With two sons and wife Suniti, Bhadra leads a peaceful life at the home he built at Mondalpara in Amta, a remote area in the district.

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007...-jindal-an.html



Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics

Bobby Jindal has become the new Governor of Louisiana. In order to understand why is this important to anyone outside of Louisiana, consider the following points, in combination :

1) Bobby Jindal is only 36 years old, and has become one of the youngest ever Governors in US history. Prior to this, he has served in the US House of Representatives, was a Rhodes Scholar, and was employed at McKinsey & Company. His success in so many different areas reflects deep intelligence and competence, rather than just a fluke.

2) As Governor of a medium-sized state, he has gained an Executive Branch position, and thus has already accomplished more towards creating a Presidential resume than Barack Obama, 10 years his senior, has. Barack Obama has just 4 years of Senate experience and no executive experience. Note that no US President has been elected without Executive (either Governor or VP) experience in the last 11 elections since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

3) That he could win so handily on a GOP ticket in Louisiana shows that whatever perceived disadvantages he may have had for being a Catholic, or for being non-white, were not barriers. In other words, if he can win there, he can win over a majority of America.

4) As by far the most prominent Indian-American in US politics, he has exclusivity in garnering political support from what is the highest-income ethnic group in the US. This elevates the visibility of a dark-skinned group that has a higher average income than whites, and thus reduces self-limiting perceptions of imagined 'racism' that many minorities still hold. This also grants the GOP a pathway to conduct a campaign to attract high-income, fiscally and socially conservative minorities, which the GOP presently does a shockingly poor job of.

5) India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world, and is also a rare country that is more supportive of Republican politicians than America itself is (very few people know this). Indo-US ties are the most rapidly widening economic and political ties between any two large countries in the world today, and with the Indian economy set to grow at 8-11% a year for the next 13 years, Indo-US trade will amount to as much as $400 Billion by 2020 (from $32 Billion in 2006, and just $5 Billion in 1990). Bobby Jindal is already a household name in India, and thus is superbly positioned to maximize this imminent wave of Indo-US geopolitical alignment and economic integration.

6) I repeat, he is only 36 years old. How much had any of the big name politicians of our era accomplished at that age? He has 20 years to go before he is even 56, and thus has ample time to lay the groundwork for multiple shots at the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

However, there is still along way to go, and the path is strewn with many traps and pitfalls. In order to advance to the highest echelon, Bobby Jindal has to work on the following three things :

1) Oversee the reconstruction and recovery of New Orleans into a city that is better than it ever was before. This is a monumental challenge, but success here will immediately receive nationwide applause. This is the accomplishment that he could ride to the Presidency.

2) Honing his speaking skills. While a competent speaker, he is not as electrifying at the big occasion as Barack Obama is, and this does matter immensely. This is a learnable skill, however, that almost anyone can gain through diligent practice.

3) Stay as scandal-free as possible over a very long period. One scandal can derail higher political ambitions permanently.

When Bobby Jindal rises to national prominence as a Presidential candidate at some point between 2016 and 2036, remember what you read here on The Futurist in October of 2007, and observe how a unique convergence of multiple megatrends elevated an unlikely man to the greatest heights of political power.

October 28, 2007 in India, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/693213/22797290

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics:
Comments

To the Indian immigrants I would add the exo-communist Chinese communities (to coin a phrase).

They both provide important cultural insights, political influence and economic and technical skills to the nations which they enter while eroding the core values and beliefs of the Democratic and other Western leftist parties - pro-entitlement platforms, anti-capitalism views, anti-Western hatred, anti-success attitudes and racial paternalism.

Bobby Jindal and those who follow him are the Democrats' worst nightmare.

Posted by: Saul Wall | October 29, 2007 at 03:37 PM

I just noticed that number 2 in your list of three challenges is true but says something sad about human nature. Being a charming smooth talker is one of the classical signs of a high functioning psychopath which is exactly the kind of person that does well in politics but is less likely to do the right thing if doing the wrong thing can be advantageous to the person in question.

As for number 3, if he does get into scandals he might consider changing his name to Kennedy or Kerry or Clinton... something with a "K" or hard "C" sound. People with those sorts of names tend to be acquire a magical non-stick quality to all disturbing revelations. Or maybe it is just people with a "D" after their name.

