 |
| A seal from Mohenjo-daro (Mackay 1937-38, Pl. XCVI.522) |
Story of LubdhakaThe story goes that Lubdhaka - a poor tribal man and a devout worshipper of Lord Shiva once went into the deep forests to collect firewood. As the darkness engulfed the jungle, Lubdhaka lost his way and could not find his way home. He became extremely terrified as deep growls of animals began to fill the jungle. Seeking protection till daybreak, Lubdhaka climbed the nearest bel tree and sought safety and shelter in its branches. Since Lubdhaka was perched on the branch of a tree he was afraid that if he dozed he might fall off from the tree. To keep himself awake all night, Lubdhaka decided to pluck one leaf from the bheel tree and drop it while chanting the name of Shiva. By sunrise, the devout tribal realized that he had dropped thousands of leaves on to a Shiva Lingam, which he had not seen in the darkness. Lubdhaka’s all night worship pleased Lord Shiva and by his divine grace tigers and other wild animals went away. Thus, Lubdhaka not only survived but was also rewarded with divine bliss. According to Puranas, ever since that day, the story of the tribal Lubdhaka has been recited every year on the night of Mahashivaratri. This popular legend also from the basis of the popular custom of offering bhel (Aegle marmelos) leaves to Lord Shiva on Shivaratri.
 |
| Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 3 Southeast Asia, Religions, Religionen, edited by Jan Gonda, 1975 |
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra on PGurus: {lightly edited transcript}
Sri Iyer: Next question, please! Thank you! Rajesh {asks} "Can you explain what exactly happened in the Gujarat riots?
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra: Yes, it was very simple. Modi anticipated. What happened was the Godhra train got burnt by people from the outside. It wasn't from the inside as some nonsense investigators told you. They expected things to blow up.
Modi realized things were going to blow up. He desperately asked for Central troops, he asked for police reinforcements from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra.
The center said no because, remember at that point of time, there was a massive mobilization, Parliament attack had happened and Operation Parakram was on, where the entire Army had been mobilized across the border. So, they could not spare troops to come to Gujarat. What else happened was that the three neighboring states said no and within about 24 hours as expected the riots broke out.
Modi did the best he could with the small number of police he had with bolt action 303 rifles which you have to keep loading, one extracting, one loading, one extracting one bullet; you can't really do crowd control with that, and he tried his best as much as he could. You have to make some very tough choices--you can protect these neighborhoods, you can't protect these neighborhoods. You decide to sacrifice some neighborhoods. This is one of the ugly things about law-and-order maintenance which you have to do.
He did, given what few troops he had and police he had, and that's exactly what happened and remember it was controlled within about 48 to 72 hours. Also, it wasn't a one-sided program, never forget that. Yeah, both sides died and the other side, the so-called victim side also died in very significant numbers, never forget that, many of them shot by police during rioting caught on camera. So it wasn't one-sided at all.
I do not subscribe to Anglosphere solidarity.
The idea that since the US government has supported Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's allegations against India in murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the allegations must be credible is not logical.
Among the allegations that Trudeau has raised against India, there is one that can be readily checked.
In stripping 41 diplomats of their diplomatic immunity, Trudeau claims that India is in violation of international law and in violation of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations. [1]
"Trudeau made the remarks in Brampton Ont. a day after his government confirmed that 41 Canadian diplomats had left India after New Delhi threatened to revoke their diplomatic immunity."
"This is a violation of the Vienna Convention governing diplomacy," Trudeau said. "This is them choosing to contravene a very fundamental principle of international law and diplomacy. It is something that all countries in the world should be very worried about.
The US government supports Canada on this [2]:
"Resolving differences requires diplomats on the ground. We have urged the Indian government not to insist upon a reduction in Canada’s diplomatic presence and to cooperate in the ongoing Canadian investigation," the U.S. State Department said, adding that it expects "India to uphold its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations."
Fact of the matter is that the Canadian mission in India is much larger than the Indian mission in Canada. Around September 20th, India asked Canada to reduce its mission to parity and gave Canada up to October 10th to do so. [3]
This is perfectly fine per the Vienna Convention [4], Article 11, specifically Article 11.1.
Article 11
1.In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.
2.The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a non-discriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category.
Canada did not comply by October 20th and so India withdrew their diplomatic immunity. That is perfectly fine per Article 9 of the Vienna Convention.
Article 9
1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.
The above thus establishes:
1. The Canadian Prime Minister made a patently absurd allegation against India.
2. The US, UK and the Anglosphere nevertheless supported the Canadian Prime Minister on this patently absurd allegation.
The only plausible reason for the US Department of State to do such a thing is Anglosphere solidarity. But if they would do so an easily demonstrated absurdity, then it places in doubt the "credible allegations of a potential link" of Indian agents to the murder of Nijjar, for which no information has been provided at all. It could simply be Anglosphere solidarity.
