‘Secular’ Congress or ‘Communal, Anti-national’ Congress?

The Congress Party claims to be a ‘secular’ party. The party president Ms. Sonia Gandhi and PM Dr. Manmohan Singh have repeatedly stated that Congress is a ‘secular’ party to the core.

 

The dictionary meaning of ‘secular’ is: ‘not pertaining to or connected with religion’.

 

Let us look at some of the allies of the ‘secular’ Congress:

1. Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala – a Muslim party

2. Kerala Congress (Mani) [KC(M)] in Kerala – a Christian party

3. All India Majlis e-Itaahid al-Muslimin (MIM) in Andhra Pradesh – a Muslim party.

Among these 3 parties, the two Muslim parties are exclusively Islamic in their outlook and membership. How could these parties be called ‘secular’? Can the Congress justify its alliance with these parties?

IUML is the new arm of erstwhile Muslim League which partitioned the nation on the basis of religion. The Muslims of North Kerala were staunch supporters of Muslim League in the pre-independence era and had also showed their beastly nature by killing thousands of Hindus during the Moplah rebellion. Post-independence, the community has been supporting IUML. This shows that the situation has not changed a single bit. These Muslims do not consider themselves a part of the national mainstream and IUML is a party which is representing such internal ‘anti-nationals’. Still, the Congress party is in alliance with IUML for decades. Can it explain the reason for this? If the Muslims of the region had changed their opinion, why does the Congress still need the IUML which is basically the same party which advocated Islamic extremism and partitioned the nation?

MIM is even more radical. It was a party which opposed the integration of Hyderabad with India. It was the party which organised Razakars who went about killing thousands of Hindus to maintain the ‘Islamic’ State of Hyderabad. The party was initially banned in 1948 and the Razakars’ leader was deported to Pakistan in the late 1950s. The current party organisation tries to separate itself from the activities during the period of Indian independence. But the party has always maintained its ‘Islamic’ nature and character. Anyone who believes that the party members suddenly became pro-India after Indian independence must be living in a ‘fools’ paradise’.

Thus, we see that Congress is allied not only with three ‘communal’ parties but also, two ‘anti-national’ parties. Still, it dares to call itself has ‘secular’ (or perhaps they mean ‘sickular’).

 

Next, look at the policies of the Congress party.

The Constitution of India (Article 44) clearly states that the State shall ‘endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India’. Does the party believe that the framers of the Indian Constitution were ‘communal’ for having stated such in the Constitution? If not, why is it that the Congress does not support the forming of a ‘Common Civil Code’? The party claims that the endeavour for adoption of a Common Civil Code must come from within the Muslim community. This is utter nonsense. The Common Civil Code will go a long way in bringing the Muslim community into the national mainstream. The Indian nation is secular. Being so, why should the government create a separate civil code for each community? Secular government should be ‘equally sceptical’ to all religious practices. It does not mean ‘enclosing all religious practices’. Will the Congress party accept to any demand for implementation of Shariat for cases of rape, murder etc in which the accused or the victim is a Muslim? If not, why is Shariat followed in the case of civil code? This practice is an utter nonsense which divides the society on communal lines. Congress wants to maintain this situation in perpetuity. Still, the party calls itself ‘secular’.

PM Manmohan Singh had stated that Muslims shall have the first right on the nations’ resources. May I know what is the difference between our PM and Bengal’s Muslim League government of Mr. Suhrawardy who advocated that preference shall be given to a Muslim candidate with a third-class degree over a Hindu candidate with a first-class degree (as happened in the case of filling a vacancy for lecturer in the Government College near Calcutta)? What is the difference between Manmohan Singh and Sir Bamfylde Fuller who had stated that in the Eastern Bengal, Muslims would be nurtured and Hindus will be neglected (an advocate of the partition of Bengal which occurred during 1905). Sir Fuller did that to garner the support of Muslims. Isn’t Manmohan doing the same thing by stating that Muslims will be preferred over others? He appears to be an ‘anti-national’ who wants to implement the policies of the traitorous Muslim League and the colonist British Empire. He does so to get the votes of the Muslim community. On the whole, the party is certainly not secular.