Posted by: Saul Wall | October 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM

GK,
An interesting observation. One that raises an even more interesting point.
One thing I have noticed throughout my travels, is that each culture has its own peculiarities, and for the most part like to swap stories with foreigners. However very few countries actually allow the foreign culture ( or in many areas ideals and beliefs), to blend with their own.
In the US, we are extremely tolerant compared to any other country I have ever been in. Sure you have uneducated Joe Shmoe who will tease and harass the visitors, but over all, we offer harbor like no other country on earth. Very rarely does the teasing or harassing ever get so out of hand where physical violence is intiated (save for the downtown areas where not even a cop will venture without caution).
However due to this openness and acceptance, we have (in my humble opinion), lost a ‘sense of self’ so to speak.
For example, many Americans have taken on Islam as a break from traditional Christian values. Many people allow themselves to emerge themselves so much in foreign culture, that they forget their host nations ideals founded by the forefathers. Heck, unless you speak Spanish, forget going to a grocery store and being able to ask for an item you can’t seem to find. The ten commandments were banned from a court for cryin out loud.
Not only has America lost its sense of self, but it has lost it’s heritage as well. Nowadays, almost every value put forth by our nations founders, has been stamped as ‘intolerant’, or ‘insensitive’. Our Bill of Rights is under constant attack by those who want to ban guns. On the flip side, Freedom of Speech is abused on a daily basis because people can criticize the US directly, and get away with it. After all, we can say what we want right?
You see the problem is that the ethics, morals, and principles of our founding fathers are slowly being eroded away. Modern day ideals that would have made our forefathers roll over in their graves. What made America great to begin with (not to mention what ultimately made our nation what it was) was those ideals. Yet slowly and surely, as new cultures, ideals, and lack of responsibility has subverted our culture, America has lost itself. And I want it back. I want to be able to go to a foreign country again, and say “I am American, and proud of it!” without having it pointed out to me how badly our nation has become perverted.
So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well? Or would you want a president who stands up and says, “I am an American. Born and raised. Furthermore, I will restore this nation to the heights upon which the eagle of freedom initially flew!” I am not saying that such a one would be blind to the geo-political world, but that they should not compromise America’s belief or statutes (unlike todays party politics BS).

Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 05:09 PM

brokerdavelhr,

So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well?

What evidence is there that Bobby Jindal has done this, any more than Rudy Giuliani has played up his Italian angle?

I mean, Jindal won in Louisiana, of all places, where there are virtually no Indian-Americans.

On the contrary, leftists attack Jindal as a 'sellout' simply for being a pro-US person of color.

Posted by: GK | October 31, 2007 at 05:17 PM

GK,
I actually spoke to soon in my previous post by breaking one of my golden rules- 'Study before you speak'. So I did some browsing and I found this website
http://www.bobbyjindal.com/
which gives a little more insight as to what makes this guy tick. I like the way he speaks actually. Very different from most other politicians. Can't wait to see what he does while in his fairly new position. Watched some of his speeches and read some of his plans and policies, and I must say that I actually like the guy. I hope that he does make plans for the presidency. All those values I thought were at stake might just be better served by him.

Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 06:06 PM

There are several immigrant groups with strong support for freedom and capitalism. Immigrants from not only India but also Cuba, China and Vietnam.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that immigrants from Mexico and South America share this ideal. I have a couple ideas as to why, nothing definite. It's also possible I'm wrong about the impression, I haven't seen a rigorous study of views on freedom by immigrant country. Anyone else think this is true and/or have an explanation for the difference?

Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 02:52 AM

Are Democratic ways leftist only?

Is Democracy left oriented only?

After reading the post and comments, esp. Saul Wall, I have a feeling that non of you understand the true meaning of Democracy.

One on hand, y'all talk about how we set up Democracy in Iraq, on the other hand you scream about "the Democratic and other Western leftist parties"...

On the other note, I like diversity in US politics, and will welcome Bobby Jindal if he has good common sense, and actually will work for every US citizen, not only for Indian-American population, like most of the ex-mexican senators.

Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 12:28 PM

WC:
Are you confusing the concept of democracy (small d) with the Democratic Party (big 'D')?

The US government is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy isn't actually a good form of government as it's simply tyranny of the majority. A better form includes protections for the individual, property rights and rule of law. This is referred to as ‘western democracy’, which is a term that includes US as well as Mexico, Europe, etc. All of these are democracies of varying strengths (the strongest being the US due to, in my opinion, it’s much stronger constitution and higher levels of checks and balances of a bicameral rather than a parliamentary legislative body).

Democracy is also used in a philosophical way. The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism, while the Republicans are a mix of conservative and/or Libertarian (aka Objectivist) views.

