Thursday, August 18, 2016

SARASWATI: Before the Pharaohs: Fresh Scientific Evidence Should make us Question earlier views about the Indus Valley Civilisation

SOURCE:
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/academic-interest/before-the-pharaohs-fresh-scientific-evidence-should-make-us-question-earlier-views-about-the-indus-valley-civilization/


                                         PROJECT SARASWATI

Before the Pharaohs: Fresh Scientific Evidence       Should make us Question earlier views                   the Indus Valley Civilisation

           in Academic Interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 6, 2016.
 
It often takes outsiders to shake things up. Indian cricket’s first match-fixing scandal, which broke in 1997, was exposed not by sports reporters but by political journalists who wrote the first big cover story on crooked players. In much the same way, a new study funded by an IIT Kharagpur grant which brought together a geologist, a palaeoscientist and physicists from four scientific institutions to work on the excavations of a now-deceased ASI archaeologist, has found that the Indus Valley Civilisation was at least 8,000 years old, and not around 5,000 years old as previously believed.


In their evidence, published in Nature – the world’s most highly-cited interdisciplinary science journal – and using the ‘optically stimulated luminescence’ method on ancient pottery shards, is correct then it substantially pushes back the beginnings of ancient Indian civilisation. It proves that it took root well before the heyday of the pharaohs of Egypt (7000-3000 BC) or the Mesopotamian civilisation (6500-3100 BC) in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The researchers have also found evidence of a pre-Harappan civilisation that existed for at least a thousand years before this, which may force a global rethink on the generally accepted timelines of so-called ‘cradles of civilisation’.


This is a quantum leap. The scientists are not just shifting a few years here and there. Their claim pushes back the mature phase of the Indus Valley Civilisation (with significant remains in Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in modern Pakistan and Dholavira in Gujarat) from its current dating of 2600-1700 BC to 8000-2000 BC and the pre-Harappan phase to 9000-8000 BC. This demands a fundamental rethink of old assumptions about Indian civilisation’s antiquity and reopens the debate on whether Aryans were the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation.


Right from Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati, to B R Ambedkar who rejected the idea of an ancient Aryan invasion as “absurd”, the Aryan question has been a lightning rod in debates over Indian identity. The Aryan invasion theory originated with William Jones, who postulated in 1786 that Sanskrit and other ancient languages were part of an Indo-European language family which must have had a common source, the subsequent identification in 1816 of a separate Dravidian language family and finally the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilisation by John Marshall in 1924.
The huge gap between the standard historical dating of 1500 BC for Rig Veda (though Bal Gangadhar Tilak used astrological evidence to argue for 4500 BC) and the much older physical remains of the Indus Valley drastically complicated the Indian story. That gap has now grown much wider and the questions it raises are even bigger.
 
[ Making a note of the distinction between LANGUAGE & SCRIPT, the script, early   Devnagri  in which VEDAs are written are neither Indo-European or Dravidian but its origin lies in Ethopian roots  where as language of vedas is early Sanskrit & it is a indigenous- Vasundhra ]
 
 
 
The standard academic view so far, accepted in textbooks, is that Aryans were immigrants to India, entering around 1500 BC. The alternative view – that they were indigenous creators of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro – has often been scorned by traditional academics because this argument is also appropriated by the Hindu right wing.

On current evidence, both theories are inadequate. The standard view itself has changed from a theory of white-skinned Aryan invaders who subjugated dark-skinned locals to a notion of slow Aryan migration and diffusion over centuries. The invader theory was essentially based on a racial reading by colonial scholars like Friedrich Max Mueller, who thought the Rig Veda used racial terms for Aryans as having beautiful noses (susipra); and depicted their enemies, dasas, as nose-less or bull-nosed (vrsasipra). Language experts later showed this was a wrong reading


[ Note: It takes 10,000(Ten thousand) years for a race to become black from white or vice versa. Even if Aryans were white in these 5000 yrs of Harappa they both, black or white would have become brown - Vasundhra ]







The standard academic view so far, accepted in textbooks, is that Aryans were immigrants to India, entering around 1500 BC. The alternative view – that they were indigenous creators of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro – has often been scorned by traditional academics because this argument is also appropriated by the Hindu right wing.