The current Congress leadership does not appear to care about the integrity of the country. This party’s leadership accepted to a partition of India. How can we be sure that they will not do so once again just to remain in power? After all, the support given by this treacherous party to the various successor parties of the anti-national Islamic parties and the way they encourage illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into Assam and West Bengal does show the true philosophy of the party leadership which is ‘anything shall be done to remain in power’. It is lead by power-mongers who do not care about the nation a single bit.

May Goddess Bharati save this nation from these modern-day demons who do not worry about destroying the nation for their own selfishness.

Demographic Changes in Bengal - Hindu Genocide and Another partition

1951 – Bengal population – 66743 (in 000s) (West Bengal and Bangladesh)

Hindu – 43% - 28701

Muslim – 37052 – 55.51%

2001 – Bengal Population – 204027 (in 000s) (West Bengal and Bangladesh)

Hindu – 69484 – 34.56%

Muslim – 64.36%

This is the state of Bengal. The demography of the Bengal region of South Asia is drastically changing. In 5 decades, the Hindu population has come down from 43% to 34.56%. In Bangladesh, the Hindu community has dwindled from 22% in 1951 to 9.2 % in 2001. If all these Hindus had come to India, then we would expect an increase in the proportion of Hindu population of West Bengal. But the opposite has occurred here. The Hindu population of West Bengal has fallen from 78.45% to 72.47%. How could this happen?

We may assume that the Hindu growth rate is very low. But even that cannot explain the fall of Hindu population in West Bengal if we assume that all the ‘missing’ Hindus of Bangladesh did come to West Bengal. 10% of East Bengal population is more than enough to make up for any lower growth rate among the Hindus.

Yes, the 0-6 year population data shows that Muslims do have higher fertility rates. The proportion of children (0-6 years) among the Hindu population is 12.69% while that among the Muslims is 18.7%. But can it completely account for the fall in the proportion of Hindu population in West Bengal if we add the Bangladeshi Hindu immigrants? The answer is ‘NO’.

A simple calculation shows it all. The Hindu population in West Bengal was 78% in 1951 while in Bangladesh it was 22% (9239000). If we assume a conservative 22% average growth rate per decade for the entire Hindu population, it comes to 77,570,000 for the entire Bengal. But we lack about 8 million Hindus who are unaccounted for. The Bangladeshi Hindus must number around 24,970,000. They currently number around 11,379,000. If all the other Hindus had migrated to India, the Hindu population of West Bengal should have gone up by at least 11 million (assuming that 2 million could have gone to other states like Assam and Tripura). Add with it the growth of the Hindu population of West Bengal which must have reached 52,600,000. The Hindu Population in West Bengal should be around 63 – 64 millions. But it is only 58 millions. So we find that some 6 million Hindus are definitely missing. Where did they go? Please remember that this number is a very conservative estimate. The actual growth rate could have been more than 22% per decade. Therefore, the actual number of missing Hindus could be far high. This definitely portrays the silent and continuing persecution of Hindus that is going on in Bangladesh. The Hindu population of Bangladesh shows less than 2% growth in a decade (1991 – 2001). This is not possible in a South Asian country especially in a place like Bangladesh where literacy levels low. The only explanation is that the Hindus are either emigrating out of Bangladesh or they are being killed in a ‘long and silent’ genocide.

The comparison of Hindu and Muslim populations of Bengal during 1991 – 2001 proves that the persecution of Hindus is a continuing phenomenon in Bangladesh. The Hindu population of W. Bengal grew by 14% while that of Bangladesh grew by 1.79%. We saw that the proportion of Hindu population in 0-6 year age is 12%. Hence, the 14% growth rate of Hindu population in West Bengal appears completely internal. If so, what happened to the Hindus of Bangladesh? Their growth rate must have been at least 12% even if we consider their growth rate to be as low as that of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Their population should have increased by 1.2 millions in terms of absolute figures. But the actual increase is 0.2 million. What happened to the rest 1 million? If they emigrated out of their homeland, why did they do so? We are not speaking about internal migration within a country. A million people have emigrated out of their nation to the neighbouring nation. That this emigration was that of a particular community and that proportionate emigration of the majority community has not occurred shows clear evidence of persecution. We saw earlier that several million Hindus must have been killed in Bangladesh. How many of them were killed in the past decade? How many of these 1 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim extremists. Even 1% of them amounts to 10,000 individuals. 1 million Hindus means about 10% of the Hindu minority population in Bangladesh – about 1 % of the country’s population. If some 10 million Muslims had emigrated out of the country in a decade due to persecution, what would be the world’s reaction?