Finally, what we’re establishing in Iraq is also a constitutional republic, not technically a pure democracy. It’s accurate to use the umbrella term ‘democracy’ to describe it.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 01:45 PM

Thank you Jason for the detailed description <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm actually familiar with everything you described, I hope people here refresh their memory as well.

I just would like to disagree with you on this: "The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism". I doubt US Democrats based their views on Socialism or Marxism, I think those are just Liberal views, not Socialistic.

BTW, I would note also that saying that Republicans are following Libertarian(individual liberty) views is a bit off beat in my opinion, because it's most of them who vote for censorship <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (check the Fox news - they all want you to "shut up") <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I would say that Republicans are on the Libertarianism(private property rights) side.

BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now... <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 05:25 PM

"World Citizen' is just about the last person who is qualified to comment on Democracy. He actually refuses to admit that Burma, Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. are not Democracies.

Furthermore, he exhibits the classic sign of left-wing fascism. Obsession with silencing Fox News, when it is only 1 right-wing network vs. 7 left-wing networks, gives this away Fox News actually has far more Democrats as regulars than the others have Republicans as regulars.

So, why is it wrong for 50% of the population to have even 1 out of 8 news networks? If leftists are unsatisfied with 7 out of 8, and obsess over the last one, that shows that they are the ones who are opposed to free speech.

BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now...

er.. care to provide any examples? The examples provided had better be from an official judicial or congressional source.

Lastly, "World Citizen" ran away from inconvenient questions in the last chain. I repeat them again here, in case he now has the courage to answer :

1) BTW, 'World Citizen', what are you doing to stop the violent massacre of peaceful Buddhist monks in Burma? Of innocents in Sudan and Zimbabwe? Where is your so-called 'world community' in preventing these atrocities?

2) If you think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA to get Republicans elected, then why is not a single Democratic Senator saying this? Why do believe something that not one Democrat thinks is credible?

3) Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Yet, it is a democratic, wealthy country. Does it deserve to exist as an independent country? Or is it supposed to be part of non-Democratic China?

4) Are you also a "World Citizen" of countries like North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, etc., where people are not allowed to vote at all?

and a new one :

5) There are countries where women are not allowed to work, expose their faces in public, or pursue education. These countries also execute homosexuals by throwing them off of tall buildings. Women who have pre-marital sex are sometimes stoned to death. As a "World Citizen", are you a citizen of such countries as well?


Posted by: GK | November 01, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Just a quick observation: #3 seems to imply that Jindal did well despite being a Catholic. Considering that Louisiana has a high proportion of Catholics, this should probably be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. See this map: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/re...on/catholic.gif

Posted by: sam | November 02, 2007 at 03:03 PM

Obama is not electrifying as a speaker ... he is a bore ... at the beginning his appearance struck people ... now that e listen we hear nothing

Posted by: bee | November 02, 2007 at 07:46 PM

I would have to say that in a way, I know where 'World Cliche' is coming from. The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of speech. However many people often abuse this freedom by advocating illegal activities that range from drugs to subversion of our own country. I am not saying that freedoms are bad, however a little more self-discipline in every US citizen would be greatly appreciated.
Now let me define another relevant problem. The freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for, are under constant attack by the democratic party (Big D). For instance- extreme gun control, allowing illegals into the country and offering them protection from Americans when in fact they should have no rights at all, abuse of power, and just general ignorance. They are politicians who believe (and I quote Hillary Clinton in her own words) that 'No people can coexist in a society without a government to guide, and lead them'. They do not fight for the peoples rights much anymore. The reasons vary as to why. The main reason is that they are so caught up with protecting the people from their own actions (which not only infringes on the freedoms of responsible people, but gives many excuses to actions commited out of gross stupidity), that they end up creating more problems then they fix.