On current evidence, both theories are inadequate. The standard view itself has changed from a theory of white-skinned Aryan invaders who subjugated dark-skinned locals to a notion of slow Aryan migration and diffusion over centuries. The invader theory was essentially based on a racial reading by colonial scholars like Friedrich Max Mueller, who thought the Rig Veda used racial terms for Aryans as having beautiful noses (susipra); and depicted their enemies, dasas, as nose-less or bull-nosed (vrsasipra). Language experts later showed this was a wrong reading.


Circumstantial evidence on which the Vedic “Indra stood accused” as the destroyer of Harappa simply because the archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler found a few skeletons there in 1946 and Rig Veda talked of Indra as the destroyer of forts (purandra) was debunked long ago. In 1964, the American George F Dales found that only two Harappan skeletons showed evidence of a massacre.




Just as Galileo changed the centuries old wrong understanding of the earth as the centre of the universe, new evidence should make us question old beliefs. Thomas Trautmann, who used mathematical modelling to date the Arthashastra, has pointed out gaps in both theories. The only reason why the standard one is still considered standard is because it came first and the “burden of proof must be on the shoulders of those who are urging us to abandon the standard view”. This is just semantics. If facts show either idea could be plausible, so be it



In fact, there are a number of historical continuities such as prototype Shiva figures between Harappans and Aryans and cultural gaps are not as wide as previously thought. Even the absence of the horse, despite silly attempts to fake evidence, may not be unsurmountable. Horse-bones from Surkotda, for example, were identified as such by the late Sandor Bokonyi, one of the world’s leading archaeo-zoologists. We must step away from ideological hardlines of left and right for an objective reassessment.

Why should this matter?

Whether Indians were the world’s first civilised nation or whether Aryans were indigenous is, of course, irrelevant to modern challenges. It does nothing for those struggling with drought or mired in deep poverty. The past may be irrelevant as a guide to the present. Yet the past has always cast a shadow on Indian politics, from Jyotiba Phule who argued that adivasis were the original Indians to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement today. To the extent that myth making remains a political pastime, it matters. Relying on received wisdoms is self-defeating.

See full Times of India video chat on the new Indus Valley evidence here




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

7 CPC : Pay Panel shock: Male Youth may give Armed Forces a Miss [ Only Volunteer Miss may join ]


SOURCE:   http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/pay-panel-shock-youth-may-give-armed-forces-a-miss/story-d2Xc47cfOtf59CwlsJFUGJ.html




                                    [   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VnAFw4ar0E  ]



Published on Jul 1, 2016
 
The 7th pay commission recommendations which the Government has accepted has not found the favour with range of beneficiaries. The most serious opposition comes from the country's three armed services. On a range of critical issues they believe they have been considered and also denied what they should have got. This episode of To The Point discuss on the principle reasons why the Military is upset and why the Government needs to think again on 7th pay commission recommendations.

India Today Television marks the entry of the nation’s most credible name in journalism - India Today into news television. Powered by a future-ready look and backed with the 40 year legacy of the India Today brand, the channel addresses the news consumption habits of an evolved digital-savvy audience while staying true to the journalistic principles of the India Today Group.


 


Pay Panel shock: Male Youth may give Armed Forces a Miss [ Only Volunteer Miss may join ] 

Chandigarh
Aug 14, 2016


A once in decade expectation among the central government employees concerning revision of salaries and allowances has come as a shock especially to the armed forces of the country. The government’s consistency to short shift the nation’s last bastion, though, is well established, the partisan treatment meted out smacks of a bid to ultimately finish the martial legacy of the nation. I term this conscious bilk as an abysmal lack of constructive vision. Let’s analyse the bag of goodies that the 7th Pay Commission has doled out to the services.


Separate Pay Matrix 
 
By outlining separate pay matrices for civilians and soldiers, the pay commission has announced the discrimination that hithertofore was a veiled conjecture.

The evident mismatch of increments between the civil and military have shocked the fraternity.