Why, even in India, there will be a huge political outcry over such issue. But no such thing has happened in the case of the Bangladeshi Hindus. No huge emigration of Muslims out of Gujarat occurred after the 2002 riots. We are still 'debating' about the riots in the media. Why is it that we are not seeing any such importance attached to the Hindu genocide in our neighbourhood. Is it that our media and politicians do not consider Hindu lives to be important? Whatever happened to the United Nations or the human rights guardian of the world, the USA, who intervened in Kosovo? Either they do not know about the issue due to lack of publicity or they do not care about the 'brown-skinned' people. I fervently hope that it is the former. For if the latter exists in the 21st century, it shows a bleak future for the humanity as a whole.

Also, one of the major threats facing West Bengal is the illegal immigration of Bangladeshi Muslims into West Bengal. This phenomenon is proved by the considerable high growth rates of Muslim population in West Bengal to interior districts of India. While the difference in growth rates of Hindu and Muslim population of India shows about 50% higher growth among the Muslims, in many districts of West Bengal, it is as high as or more than 100% (Malda, Darjeeling, Bankura, Purulia, Howrah, Kolkatta and South 24 Parganas). The argument that such an increase is completely explained by lack of family planning among Muslims is utter nonsense. Family planning is not practiced by the majority Muslims throughout India. But at the national level, Muslim population grows at a rate which is 50% higher than that of the Hindu population. In Darjeeling, the Muslim population has increased by more than 1200% in the 5 decades compared to 240% for the Hindus. These numbers clearly indicate the infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into India.

The Bengali demography, as a whole, is changing significantly. The Hindus in the eastern part of South Asia are losing out in the population race due to high fertility among the Muslims and the various genocides orchestrated against the Hindus in Bangladesh. This is a dangerous situation for the Hindus. Not only are the Hindus losing their ground in Bangladesh but they are losing out in West Bengal as well. Already the border areas have become Muslim majority and as such, an ‘extension’ of Bangladesh. The Hindu minority is forced to live in constant fear in these areas. Can we be sure that the same ‘pogroms’ which have occurred in Bangladesh will not occur in West Bengal as well? Won’t the Muslim orthodoxy ‘love’ to treat the Hindus of West Bengal in the same way they ‘treat’ the Hindus of Bangladesh?

We must remember that India was formed as a ‘Hindu nation’. The Congress party which announced the country as a ‘secular nation’ did lobby for Junagadh as it was a Hindu majority region. Similar was the case with Hyderabad. Thus, even though we may have a ‘secular’ government, the character of the nation is entirely ‘Hindu’. For that is how this nation was formed. Those people who call for separatism from India are basically anti-Hindu or minorities (anti-Hindu Dravidian activists of Tamil Nadu before the 1960s, NSCN supported by the Baptist Church of Nagaland, Muslim organisations of Kashmir, erstwhile Christian Mizo separatists etc). The only exception is ULFA in Assam but the ULFA has ‘Assamese identity’ as its character. It lost support among the Assamese once it targeted the migrant Hindus in Assam. The reason for the Assamese uprising was the rising threat of illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants who are changing the demographic structure of the state.

Whether we accept it or not, the one thread that is binding this huge nation of diverse languages and culture. It is the thread running through the pearls of the necklace. The weakening of this thread is not good for the nation. I feel a second partition clouding the nation. The border districts surrounding Bangladesh are particularly vulnerable. The changing demography in these areas is creating a ‘greater Bangladesh’. If this is not a threat to the country’s security, I wonder what else could be.

The best way to safeguard India’s interests will be to seal the Indo-Bangladesh borders. Also, ensure that family planning is made compulsory through direct and indirect interventions. The government could propose a tax on the families which give birth to more than 2 children. All necessary steps have to be taken to curtail this dangerous time-bomb. The population of West Bengal must not be seen alone. One must include the population of Bangladesh as well to determine the actual situation. There is an across the board fall in the proportion of Hindu population as it was shown earlier. That the situation is very bad for the Hindus in Bangladesh is proved by the very low decadal growth rates of the Hindu population in Bangladesh. The Indian government will do well to provide a safe haven for the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh.