World Whacko,
You argued with Jason on the democrats of this county being socialistic. This makes you twice as blind. As I stated above, they try to enact a law for the common good. This however is not for common good because there is no check to it. They see a trend in a committed action (whether it be school shootings, religious issues, fireworks, or even something as small as speeding), and seek to set forth a law that would ban such activities.
This is by very definition socialism. What is worse, is that people who maintain and use fire-arms safely, do not speed excessively or drive drunk, who do not try to force their religion down other peoples throats, or abuse any of their freedoms, are then forced to obey the law that in essence, takes away their freedoms.
This all stems from lack of self discipline. Democorats (and all those who agree with them) tout that it is up to the government to stop people from doing stupid things. This is a common occurrence that I can cite many examples of it need be. However by turning this line of thought into law, it prohibits the American people from the freedoms that so many of our previous generations laid down their lives to protect.
The only solution to this is to stop passing laws (that are usually only enforced when special interest groups get involved (what makes those a**h**** so special anyway?))that will have a nationwide impact on all US citizens, and start punishing the individual who screwed up.
For instance, if someone murders another, then it is up to the courts to take their life in return (this will never happen though because the Legislative and Judicial branch have made an excuse for just about anything short of rape). If someone steals something from another, then they should be made to pay that individual back, and not be free until they have done so (in many Arabic countries, they just cut of your hand). And so on, and so on.
Which is why I like this Bobby Jindal guy. Sure I have a lot more to learn about him before I make any further statements, but thus far, he seems like 'the man for the job'. Unlike many politicians (who will only try to curb a problem, or take advantage of it), he finds the cause of the problem, and tries to cut it off at the source. WITHOUT passing ridiculous laws that punish those who do not deserve it.
Also, when was the last time the Republic Majority voted for a censorship? I want an example. Obviously if you brought it up, you must have some to share.

Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 03, 2007 at 06:36 AM

Bobby Jindal's success, and the anger of leftist democrat party hacks at his "betrayal" points out the basic racism of modern leftists.

They require people of color to "stay on the plantation" and don't go acting all uppity independent now. Any person of color (or woman) who thinks for himself is just going to be called an "uncle Tom" or worse.

How long can the US Democratic party keep suckering normal non-ideologic, non-america haters to keep voting for them. Pity the poor independent businessperson who still thinks the US Democratic Party is on his side.

Posted by: Al Fin | November 07, 2007 at 09:31 PM

You will make for a good campaign manager. But I must say, Bobby Jindal seems to be a man of substance.

Posted by: pinkHammer | November 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Al Fin,
I do agree that racism does exist in some areas still. It is a bloody shame, and I wish that it wasn't true.
However a fire is fed by both air and wood.
In many, many of the northern cities, and all over the US now, a case of reverse racism also exists.
I cannot walk in many 'ghetto' neighborhoods and areas because I am white. When I go to a mostly African-American, or Hispanic populated area, I am called cracker, whittie, and a number of other racial slurs. 'Reverend' Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and many others often slam whites for using the word 'nigger'. Thats right I said it.
I was told by all my friends in the African American community that this is offensive because it makes them feel like they were back in the slave days. Ironically enough, both the terms 'Whittie' and 'Cracker' where terms used by slaves in reference to their abusive owners.
So we have African-Americans running around calling themselves 'Nigger'(wearing the title proudly), but God forbid a white person says it (witness Dog the bounty hunter). Yet the same people call me cracker and whittie without second thought.
Will someone please explain to me why retribution must be made? Further more, what good is it? I personally abhor the idea of slavery. I keep getting the answer that retribution, apologies, and special rights be granted to African-American's to make up for the 200 + years of slavery, and mistreatment. 1 out of every 20 people I see in a library are African-American. This means that all the libraries in the US must be racist and try to prevent them from entering! So, special college funds are made for the African American Community.
Guess what? 75% of my bosses and mentors have been African-American, and not one of them have ever needed any 'special aid'. They are all smart, hard-working, and people of great stature.
Meanwhile, my little brother was denied employment as a police officer because he would have tipped the legal scales, despite the fact that he was much more qualified.
Where is the justice? Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the balance?
In truth, there is none. If Obama is not made president, it is not because of Racism. It is because his politics were not what the people want.
Bobby Jindal gives me hope that people are responsible, and that no matter what the color of your skin is, people will vote for you if you are good at what you do.
He is currently governor of Loisianna. A place that the NAACP says is in a state of emergency because of some beating. The NAACP says that because of hangings and police brutality.
In the case of Shelwanda Riley, she bit the policeman before he used the pepper spray. This is something not shown on CNN. They just show the cop pepper spraying her. You know what? IF I was a cop, and if someone tried to bite me, I would spray them too!
In the Martin Lee Anderson Story, I watched the video 12 times, read every news paper article, and report I could find, and was not able to draw a conclusion either way because both sided gave double sided reviews. The child had a blood disorder, and according to both coroners, died of the ammonia (which is commonly used as a 'smelling salt'). The guards did not know of this condition as it was never diagnosed before. Obviously, the child was not in to good of physical shape if he collapsed after a mere few laps. Had the parents watched their child closer, they would have at least brought him to the doctors for suspected Asthma (due to the shortness of breath). I actually looked up the symptoms of sickle cell, and found that the symptoms do include weakness, pain in varying areas of the body, shortness of breath, etc. It comes in bouts that last from a few hours to several weeks. Even if the guards did what they were accused of, one could hardly call it a 'hate crime' anyway like the NAACP makes it look like. This is because there were African American guards involved as well. But, thanks to liberal media, a hate crime it has been dubbed.
Basically, I am tired of the BS. personally, I cannot wait for an African American who knows politics and does the right thing to step forward so that they can tell the NAACP just how full of it they are. Heck, even Bill Cosby had nothing nice to say about them. They are just another special interest group milking the system, and leeching our society. 'Reverend' Al and Jesse, HAH! They seek retribution and pay back where the Bible forbids it! Reverend my a**!
I just wish more like Bobby Jindal would come forward to put these groups in their place!

Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 24, 2007 at 01:33 PM

Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. He's no friend of free speech. He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth. In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.

Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 08:12 AM

Josh,

Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.

So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.

At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.

He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools

Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.

and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.

That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.

In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.

Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.

And the 'backward cesspool' of Louisiana has usually elected Democrats (Blanco, Nagin, Landrieu) until recently. The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.

Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 10:29 AM

So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.

So? Jindal has a lot of company in his anti-free-speech position. He's still anti-free-speech.

At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.

Any proof of this? Even if true, it means Jindal takes an anti-free-speech position in bad faith. And you think this is a defense?

He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools

Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.

You're easily impressed.

Source for Jindal's position on intelligent design:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1668433,00.html

and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.

That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.

That's nice, but irrelevant. Proof that Jindal thinks a woman who is raped should be forced to give birth:

"I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious."

http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/ar...30075.html

So my claim about Jindal's position on abortion is not a distortion. I await your apology.

Translation : Josh believes that people of color should not be able to choose to be Republicans.

Translation: GK is unable to defend Jindal against specific criticisms, so he accuses Jindal's critics of racism. GK cannot come up with his own arguments so he retreats GOP talking points.

Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.

Jindal will not be able to explain away his hard-right stance on every issue. The American people are not ideologues and will reject a transparent demagogue like Jindal.

The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.

You miss the point. It is only because LA is a cesspool that Jindal was able to make ethics the focus of the campaign rather than his insane hard-right positions on a variety of issues.


Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM

He's still anti-free-speech.

No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.

60% of Congress, which thus includes many Democrats, support this motion. This is a majority, and thus a mainstream position. No one other than fifth-column anti-Americans actually covet the right to burn a US flag on US soil.

Also, you seem to be the one suppressing free speech by seeking to snuff out discussion of intelligent design. I don't support ID, but I don't think free-speech should be suppressed to block it.

Why do you?

Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.

Pro-life people could just as easily say that all pro-choice people love to stick ice-picks into 8.5-month fetuses. That would be wrong, but that is what you are doing.

I will apologize to you ONLY if you admit that all the Democrats mentioned in this link also believe the same thing as Jindal.

In summary, I have proved that :

1) Jindal is no more extreme than virtually all GOP Senators and some Democrats. This is proven by the fact that some Congressional Democrats also support both flag-burning amendments and pro-life positions. Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.

2) Leftist fifth-columnists are hypocrites about free-speech, as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design. I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.

3) Racism against pro-US minorities is becoming increasingly rampant, as a person of color who simply holds the same positions as most Republicans and some Democrats, is considered an extremist *only* because these are not 'approved' views for colored people to have.

You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.

Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 02:36 PM

No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.

The position that burning the flag should be illegal is anti-free speech because it seeks to outlaw expressive activity.

Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.

Clearly you are ignorant of abortion politics. There is not one "pro-life" position, there are several. Jindal's is a very extreme one, in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort. Harry Reid does not share that view:

"Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid#Abortion_issues

You're sloppy. Tighten up your research.

Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.

Except for the position that a woman who is raped should be forced by state coercion to give birth. Thus, of the 3 positions under discussion, Jindal is an extreme Rightist on two of them. Not a good track record for a national candidacy.

as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design.

How foolish. Show me where anyone has said that it should be illegal to discuss intelligent design. Apparently you think excluding something from a public school science course is the same as outlawing all discussion of it. How sad.

I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.

You mean where I called you on your use of the ad popularum fallacy and you danced and dodged and lied? I never said Fox News should be supressed, by the way. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course.

You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.