To elaborate, a sepoy getting recruited at the same time as his civilian counterpart will serve till the age of 37 as compared to a cool 60 years of the latter and thus stock as many more increments thereby drawing a fatter pension cheque.


The struggle and consequent acceptance of one rank one pension (OROP), though, diluted did not go down well with the babus is a well known fact. They have ensured a similar status for themselves. We do not grudge them that albeit the clause of the OROP regarding non- admissibility to premature retirees henceforth, shockingly does not apply to these privileged beings.


Of Allowances

The issue of allowances as enunciated by the commission, though, still not okayed by the government is a typical ‘airhead’ action. Can you imagine a soldier serving at Siachen getting one third of allowance of a babu serving at Guwahati.[Capitol City of a State ] The chairman of the commission during a media interaction has rubbed salt to the wounds by stating that an attractive allowance will motivate the IAS to willingly serve in difficult areas. Well done sir!

[ IT IS A DIRECT OPEN & SHUT CASE OF PAYING BRIBERY BY NOTHING LESS THAN "PAY COMMISSON ITSELF TO INDUCE GOVERNMENT STAFF TO WORK  ]
As witnessed during the Jat agitation in Haryana, these fellows don’t bat an eyelid to requisition armed forces in case of crisis and themselves melt in the oblivion. They are even swifter in passing the buck in disturbed areas.


The Diversionary Cheap Gimmicks

In order to cloud the big picture, the pay panel recommended doing away with entitled rations for officers. To undo the legitimate award after 30 years of its grant, shocked the armed forces as they could not fathom the wacky idea. Well, absurd that it was, obviously could not see the light of day. But, the deft members of the panel succeed in diverting our attention.


Coming back to my earlier point of lack of constructive vision by the government, the popular caption in an advertisement by armed forces headquarters to attract young people to its fold has consistently been, “Do you have it in you?”, a motivating call to the youth of the nation. During the HT youth forum, a discussion on the youth of today relegating military as their career choice was an eye opener.

A discerning youth is aware of the eroding status of a fauji. Reduced salaries, allowances, erosion in status and an apathetic attitude of ‘powers that be’ is sure to sound a death knell to the dreams of youngsters to don uniform.



avnishrms59@gmail.com
(The writer is a retired army officer who resides in Chandigarh)





 

7 CPC: ADM & MORAL -ARMED FORCES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

SOURCE:
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/academic-interest/armed-forces-discriminated-against-left-out-in-the-cold-by-ias-ips-government-must-explain-why-protect-soldiers/?utm_source=TOInewHP_TILwidget&utm_campaign=TOInewHP&utm_medium=Widget_Stry



                     BHAINSE KE AAGE  'BEEN BAJANA'                










‘ARMED FORCES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, LEFT OUT IN THE COLD BY IAS,IPS ........GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN WHY,PROTECT SOLDIERS '

        in Academic Interest
 
 
 
August 17, 2016,
 
 
Despite the 7th Pay Commission’s award which gave 33 lakh government servants and 14 lakh defence personnel (with 54 lakh retirees and 18 lakh veterans) salary and pension hikes from August 1, 2016, defence forces personnel and veterans have been angry. Independent Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar is a member of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence and tells Nalin Mehta why he thinks armed forces have been treated unfairly and why this matters
 
 
 
 
 
 


What are the armed forces’ problems with the 7th Pay Commission award?

All public servants are not the same. Those in the armed forces who serve, sacrifice and give their lives and limbs at times are a different kind of public servant. The angst of the armed forces, which is slowly converting into anger, goes back to 3rd  Pay Commission.

It has less to do with the exact money and more to do with the status of armed forces vis-à-vis other central government services. This status is not like politicians understand it or about lal battis but about status in the hierarchy of service and command.


In what way has the status of armed forces gone down?

It is a reality that over the last 15-20 years the armed forces have slowly declined in stature and relative importance and positioning vis-à-vis police and IAS. Most of the angst of the military – serving and veterans – has to do with this. There is absolutely no doubt that IAS and IPS because of their proximity to the political powers have over successive pay commissions given themselves sweeter and sweeter deals and left the military out in the cold. This is indisputable because the military has never been represented in these pay commissions.