We have already lost more than 5 million Bengali Hindu lives at the hands of Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance. If we do not wake up and take care of our brothers and sisters, we will be unfit call ourselves ‘humans’ any longer.

Ballistic Missile Defense test by India

The latest (March 6, 2009) BMD test by India showcases India's technological and defense capabilities. The following is an excerpt from 'IBN Live' website:

url: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-sucessfully-tests-interceptor-missile/86996-3.html

"Balasore: India on Friday successfully conducted the test of an interceptor missile to establish a ballistic missile defence (BMD) shield as part of the network-centric warfare.

The test was carried out from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) from the Wheeler Island near Dhamra off Orissa coast.

ITR sources said the modified version of ''Dhanush'' missile, known as naval version of Prithvi, a surface-to-surface missile acting as an enemy missile was test fired from a naval ship INS Rajput anchored inside the Bay of Bengal at 1620 hours.

When it zeroed in on the wheeler island of Dhamara coast, a Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) missile, a ballistic missile with a range of 1,500 km, similar to Pakistan's Ghauri, test fired from the Wheeler Island intercepted the incoming missile at an altitude of 70-80 kms.

DRDO sources said the ''crucial test'' conducted for the third time proved the efficacy of a host of new technologies. The interceptor PAD missile has for the first time used the gimballed directional warhead which has so far been used only in the United States and Russia."

It is a definite shot in the arm for India. Pakistan has been blackmailing India for the past 10 years with their 'nuke bombs'. This test gives a deterrent against such threats. Of course, it will take a few more years to make the missile defense system available for operational service. But the very fact that India has been able to achieve this shows that she has both the ability and capacity to call the bluff on Pak's 'nuke threats' in future. Hopefully, it will enable India to put more direct military pressure on Pak to put an end to the terrorist havens operating in their soil.

BDR mutiny and its meaning for India

The mutiny of Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) is much more than it appears to be. During the rule of BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and its Islamist supporters, BDR was infiltrated by the Islamist and BNP sympathisers. It is well known that BNP is pro-Pakistan in its outlook and that the Islamist parties are even more so. After all, the Islamist leaders are those ‘razakars’ (volunteers) who cooperated with the Pakistani Army during 1971 to ‘protect the Islamic nation’. Their activities included actively supporting the Pakistan Army’s war efforts, massacring the Hindu minority and political enemies like Bangla nationalists (who stood for an independent Bangladesh). In the recent decade, there has been some friction between BDR and Indian Border Security Force (BSF). A few years ago, several BSF personnel were killed by BDR supported Bangladeshi mob. The infiltration of Islamists into BDR will further complicate the problems. This is a very dangerous situation for India. We must also keep in mind that ULFA has its bases in Bangladesh and it is highly suspected that ULFA infiltrations into Indian territories are actively helped by BDR. Hence, the current news about Islamist infiltration into BDR is very grave news for India. It shows that Jihadi elements of BDR will be used in anti-India activities more frequently and efficiently.

The reason given for this mutiny was that the personnel were paid very less. But the said mutiny occurred only after Ms. Sheikh Hasina addressed to BDR that she expects them to curtail the various smuggling and human trafficking activities which happen with BDR’s blessings. If Ms. Hasina’s orders are strictly implemented, many problems of India regarding the Indo-Bangladesh border’s security stand solved. This is unacceptable to Pakistan. As such, there is every reason to suspect that pro-Pakistan elements are involved in this mutiny. It is very fortunate that the mutiny has been quickly put down.

In the long term, this will prove to be a huge problem for India. Pakistan is gaining more allies in Bangladesh. It will try to exploit the porous Indo-Bangladesh border. After all, due to vote-bank politics, our political parties are allowing free passing rights for illegal Bangladeshi immigrants to enter and settle in India. The anti-national activities of Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam was seen towards the end of 2008 when they hoisted Pakistani flags and killed more than 100 non-Muslims (mostly Hindus) in organised riots. Of course, our media and political parties do not care about this riot very much because the victims are Hindus. It is the height of hypocrisy that even in the case of reporting riot victims, only minority victims are given publicity (e.g. the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat – around 800 Muslims and 250 Hindus died in those riots but both media and the ‘secular’ political parties shed tears only for the Muslim victims. Somehow, Hindu victims appear ‘non-human’ for these entities.).