If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child, present it. Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose. No wonder you sockpuppet in the comments sections of other blogs in a desperate attempt to get traffic.

Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Josh,

You are simply avoiding points that expose the gaping holes in your logic.

1) The flag-burning amendment is supported by 60% of congressmen. Jindal is no more extreme than them. Period. Thus, this is not a barrier to electability, merely something that anti-US extremists like you disagree with.

2) Your selective, ideological position on free speech, opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design, but favoring for fifth-column anti-Americans who want to advertise their synergies with jihadis, shows you to be the one who does not favor true free speech. Advocating a discussion of ID in schools is no different than advocating a discussion of homosexuality or global warming in schools. All are topics with many points of view.

3) Abortion : You said : in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort.

This is not specifically what Jindal said. You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him. Plus, the many shades of gray within pro-life positions do not translate to losing votes. I myself am pro-choice (mainly because abortion worsens left-wing voter demographics at the expense of right-wing voter demographics), nor do I support ID, but I will STILL vote for Jindal as I like him for other things.

You think disagreeing with someone on 20% of the issues while agreeing with him on 80% will cost votes. Probably 95% of the people who voted for GWB in 2004 will vote for Giuliani in 2008, despite one being pro-choice and the other having a Jindal-type pro-life position. Why? Because one issue is not enough to reject a candidate who agrees with you on the other 8-10 issues.

I am sure you don't agree with Hillary Clinton on her Patriot Act and Iraq War votes. Will you not vote for her as a result? Will you *only* support the candidate that agrees with you 100%, rather than just 80% (Dennis Kucinnich or whoever it is)?

If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child

Again, you have not proven that his position (which are not the words you are assigning to him) will prevent him from getting 51%+ of the vote (which is your claim in this whole discussion). Again, I am pro-choice and pro-evolution, but will vote for him. He will capture many minority and Asian immigrant votes (again, which are *very* socially conservative by American standards) which previously went to Democrats.

Thus, the abortion and flag-burning positions are certainly not ones that would make him un-electable nationally (George W. Bush won twice with the same positions, and Jindal has advantages over Bush). Intelligent design may be a hindrance, but not a show-stopper (again, it was not for GWB).

Jindal can thus capture all the votes that went to Bush in 2004, plus a few more segments Bush could never have gotten. Admit that.

Your opening sentence was :
In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.

Clearly, GWB won with these positions, and even got a solid majority of votes of people making over $50,000 a year, a group Democrats fare poorly with, perhaps because you inexplicably call them 'unthinking'. Jindal can easily do the same and more. Therefore, you have lost this debate.

It is palpable that you consider him to be an extremist because 1) you don't agree with him, and 2) his race. Shame on you.

Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose.

This, coming from someone who has lost every debate here, in humiliating manner, to not just me but to others as well. Examples are :

1. Here (on Iraq),
2. Here (on leftist media bias), and
3. Here (Iraq again).

I might remind you that there are simple questions you have refused to answer even after 4, 8, and in one astonishing case, 12 requests.

Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM

opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design

"Discussion" does not equal "taught as part of a public school science curricula". A child could grasp this distinction. How sad that you can't.

You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him.

Please explain why "no exceptions" doesn't mean "no exceptions". If Jindal thinks there should be a rape exception (a commonly-debated exception that no serious pro-life person would be unaware of) why did he say "no exceptions"?

Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush, and Jindal will have much more difficulty downplaying them than Bush did because he has been such an extremist, your Bush analogy falls apart.

Now the best you can come up with is essentially "I would vote for him so many others would too." I might say you can do better but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you actually can't.

I never said anything about Jindal's race but now you're calling me a racist. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, sockpuppet.

Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Josh,

Reading comprehension appears to be a challenge for you. Let me summarize more succinctly :

1) You said "In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.

2) We have proven that the flag-burning amendment will not cost him votes, as it is supported by 60% of Congress. You disagreeing with it does not make it a minority position.

3) We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.

4) Bush supports ID too. Here also, Jindal is equal to Bush. You said "Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush". Prove it. Bush's ID and abortion positions are the same as Jindal's, especially when Bush was Governor of Texas.

5) Thus, Jindal can get all the votes Bush got, plus a few more (which you are not disputing).

Therefore, your claim that he is not electable nationally, is not supported. Period. To have any chance of challenging this, you will have to prove Bush's positions on ID and abortion are more moderate than Jindal's, including when Bush was Gov. of TX (as Jindal could certainly choose to moderate when running nationally).

I hope these 5 summarized points are easy for you.

