Amit Varma, Ottoman

Between 1915 and 1919, the Ottoman Empire killed between 1 and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians as part of a campaign to wipe out their Armenian population. This group of events is generally accepted by historians to be a genocide. Many international organisation, most religious groups, and many governments accept this categorisation of the killings as a genocide.

The government of Turkey, however, refuses to accept that there was a genocide. They protest recognition of the genocide by other nations, and acknowledging the genocide is a crime in Turkey.

Do you know who else denies the Armenian genocide? Amit Varma. Yes, that Amit Varma. Since he began blogging in the December of 2004, Amit Varma has not published a single article accepting the commission of a genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces. Nor has he condemned the conduct of Ottoman forces towards Armenian civilians during and after the First World War. Clearly, this is because he denies that the genocide ever occurred, out of sympathy for the Ottoman cause.

This whole sordid affair also raises questions about Libertarianism in general. Why do libertarians accept such an odious Armenian-genocide denier into their ranks? Why has Amit Varma not been expelled from the Libertarian Cartel for his gratuitously pro-Ottoman views?

This is a serious issue, and one that all libertarians should think about.

(/Not)

On the need to separate "Marathi" from "Maharashtrian"

Years ago, I had a conversation with Yazad Jal about who could call himself a Maharashtrian. A Maharashtrian, I said, is someone who speaks Marathi. A Maharashtrian is someone who knows how to pronounce पूरण पोळी properly. A Maharashtrian is someone who thinks Shrikhand is haute cuisine. No doubt this rankled Yazad, who is presumably a Mumbaikar born and bred (we shall not discuss, for reasons of decency, the heretical notion that Mumbai should not be a part of Maharashtra).

Although I now realise I was wrong then, it seems many people share this misapprehension. Ajit Pawar, for one:

ASSERTING that the next Lok Sabha MP from Pune would be a 'Maharashtrian', the district guardian minister Ajit Pawar on Saturday said that it is time for the present Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi to shift to Rajya Sabha

Now Suresh Kalmadi, being as he is a cad and a bounder, was born and brought up in Pune. His family owns half of the city. He even went to St. Vincent's School (proving, if any proof was needed that Vincentians are never under any circumstances to be trusted). He might be a shady bugger, but Suresh Kalmadi is as Maharashtrian as they come.

Raj Thackeray, that champion of the Marathi Manoos, seems to think on similar lines. In this interview, he speaks of Ratan Tata as a non-Maharashtrian who has contributed much to the state. Now this is highly irregular. Ratan Tata, as far as I know, was born and brought up in Mumbai. He has lived there most of his adult life. It could be said, without exaggerating, that Ratan Tata is more Maharashtrian than Raj Thackeray. Ratan Tata's family has been in Mumbai longer that Raj T's has. Ratan Tata's grandfather, unlike Raj Thackeray's, actually went to college in Maharashtra. If Ratan Tata is not Maharashtrian, I'd like to know who is.

The problem here, then, is that all these people are confusing "Maharashtrian" for "Marathi". The problem is, ever since the peasant/warrior caste in Maharashtra appropriated the word "Maratha" for themselves, Marathi-speakers have lacked an acceptable ethnonym. We may call ourselves the Marathi people, but that just doesn't cut it, somehow. So people started using the word "Maharashtrian" as an ethnonym to describe Marathi speakers and followers of the Marathi way of life (in other words, the Chosen People). But this is imprecise. Some people are Marathi but not Maharashtrians. Some people are Maharashtrians but not Marathi. Shivajirao Gaekwad and Madhavrao Scindia fall in the former category, while Ratan Tata, Yazad Jal and Suresh Kalmadi fall in the latter. The people living in the Occupied Territories are Marathi, but are denied the status of Maharashtrians by the evil Kannadiga Occupation Government and their nefarious northern allies. In fact, everybody who lives between Attock and Cuttack can be considered Maharashtrians regardless of language and culture, living as they do in Greater Maharashtra.

The way is clear. "Maharashtrian" must never be used as an ethnonym. That word should only be Marathi, as in the Marathi people, or that Marathi person. Any and all residents of the Great State of Maharashtra in good standing may be called Maharashtrians. I encourage you to adopt this usage, and educate others about the difference.

Because together, we can, and we will.

An Allegory

Crowned in 1894, Russian Emperor Nicholas II went down in history as one of the worst rulers Russia ever had. A champion of liberalism, Nicholas called the first parliament Russia ever had, the State Duma, in 1905. He appointed Sergei Witte Prime Minister, a first for Russia, which had hitherto been ruled autocratically by its Tsars and Emperors. He issued the October Manifesto, promising civil liberties, universal male suffrage and freedom of religion among other things. The following year, he further abandoned the autocracy that had served his country so well by introducing the first ever Constitution of Russia.

Nicholas' reckless liberalisation of Russia's polity reversed the sensible autocratic reforms of the Emperor Nicholas I, who ushered in the "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism" policy after the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. The unprecedented openness allowed the unfettered forces of political expression to expand and gain new adherents. Radical new parties, such as the Social Democratic Labour Party (famous for its extremist, or Bolshevik, wing) were formed. The extreme liberal ideology championed by the Emperor encouraged anarchists, who assassinated among others Sergei Witte and numerous members of the aristocracy.

The Emperor used a shock-doctrine to force his policies on an unwilling policies. The October Manifesto and 1906 Constitution, for example were enacted after the disaster of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War. At the outbreak of the Great War of 1914 (known to us as the First World War), Nicholas doubtless planned to use the emergency situation to force more liberal programmes on an unwilling public. However, his extreme liberalism finally bore fruit in February 1917, when a political crisis of unexpected proportions forced his government out. In the November of that year, a further crisis engulfed Russia as the Bolsheviks launched a further revolution. The following year, Nicholas himself succumbed to the revolutionary forces he had unleashed.