What must be kept in mind is the fact that India was established as a Hindu-majority state. Muslim majority areas were formed into Pakistan while Hindu-majority areas were formed into India. Hence, the basic character of this nation is a ‘Hindu-majority nation’. Islamic nations (esp. Pakistan and Islamists of Bangladesh) look at India as a ‘Hindu nation’ and hence, ‘Dar-ul Harb’ (land of war). As such, the rise of anti-Hindu Islamists in Bangladesh will turn into anti-India movement in the future. India must handle this situation with utmost urgency and caution. Else, we might lose another important neighbour in South Asia. We have already lost the beautiful relationships we had with Sri Lanka and Nepal. China and Pakistan are gaining over our trusted neighbours. If we lose Bangladesh as well, we will be facing a bleak future. Currently, we are surrounded by a powerful enemy (China) and a terrorist haven (Pakistan). If we lose our neighbours to these two nations, it will mark the end of any chance for a peaceful existence of India.

Let the government wake up to the realities and work out a ‘logical’ solution. Bangladeshi infiltration has to be stopped. Also, the Indo-Bangladesh border has to made completely ‘non-porous’. Finally, India must cooperate with the current Bangladeshi government in cracking down on the terrorist activities and organisations which are using Bangladesh as their launch pad for attacking India and also, converting Bangladesh into an Islamic republic.

Ancient Monolithic Temple Found in Himachal

Archaeologists have found an ancient monolithic Ardhanarishwar temple on the banks of the Beas river. The temple is carved out of sandstone and found in the Mandi river of Himachal Pradesh. The temple was buried beneath sand for several centuries. Recent floods have washed away the silt deposits bringing the temple to view. Waiting for further information on this monolithic structure. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the English newspapers published from India (except The Tribune) have not reported this finding. If we do not take interest in our heritage, how can we expect such structures to survive?

url: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/remains-of-ancient-monolithic-temple-found-in-himachal_100155637.html

Vishnu and Shiva from Vedic age to present times

(Note: I'll update this post as and when I get time to do so. This post can be considered as an abstract for now. Almost all the quotes have been given from memory. I will give more references in the near future.)

Recently, I was going through ‘Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol III’ (Inscriptions of the Early Guptas) by Sri. D.B. Bhandarkar.

In the section ‘Religious History’, Sri.Bhandarkar makes some statements about Vishnu, Siva etc as they were worshipped during the Gupta period. He has claimed that Vishnu was a mere minor deity in the Vedic period and that Siva was neither identified with Rudra nor very popular until Svetashvatara Upanishad. He goes on to claim that the unique combination of Vedic Vishnu, Purusha-Narayana, Krishna Vasudeva and Gopala Krishna occurred during the Gupta age. He even claims that Vaishnavism was a ‘non-Aryan’ (non-Vedic?) religion. Let us examine the validity of these statements.

The importance/status of the Vedic deities cannot be measured by the number of verses. The Rg Veda has numerous verses dedicated to Maruts while only a few verses are dedicated to Rudra. But Rudra is superior to Maruts in that Rudra is called as the father of Maruts. Similarly, the importance of Vishnu was pretty high even in the Rg Veda itself and continued to rise in the later Vedas. Vishnu is lauded with creating the space/universe by His three steps in the Rg Veda. He is lauded as the deity with no one equal to Him. Yes, He is overshadowed by Indra but even that changes in the later Vedas.

The Taittiriya Samhita (1-7-5) mentions that the Devas were headed by Vishnu in a war to win the worlds. Similarly, TS (2-4-12) says that Vritra was destroyed by Indra with the help of Vishnu. Vishnu is identified with Yagna itself many a time in the TS (e.g. 3-1-10). Most importantly, TS (5-5-1) clearly states that Agni is the lowest of the Gods while Vishnu is the highest. Thus, Vishnu had attained the most prominent position among the Vedic deities at least as early as the Yajurveda period.