"I would vote for him so many others would too."

You claim people who oppose ID and his abortion stance would not vote for him. I have proven that wrong with my example, (as well as that of GWB's voters) so you are throwing a tantrum at your initial unthinking claim being exposed as simplistic and foolish. You also did not answer if Hillary's votes on the Patriot Act and Iraq would cost her your vote. You did not reply because you know I have a point that you can't rebut.

sockpuppet

Yawn..namecalling is the single best litmus test to tell me that my opponent knows he has lost, so I relish it. What is worse than being a sockpuppet? Being humiliatingly beaten by a sockpuppet.

Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 01:10 PM

We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.

Wrong as usual:

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W...ortion.htm

This is just too easy. Bush won the election by positioning himself as a moderate, or "compassionate" conservative. Jindal has shown nothing other than that he's a hard-right ideologue. Even though their positions on ID and flag-burning (glad you're no longer seeking to make the idiotic claim that opposing ID is anti-free speech, btw) may be similar, when the average American sees someone who supports ID and wants to force raped women to carry pregnancies to turn, they will correctly infer that person is a hard-right ideologue. The American people are much more friendly to moderate conservatism than Rightist extremism.

Calling you a sockpuppet is simply stating a fact, unlike your baseless accusation of racism.

Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:29 PM

Btw, repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure. Just a helpful hint.

Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:33 PM

Josh,

Hey, guess what, Jindal is not 100% pro-life. He supports the 'morning after' pill. It says : "Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims. " So much for the pathetic little technicality you are attempting to cling to.

At the same time, Bush appointed Justices Alito and Roberts as steps to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I see you are avoiding Bush's more extreme positions on abortion as Gov. of TX, as you know it punctures your point about Bush being less extreme than Jindal.

You have apparently conceded that Bush's position on ID is the same as Jindal's. Also, do you consider Bush's position on embryonic stem-cell research a component of moderate, compassionate conservatism?

Furthermore, you continue to assume that Jindal will lose votes over this one issue, despite the fact that people who don't support his or GWB's abortion or ID position can, and do, vote for both of them. It is amazing that you don't see this yawning chasm in your reasoning that 'Jindal cannot win a national election'.

In summary, you still cannot provide anything to support three ill-considered assumptions.

1) You cannot prove that Jindal is more socially extreme than Bush on abortion, ID, and now stem cells, especially relative to Bush's positions as Gov. of Texas.

2) You insist that Jindal's positions will cost him votes, but cannot explain why some pro-choice, anti-ID people often do vote for a pro-life candidate (and vice-versa), or that a politician can moderate positions as they go for bigger offices (as Bush did).

3) Therefore, you still have no substance to support your emotional lash-out that Jindal is not electable at the national level. You made the claim, it is your job to support it, and you cannot.

I don't see how you can consider yourself a serious thinker while avoiding these points again and again.

That you are trying so hard to tear down someone who *may* run for President 8-20 years from now, who is intellectually impressive, and no more socially extreme than the current President is revealing of your true feelings about the man.

repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure.

If you recognize when you are defeated, I would not have to narrate the loud and clear actions of your own subconscious to you.

Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM

"Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims."

That's nice. Abortion and emergency contraception aren't the same thing (your first clue was that one is called "abortion" and the other "contraception"), so it doesn't prove anything. Sorry, try again.

Nothing in that commondreams link (odd source for you of all people to be citing) indicates that Bush thought a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should give birth. So again, you have failed to support your assertion that Bush and Jindal had the same position on this aspect of the abortion debate. You're batting .000 at this point.

I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist. That, coupled with the fact that on almost every issue he is a standard-issue right-winger, will indicate to likely voters that he is a right-wing ideologue.

And, of course, your assertion that Jindal will moderate his views is a complete non sequitur. I'm talking about the positions Jindal actually has, not some future hypothetical positions you would like to imagine he will take.

I'm not tearing anyone down. Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other. Your emotional attachment to Jindal led you to wildly overstate the case that he would be a good candidate for national office. I'm simply poking holes in your flimsy assertions. You shouldn't get so upset simply because your starry-eyed admiration for Jindal is not widely shared.

Posted by: Josh | November 29, 2007 at 09:07 AM

Josh,

You continue to flail about in indignant humiliation.

1) We have established that Jindal's abortion stance is no more extreme than Bush's. The 'morning after' pill (RU486) is a form of very early abortion, not contraception (which is done before sexual intercourse, you know). I am surprised I have to school you on how babies are made.