Any normal Indian citizen who has even the remotest feeling of care for armed forces will ask why?


Is it true that there are allowance anomalies: like a DIG of paramilitary forces serving in Shillong will get an extra Rs 73,000 but an Army Brigadier there will get zero allowance?

That is precisely the point. In all these cases, they will be serving in close proximity. In Leh for example a Brigadier and DIG would be serving in the unified command. Why would you take a Brigadier or a soldier and put him down in the hierarchy below what his predecessors in the armed forces were? What is the logic?

If government has an explanation for this they should make it. If IAS or pay commission has a reason for this why are they not putting it out in public domain?


This is about much more than just preserving the civilian-military balance?

We in India are very proud that the military is subordinate to the civilian and political administrative hierarchy but subordinate does not mean disadvantaged or subservient. Why are we making this institution of armed forces get a feeling that they are getting discriminated against?


What are the national security implications?

The risk profile of our nation is only worsening. There is asymmetric warfare imposed on us. You want a motivated armed forces not a group of people who feel they are being done in.


There are grouses like non-functional upgrade (NFU) given to civilian bureaucrats and three extra increments which defence forces don’t get? Why?

There are no answers. For every question that an armed forces man or family asks, the nation owes an answer. The answer need not always be yes. But we must give an answer – 46 anomalies from 6th Pay Commission and 36 from 7th Pay Commission remain unresolved and there is no legitimate answer given on why their requests are being turned down. This is something government and ministry of defence must learn to do.


Are legitimate demands of military put aside in name of civilian supremacy because politicians don’t necessarily understand the detail?

The power of a bureaucrat to say no is not a unilateral power with no accountability. It is okay to say no, but you have to accompany that with a why.

Is there an appetite to find a solution?

There is an appetite to do right by armed forces in Parliament and government. Our armed forces should not feel for one minute that they are taking bullets despite an ungrateful nation. The occupation of armed forces has a much higher risk profile than their peers. This should be recognised in the pay matrix. I am sure nobody in Delhi will oppose it.

On one rank one pension, nobody ever said no, except that nobody understood how to do it. It took the PM and defence minister to cut through the problems and in the end you got something. The same thing must be done now.


About the Author


Nalin Mehta
            
Nalin Mehta is an award-winning social scientist, journalist and author. He is consulting editor with The Times of India and editor of the international journal South Asian History and Culture (Routledge) as well as the Routledge 'South Asian History and Culture' book series. He has previously been managing editor, Headlines Today (India Today Group), adjunct professor at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, and held senior positions with the Global Fund in Geneva, Switzerland, and UNAIDS. He has also held fellowships at National University of Singapore, Australian National University, Canberra, La Trobe University, Melbourne, and the International Olympics Museum, Lausanne. Mehta's books include 'Behind a Billion Screens: What Television Tells Us About Modern India', a critically acclaimed national bestseller long-listed for Business Book of the Year by Tata Literary Live 2015; ‘India on Television: How Satellite Channels Have Changed the Way We Think and Act', which won the 2009 Asian Publishing Award for Best Book; the best-selling 'Sellotape Legacy: Delhi and the Commonwealth Games', and a critically acclaimed social history of Indian sport, 'Olympics: The India Story' (co-authored). His edited books include 'Television in India: Satellites, Politics and Cultural Change' and 'Gujarat Beyond Gandhi: Identity, Conflict and Society' (co-edited)
 

  ___________________________________________________
                  
                        PROVERBIAL SOLUTION          

  THROW SOMETHING

               - BHONKTE     KE  AAGEY 
            SUKHI  ROTI KE TOOKRE  PHENKO
                   CHUP KAAR JAAEGA
________________________________________________________

                           CRUX OF THE PROBLEM



 
Major General Mrinal Suman
 
 
 
India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) is unique in most aspects. No other country can boast of such a set-up. Not convinced? Read on.
 