Bhandarkar claims that RV says about Vishnu deriving strength from Indra for the three steps. Perhaps, he is speaking about the verse ‘yada te vishnur ojasa..’ (RV 8-12-27). Such an interpretation is not the only one possible in this case. Sayana translates the verse as ‘When your (younger brother) Vishnu by (his) strength’ instead of ‘when Vishnu by your strength’. The question is: which is the better one? A look at the other verses of RV shows that the three steps are a sole achievement of Vishnu and is considered as one of the greatest acts of Vishnu. The RV also calls Vishnu as Indra’s close ally/friend. Therefore, while one can ignore Sayana’s rendition of ‘younger brother’ (according to the Puranas), there is a huge possibility for the mantra to mean ‘your (friend) Vishnu)’. Throughout the Vedic literature, Vishnu and Rudra are given a high status among the Gods even though the number of verses dedicated to them is less. The ‘Rudram’ portion of Taittiriya Samhita is a very good example. As such, we can see that the foundation for the great deities – Shiva and Vishnu – were laid in the Vedic age itself. There was no need for a new ‘discovery/invention’ during the Gupta period. After all, even as early as the TS, Vishnu was identified as the Supreme deity while Rudra was identified as a powerful annihilator and a deity of strength feared and respected by everyone.

Finally, a look at Paripadal (of Tamil Sangam literature) shows that Vishnu was considered as the most prominent Brahminical deity even as south as the Tamil land. Paripadal shows the knowledge of the Puranic legends of Vishnu, identifies Vishnu with Krishna Vasudeva & Purusha-Narayana, hails Him as the Antaryami and shows knowledge of Bhagavata doctrine (the Pancaratra Agama). As such, the Gupta era’s Vishnu was neither a new discovery nor a synthesis of various existing deities. It was simply the traditional method of portraying Vishnu and was popular throughout India even as early the first century CE which is the latest possible date for Sangam work Paripadal. So, the claim of Vaishnavism being non-Aryan or non-Vedic is completely nullified in the given circumstances.

Identity of the Dasas and Dasyus of Rg Veda

There is a general tendency among many scholars to identify the Dasa/Dasyus with dark tribes of India. The word ‘krishnatvac’ (darkskinned) is used as a major ‘evidence’ for this identity ‘discovered’ by them. Now, we are going to verify this evidence and discovery. The aim of this essay is to determine whether these scholars were right or wrong in their assumption.

An overview of Rg Veda shows that Dasa/Dasyus were one of the greatest enemies of the Vedic Aryans. They were described by the Vedic Aryans in the most contemptible manner – ‘anasah’ (noseless), ‘krishnatvac’ (darkskinned) etc. These words are used by many scholars as evidence for their theory that Rg Veda speaks about the fight for the land between the ‘invading’ fair skinned Aryans and the ‘dark aborigines’. Giving further boost to their claim are the verses which identify Maruts (friends of Indra) as fair complexioned. At a passing look, these claims appear to be very sensible. But do they represent the actual facts? The interpretation of Rg Veda keeping in mind the philosophical, theological and mythical beliefs of the Vedic people throw a completely new light upon the above mentioned cases. Also, a study of Avesta is included to find out the actual identity of the Dasa/Dasyus and the use of the words in the ancient Indo-Iranian languages (Dahyu is found in Avesta and it refers to country, district etc. We shall see that the Vedic Dasyu is nothing but a reference to the Iranians who called themselves Dahyu/Daha.)

First, let us consider the mythical beliefs of the Vedic Aryans and their impact upon the interpretation of the Dasa/Dasyu verses.

Rg Veda (5-14-4) says that Agni with his brilliant light killed both Dasyus and darkness (tamah).

In the above verse, the parallel has been established between darkness and Dasyus. Thus, the Dasyus were considered as representing the darkness which is dispelled by the Devas. The fight between the forces of light and darkness has been the theme of most of the ancient faiths. The Vedic people saw such a conflict as well and they identified Dasyus (their enemies) with darkness. In some cases, a few Dasyus were elevated to a supernatural state and they appear as forces of darkness dispelled by Indra and Agni. The Vedic seers identified their enemies (Dasyus) as the representative of the darkness fought by their Gods.