From the source I linked before, which you read but are trying to hide from.

"RU486, commonly known as the "abortion pill," is prescribed by a gynecologist for a woman who has taken a test confirming her pregnancy and who chooses to abort the fetus. "

In turn, Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in order to oppose Roe v. Wade.

I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist.

Except that you haven't. He supports the abortion pill and is no more extreme than Bush, as I have proven.

2) I see that you no longer claim that Bush's ID position is different from Jindal's. Also. Bush's emb. stem-cell position is similar to Jindal's.

Thus, you have failed to prove that Jindal is, in aggregate, more extreme than Bush (certainly when Bush was Gov. of Texas.)

3) You continue to dodge the logical chasm where you assume that disagreement with one or more of Jindal's positions would preclude voting for him.

This is pathetic, on your part. Again, will you not support Hillary because you disagree with her Patriot Act and Iraq votes?

4) Thus, you still cannot support your ill-considered claim that Jindal cannot appeal to a national electorate. Point's 1-3 are clear as day, and you continue to dodge the simple questions that expose your logical gaps.

Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other.

Yeah, right. Spending so much effort to paint Jindal as an extremist, to the extent of trying to make Bush look more moderate than Jindal despite so much evidence of uniformity between Jindal and Bush, reeks of the real reason you hate him.

Posted by: GK | November 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Why not a woman to decide weather she wants the baby or not? It makes me laugh all those discussion about abortion between males...

Just remember guys, we are not the ones who will be in labor, nor we really will be nursing the baby - all that job will be done by a Woman, and she has the right to decide. Same right as we, males, have to stick our penises inside the woman, cum and make the fetus happen. But we are not the ones who will be with the morning sickness for couple of month (ready to be hang over for several month? remember the feeling?)...

And if you send me to a religious source of the abortion opinion, I will tell you that church did not make much in this country for the mental health, nor physical health of the nation... Amen.

Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM

BTW, I assume, GK that you do not belong to the native Asian Indian religion...
I met a lot of Asian Indians (one of my good friends was born there in a rich family), and non of them are so pro-Us with ultra-right point of view... I would say they have very liberal, neutral views, more democratic thou...
Indo-US ties may be strong at this time due to the outsourcing, but Indo-Russian ties are getting even stronger due to the geo-political situation, resources including...

Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM

WorldCitizen,

Your anecdotal selections, even if they are real, are meaningless. India remains the most pro-US country in the world. It also is one of the few countries where George W. Bush had an approval rating of 62% after the 2004 election.

As far as Indo-Russian ties, they are far weaker than they were in the Cold War, and will not reach those heights again, as the USSR was unable to offer any economic progress to India, while the US does. The only people who are in denial about that are those who still can't accept that the USSR is history.

Posted by: GK | January 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM

If McCain picks him as his running mate, he can skip all the steps you outline and go straight into the Vice Presidency.

<!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo--> India’s star rowers train on stinking drain
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.as...umentid=1288941
New Delhi: India won two silvers and a bronze in rowing at the 2006 Doha Asian Games and there is hope that the sport will be a major medal grosser in the years ahead.

But if you happen to drop in to watch some of India’s present and future train at the Chhawla drain (commonly known as the Najafgarh naala), it not only isn’t inspiring, it will probably make you want to throw up. Literally.

On Thursday, 30-odd rowers, most national level, from the Rajputana Rifles, did what they do for six to eight months of the year: Braving a constant, terrible stench, they trained surrounded by floating sludge and rubbish — lots of it potentially toxic given that effluents from across the Capital flows into this naala — to prepare for the National and Inter-Services championships.

“We used to feel very sick earlier… even wear masks at times, but now we have got used to it,” one of the rowers told HT, asking not to be named. “During summers though, it’s hellish with all the decomposing sewage, so while we have to train in some part of the summer, we try and do most of the training during the rainy season when the drain fills up.”

Doctors were horrified when asked about the health risks of training in a naala. “The rowers will be susceptible to countless bacterial and viral infections,” said Dr. Sushum Sharma, Senior Consultant Internal Medicine and HoD, the Preventive Health Programme at Max Healthcare.

“The water will be full of toxins, possibly some industrial waste too as we really don’t have any foolproof preventive mechanisms in place in India. There could be lead toxicity, arsenic poisoning… even if the men aren’t in the water itself, they could be splashed from the oars. You would have skin infections, inhale toxins, if something goes into the eye, nose or mouth, it could lead to anything from eye infections to intestinal infections.”