 
 
Responsibility for India’s national defence is discharged through Ministry of Defence ( MoD ),  which provides the policy framework and wherewithal to the armed forces. MoD has five Secretaries, heading different departments. Here is a closer look at their functioning
 
 
________________________________________________
 
    HALWAI'S DREAM STRUCTURE
 
 WILL BE HALWAI SHOP ONLY         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________
 
Department of Defence (DoD)
 
 
According to the Allocation of Business Rules of the government, the Defence Secretary heads DoD that is responsible for the defence of India and every part thereof, including preparation for defence and all such acts as may be conducive in times of war.
 
 In other words, he is tasked to
 
ensure the defence of the country.
 
 Surprised?
 
 
 Yes, it is his responsibility and not
 
 that of the Service Chiefs.
 
 
For such an onerous responsibility, it is natural to expect a highly experienced defence expert/veteran to be occupying the chair. After all, to ensure defence of the country (including preparation and execution) is no routine job. But MoD is different. Any bureaucrat can foot the bill, even if he cannot differentiate between a mortar and a howitzer or a rocket and a missile.
 
India has had Defence Secretaries whose earlier service had been limited to Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry. Most do not know even the basics of defence imperatives. To mask their ignorance and inadequacy, they resort to the time-tested expedient of deferring decision-making.
 
 
India is the only country that
 
 considers experience in fisheries or
 
handlooms to be good enough to
 
equip a bureaucrat to handle
 
 defence of India.
 
 
 
          No wonder we claim
 
         ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.
 
 
 
Department of Defence Production (DDP)
 
 
Development of indigenous defence industry is DDP’s prime responsibility. Although DDP has a vast domain of 39 ordnance factories and 9 defence public sector undertakings, the performance of DDP has been pathetic to say the least. It is solely responsible for the current pitiable state of the indigenous defence industry, wherein India remains dependent on imports for 70 percent of its defence requirements.
 
 
The world over, promotion of defence industry is considered to be a highly specialised assignment. However, India is an exception. Any bureaucrat can be appointed as Secretary DDP.  Some come with no experience of industry or defence. Their incompetence manifests itself in their prejudiced and blinkered approach towards the private sector. Blocking the entry of the private sector to ensure regular flow of orders to the public sector becomes their sole mission. Instead of exploiting the enormous technological prowess of the private sector, DDP impedes its participation in defence production. 
 
 
In all ‘Buy and Make’ cases, DDP always nominates a public sector unit to receive technology for indigenous production. Instead of absorbing technology, most units choose the easier path of assembling imported sub-assemblies and selling to the services at a huge profit. The case of TATRA vehicles exposed the rot that has set in. Rather than undertaking the onerous task of manufacturing, most public sector units have become traders of imported systems under DDP’s patronage
 
 
 
Utter failure of DDP can be gauged from the fact that India has acquired the dubious distinction of being the largest importer of conventional weapons in the world with 14 percent of the global share.
 
Some achievement after seven decades of independence! DDP ought to be ashamed of it.
 
 
               But, we still have the audacity to claim .
 
 
          ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.
 
 
 
Defence Research and Development
 
 Organisation (DRDO)
 
 
 
DRDO has 52 laboratories in multiple disciplines. It employs over 5,000 scientists and about 25,000 other scientific, technical and supporting personnel. The track record of DRDO is abysmal to say the least – a chronicle of false claims, tall promises, inexplicable delays and sub-optimal products. It has the unenviable reputation of never developing any equipment conforming to the parameters in the promised time-frame. Some claim to infamy!
 
 
Although DRDO’s annual budget is close to Rs 14,000 crore, its total success is limited to the replication of some imported products (commonly called ‘reverse engineering’ and ‘indigenisation’). Time and cost overruns are taken for granted. The history of three key projects (Arjun tank, Light Combat Aircraft and Kavery aero engine) undertaken by DRDO is a true indicator of the gross inadequacy that afflicts it.
 
 
Failure to perform its primary task of developing weapon systems has forced DRDO to delve into bizarre areas to justify its existence. Many will be shocked to learn that DRDO expends defence funds on projects like developing new breeds of angora rabbits, collecting newer varieties of orchids and identifying sharpest chillies.
 