What was worse, the trend of liberalisation of thought to which Nicholas had contributed meant that the contagion of revolution spread across the world. Within three decades, all of Eastern Europe and large part of Asia were part of the new world order that replaced the stable polities of the 19th Century. If Nicholas had only stuck to the tried policies of his predecessors (Nicholas I and Alexander III in particular) and avoided a programme of political deregulation, the Russian Empire might have survived to this day.

Australia enters Weimar mode

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Prussia (and later the German Empire, of which Prussia formed the main part) was an unstoppable military force. Barring a defeat to the armies of Napoleon, Prussian armies defeated the Austrians, the French, the Danish and the Austrians and the French again, all withing the space of a half-century (well, almost a half-century). The Army of the German Empire, which was for all practical purposes the Prussian Army, was acknowledged as the best in the world. Their leadership, the Prussian General Staff were renowned to be second to none. Then came the First World War. The Prussians initially expected to have won the war by Christmas (that is, Christmas of 1914). However, the War dragged on much longer than they expected, and soon the Prussians found themselves fighting the British Empire, the Russian Empire and the French. Showing their impressive military skills, the Prussians knocked out the Russians, but the USA soon took their place amongst their enemies. Finally, by the end of 1918, the Prussians were out-produced, out-maneuvered and quite plainly out-fought. The defeat was especially shocking to those who had grown used to a hundred and fifty years of Prussian/German military dominance (ie, all Germans). How could we have lost this war, when clearly we are so awesome at this war thing, they asked.

Thus was born the Dolchstoßlegende (literally, stab-in-the-back-legend. Germans can be pretty uncreative with names). The military leadership, and a large portion of German soldiery refused to take responsibility for the defeat and the fact that the better armies won. Instead, they blamed the civilian leadership and the people on the home front for not backing the war front adequately. The war would have been won, they said, if it hadn't been for the civilians stabbing the army in the back (slyly omitting to mention that the civilian government that surrendered to the Allies did not come to power until just before the surrender). A certain Mr. Hitler cunningly exploited this feeling, and won election after election right up to the German Presidency railing against the "November Villains" who lost the War. As we all know, this phase of German history also ended in tears.

Cut to the present. Since the mid 1990s, Australia have dominated world cricket. They've won three One-day World Cups in a row and all Ashes series apart from 2005. They gone months, whole years even, without losing a single match. The Australian Cricket team was acknowledged as the best in the world. Its leadership, embodied by S. Waugh and R. Ponting, was hailed as peerless. When the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup started in September 2007, Australia were clear favorites to win. Except they were knocked out by India in the semi-finals in a hard-fought match. India then went n to defeat Pakistan in the finals and won the Cup. Later that year, the Indian cricket team went to Australia on tour. Australia narrowly won the Test series, one of the most acrimonious in recent history. In the one day series (where the two teams were joined by Sri Lanka) the two teams faced each other in the finals. And Australia lost, two games to none. Australia's ascendancy in international cricket was looking to have finished.

The very weekend this was happening, an article appeared in the Australian press, in effect blaming Cricket Australia (the governing body of Aussie cricket) for the defeat that came the next day. As this blog post is being written, Australian journalists are scrambling to blame this disaster on the perfidy of the Indians, on their own spineless board stabbing their team in the back and on every factor except that their team was outplayed and outperformed. The Australian Dolchstoßlegende is being written as we speak.

The last Dolchstoßlegende led directly to the chaos of the Weimar Republic in Germany, to civil war, economic collaps and thence to the horror of the Nazis and the Second World War. What untold suffering this one will bring, only time will tell.

The Shocking Implications of US Policy

If you're reading this, you're probably an Indian. You're also almost definitely computer literate (unless someone prints out my posts for the less digitally blessed. I believes this actually happens to other, better blogs). If so, read on. This is super-duper seriul. This is far worse than Global Laming. This is worse than ManBearPig. This is some bad shit right here.

Okay, so most of you probably agree that the United States government does some pretty stupid shit sometimes. They go to war for silly reasons. They put people in jail for taking pain medication. They enact boneheaded copyright law. They enrich little fishing villages in Nicaragua. The list goes on.

But two particular boneheaded policies, put together, are potentially the biggest threat to the Indian nation since a chappie named Robert Clive joined this little trading company in order to score discount opium. Consider the facts:

1. The US government has an absolutely zero-tolerance policy regarding child porn. Which is absolutely fine, you say. Kiddie Porn is terrible. And I agree. It is terrible. But the US government is especially anal about this. Any pictures or video, whether or not meant for distribution, involving anyone even a minute under eighteen years old, will get you a mandatory minimum sentence of a couple of decades.
2. The US government also claims jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign nations, by foreign nationals, and in some cases, against foreign nationals (that is to say, if the word "against" can be used meaningfully while talking about victim less crime). Witness Guantanamo Bay. Witness the arrest of David Carruthers. Witness the case of Marc Emery.

In isolation, both these positions are stupid, but not exactly world-changing. Put together, however, a far more sinister implication emerges. That implication is this:

Every single person who has seen the DPS RK Puram MMS is in violation of US Federal Law. What's more, the US Justice department has the precedent, and indeed the obligation to arrest anyone who has shared, saved, or even just seen the clip. If the US Government has its way, every computer-literate Indian adult will be incarcerated in a Federal gaol.

Be afraid, India. Be very afraid.

(With inputs from KR Aadishtan and Sarika Chuni.)