The word ‘krishnatvac’ used for referring to the Dasas and Dasyus appear to be the result of this identification of Dasyus as representatives of darkness. This makes much more sense because of the following reasons:

1. The Avesta (e.g. Yasna 1.11, 2.5, 2.11, 3.7 etc) have the word ‘Dahyu’ and uses the term as referring to the country, district etc. Similarly, Daha is a term used by the ancient Iranians to refer to a particular tribe. Even in the Rg Veda, Sudas himself has the word ‘Dasa’ in his name. It appears to have used in the sense ‘man’ (‘Sudas’ itself means ‘good man’). Thus, the words ‘Dasa’ and ‘Dasyu’ appear to be Indo-Iranian words. In all probability, these words were used by the Vedic Aryans to refer to their Iranian (Avestan) enemies.

2. The fact that Iranians and the Vedic people became enemies over a period of time and developed different modes of worship gives strength to the above point. Iranians called their God as Asura (Ahura) and their demons as Daevas.

3. No community in the subcontinent has been identified as ‘Dasyu’ community while the terms ‘Dahyu’ and ‘Daha’ were common in ancient Iran.

4. The above three points clearly establish the identity of the Dasa/Dasyu as Iranians. As the Iranians were definitely white in colour, clearly the description of Dasyus as ‘krishnatvac’ seems to be the result of the identification of the Dasyus with forces of darkness.

5. Rg Veda (1.130.8) says that Indra tore off the black skin of the ‘avrata’. But immediately it adds that Indra burns the enemies (tyrannical men). The seer appears to provide a reason for the riteless’ (avratas) black skin (after all the Dasyus are fair in colour). Also, it must be noted that ‘krishnatvac’ can also mean covered by black/darkness.

6. Rg Veda (7.5.6) states that Agni drove away the Dasyus and brought light to the Vedic Aryans. Once again, this shows that the Dasyus were associated with darkness and it justifies the claim made by us that the term ‘krishnatvac’ does not have any anthropological meaning.

The word ‘anasah’ actually proves right that our interpretation of ‘krishnatvac’. The word literally means ‘noseless’ or ‘mouthless’. There is/was no human race/community which lack nose or mouth. Some scholars try to interpret it as flat-nosed. But they forget that the Dravidians are Caucausians as well. As such, they are not flat-nosed. Moreover, they seem to forget a very basic thing when interpreting the word – figure of speech. Even today, the words ‘naak cut gaye’ (nose was cut) is very common phrase used in Hindi to refer to a person who was thoroughly insulted. In Ramayana, Lakshmana is said to have cut the nose of demoness Surpanaka. As such, lack of nose is a matter of insult. Thus, ‘anasah’ is a word of insult used to refer to the Dasa/Dasyus. It could also refer to the fact that the Iranians spoke a variant dialect of the Vedic. As some of their pronunciations were not perfect according to the Vedic standard (use of ‘h’ instead of ‘s’), they could very well be called as ‘noseless’/’mouthless’. The mention of an example of Asura/Mleccha speech in Satapatha Brahmana (3.2.1.23,24) is interesting to note.

All in all, we can see that the words ‘Dasa/Dasyus’ must have been used to refer to the Iranians and not to the tribes of India (especially considering the fact that there are no Dasyu/Dasa tribes in India while the Iranians used the terms to refer to themselves).

Finally, it will do well to go through the commentary of Sri Sayanacharya. Sayana describes the word ‘krishnatvac’ as ‘skin of Krishna’. Krishna is the name of a demon (a force of darkness) mentioned in Rg Veda (he has got nothing to do with the later Sri Krishna who is considered as an avatar of Lord Vishnu). This interpretation does not give any quarter for racial quarrel being mentioned in the Rg Veda. Considering the fact that most of the enemies of the Devas are supernatural beings and atmospheric demons (who are agents of darkness as opposed to the Devas – beings of light), it is more sensible to discard the unnecessary imposition of the western theories of racism on this ancient text. A cursory reading of the later Vedic texts show that there was no colour based discrimination against dark skinned people. After all, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad places the birth of a black skinned son above that of a white skinned son.