The Indian Minister of External Affairs, Dr S. Jaishankar has said, while in the US and elsewhere , that such foreign operations are not India's policy. [6]
The Canadian Prime Minister's unsupported allegations are credible only to those who share an Anglosphere solidarity. I am not among those, and in addition, I have shown you how threadbare is the Anglosphere's charge of "violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" by India.
[1] India making life 'unbelievably difficult' for millions by ordering diplomats out, says Trudeau, CBC News, Peter Zimonjic, Posted: Oct 20, 2023 12:56 PM EDT
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-making-life-difficult-1.7002961
[2] US and UK back Canada in dispute with India over diplomats, Reuters, By Kanishka Singh and Costas Pitas, October 20, 20239:13 PM EDT https://www.reuters.com/world/us-backs-canada-dispute-with-india-over-diplomats-2023-10-20/
[3] Diplomatic row escalates, India asks Canada to downsize missions, pauses issuing visas, The Deccan Herald, Anirban Bhaumik DHNS, Last Updated 21 September 2023, 11:18 IST
https://www.deccanherald.com/world/canada-asked-to-downsize-diplomatic-presence-in-india-2695819
[4] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, United Nations, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
[5] India withdraws immunity from 41 Canadian diplomats, EFE, 20 October 2023,
https://efe.com/en/other-news/2023-10-20/india-withdraws-immunity-from-41-canadian-diplomats/
[6] ‘Foreign ops not part of govt policy’: Jaishankar in US, Hindustan Times, By
Prashant Jha Sep 28, 2023 04:26 AM IST
“You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. You know, eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” ― Hillary Rodham Clinton, addressing the media in a joint press conference with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, October 21, 2011.
If Hamas was permitted to flourish by Netanyahu and the right-wing in Israel, as a prophylactic against a two-state solution, it is time someone had the same joint press conference with them.
There is no choice but to kill the snakes. This is going to involve enormous losses of people.
The question is whether there is going to be a change in course, or will the cultivation of snakes continue after this particular battle is over.
-----
Hamas’s attack shows Benjamin Netanyahu failed Israel - Vox
https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history
Second, a columnist at Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-09/ty-article/.premium/another-concept-implodes-israel-cant-be-managed-by-a-criminal-defendant/0000018b-1382-d2fc-a59f-d39b5dbf0000) unearthed evidence that Netanyahu has intentionally propped up Hamas rule in Gaza — seeing Palestinian extremism as a bulwark against a two-state solution to the conflict.
Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
These exact comments have not yet been confirmed by other sources. But the Times of Israel’s Tal Schneider wrote on Sunday that (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) Netanyahu’s reported words “are in line with the policy that he implemented,” which did little to challenge and in some ways bolstered Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Schneider notes, “the same messaging was repeated by right-wing commentators, who may have received briefings on the matter or talked to Likud higher-ups and understood the message.” Some Netanyahu confidants have [said the same thing ( https://twitter.com/DanielSeidemann/status/1711338210679304483 ), as have outside experts.
The first link above in Ha'aretz is to Gidi Weitz, who precedes the Hamas quote with: [Another Concept Implodes: Israel Can’t Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant - Israel News - Haaretz.com](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-09/ty-article/.premium/another-concept-implodes-israel-cant-be-managed-by-a-criminal-defendant/0000018b-1382-d2fc-a59f-d39b5dbf0000)
His {*Netanyahu's*} life’s work was to turn the ship of state from the course steered by his predecessors, from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Olmert, and make the two-state solution impossible. En route to this goal, he found a partner in Hamas.
The second link, to Tal Scheider, includes: [For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2018, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
While Netanyahu does not make these kind of statements publicly or officially, his words are in line with the policy that he implemented.
The third link is to a tweet: https://twitter.com/DanielSeidemann/status/1711338210679304483
Gen.Gershon Hacohen, emphatically rightwing and confidante of [Netanyahu], said the following: "Truth be told, Netanyahu's objective is to prevent the two-state option and therefore turned Hamas into his closest ally. Openly, Hamas is an enemy, beneath the surface, an ally".
Gen. Gershon Hacohen refers to Hamas: [After evacuating Gaza, a lonely general of faith struggles for Israel's salvation | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-evacuating-gaza-a-lonely-general-of-faith-struggles-for-israels-salvation/)
This is also why, he added, “I prefer Hamas to Abu Mazen.” Because Hamas “helps me prevent a two-state solution” and is, covertly “an ally, because neither it nor I want a final solution and neither in my terms nor in its is there something that is everlasting.