________________________________________________
 
AUTHOR HAS MISSED THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTION OF DRDO  " HALF PAGE ADVETISEMENTS IN NATIONAL NEWS PAPERS OFFERING "SEWERAGE SYSTEMS FOR TOWNSHIPS"
_________________________________________________
 
No other country can boast of such defence R&D, except
 
 
          ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.
 
 
 
 
Department of Ex-serviceman
 
 Welfare (DESW)


         [ A THORN IN ROSES]

I was so sure,
But now I'm confused.
I thought I knew what I wanted,
But then you came and ruined my plans.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
 
 
 
DESW deals with all resettlement, welfare and pensionary matters of ex-servicemen. Strangely, not a single serving or retired soldier has been posted to it. It is totally manned by bureaucrats. Interestingly, India cannot have the Minority Commission without minority members or Women’s Commission without women; but it can have DESW without ex-servicemen. Welfare of retired soldiers has been entrusted to the people who have never faced a bullet and who know little about the challenges faced by the retired soldiers. Hence, they cannot be faulted for their complete lack of empathy.

 
A comparison of DESW with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) will be enlightening. All the top officers of DVA are ex-servicemen. It is headed by the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs, Robert A. McDonald, a veteran of 82nd Airborne Division. Most of the subordinate functionaries also possess extensive military experience. They appreciate that soldiering is a unique profession with challenging convolutions.

 
DESW

has acquired notoriety as the first barricade of bureaucratic negativity. Most proposals get rejected at DESW level itself. Instead of looking after the welfare of veterans and standing up for their rights/entitlements, DESW contests every judicial verdict that goes in favour of ex-servicemen, war-widows and even war casualties. As a result, troops and veterans view DESW as an antagonistic entity.

India must be the only country

where MoD does not enjoy the trust

of its veterans.

                 What a sad state of affairs in

       ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.


 
Defence Finance Division (Def Fin)
 
Defence Finance is responsible to examine all defence matters having a financial bearing; render financial advice; assist in the formulation and implementation of all schemes/proposals involving expenditure; and assist in the formulation and implementation of defence plans. In other words, they are custodians of government funds and oversee all defence expenditure. 

 
Notwithstanding the colourful taxonomy of Defence Financial Advisors, Defence Finance officials are ill-equipped to provide any financial advice. Most are graduates in subjects like Sanskrit, English Literature and History. As they are not familiar with even the basics of finance or economics, it is unfair to expect them to grasp minutiae of financial imperatives. How can officials who know nothing of finance and are totally ignorant of defence issues contribute to the evolution of a sound defence finance plan?

 
What to talk of rendering advice, Defence Finance officials are incapable of even doing their basic job of account keeping. In March 2016, the Defence Minister shocked the nation by revealing that India’s USD 3 billion were lying forgotten with the US government for years, without earning any interest. Worse, India continued to make fresh payments to the US for new weaponry. Whether it was a case of ill-management, lack of attention or sheer incompetence,

 it could have happened only in ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.

                    ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.

 
Finally
 
As can be seen, MoD is responsible for all facets of national defence. Unfortunately, it suffers from major fundamental flaws in its organisation and functioning. It is entirely manned by bureaucrats and officials who are clueless about defence matters. The service headquarters are mere attached offices. They do not form part of the decision making apparatus.

 
MoD is a citadel of bureaucracy and is totally devoid of professionalism.

The world abhors dealing with it.

 Since 2014, a measly sum of USD 1.12 million has come in as FDI despite the government raising the cap to 100 percent. Incompetence results in vacillation and lack of decision making; and that dissuades all prospective investors.  

 
Most disappointingly, the political leadership remains a powerless spectator. Howsoever broad Modi’s 56 INCHES chest may be and howsoever well-meaning Parrikar may be; bureaucracy continues to call the shots and not a single (yes, not a single) reform has been implemented during the last two years. All those pre-election boasts have proved to be mere baloney. MoD carries on functioning in its lethargic and inept manner. Hopefully, our chants of  

               ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’.

 will continue to deter potential enemies of India.*****