The "legality" of the Bhojshala judgement

On 15 May 2026, The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has delivered its judgement in the case pertaining to Bhojshala of Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, claimed by both Hindus and Muslim, by the former as an ancient Saraswati temple and by the latter as a mediaeval mosque.

Well, the evidence that the temple predated the mosque is visible to the naked eye. The High Court ordered a survey by the Archeological Survey of India. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted a comprehensive 2,000+ page scientific survey report on the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. The report concluded that the existing structure was built using materials from pre-existing 11th-century Paramara-era temples and served as a Sanskrit learning center.

The ASI found the current structure was constructed utilizing architectural parts, pillars, and structural fragments from earlier temples. Furthermore, the ASI excavation also unearthed relics and structures and several broken pieces of stone featuring Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions. The ASI report also elaborated that the mosque's wall, or mihrab, appears to be a newer structure made of different materials than the main complex. So, the report established, beyond any doubt that the Kamal Maula Mosque is a superimposition on the Bhojshala temple.

However, as usual, the Muslim community has been negating it. And the argument, more than the legality or even an acknowledgement that a temple existed, has been, as usual "ab masjid ban gayi to ban gayi" (once a mosque has been constructed, let it be).

And the government has been trying to put a lid on this and other similar disputes. For example a compromise of sorts was delivered vide a 2003 order allowing pooja as well as namaz on specific time and dates. The biggest step in this direction was the Places of Worship Act 1991 which provides that the "character" of a place of worship, as it existed on 15th August 1947, cannot be changed. Although the constitutionality of the Act has been challenged and is yet to be decided, on the date of the Bhojshala judgement it is operational.

In this case Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid represented the Muslim side and based his plea mainly on the PoW Act 1991. Khurshid strongly relied on this legislation, arguing that the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, is decisive. He argued that the law prevents altering the religious character of any place of worship from its status at independence.

His second argument was that even though the Archeological Survey of India has opined that an ancient temple existed on the site, it is not established through direct or specific evidence proving a Bhojshala temple was demolished to construct the Kamal Maula mosque.

The second argument is ridiculous and laughable. Once it's established that a temple pre-existed the mosque on the site, where is the need to prove that the mosque is either an encroachment or a superimposition.

However, we need to understand how the judgement is compatible with the PoW Act 1991:

1) There is a statutory exception embedded within the Act itself.   The Act prevents altering the religious character of any shrine as it stood on August 15, 1947. However, Section 4(3)(a) explicitly excludes any ancient, historical monument, or archaeological site that is governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Bhojshala complex in Dhar has been recognized as a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) since the early 20th century, placing it outside the Act's restrictive "freeze" on religious character.

2) The most important, and often ignored, aspect of the Act is about determining the "character" of a place of worship. Who will decide what the "character" was on the cut off date? The Varanasi District Court and the Allahabad High Court determined that to decide whether the Act applies (or bars the suit), they first need to ascertain the true nature and historical status of the property. Therefore, admitting the suit and ordering surveys (like the ASI survey) was seen as a necessary step to establish the exact pre-1947 religious character of the structure. And herein lies the crux. If there is evidence of a temple (like Sringar Gauri or the idols in the basement of the mosque, or a Shivling) does the 1991 Act negate the existence of a temple because a mosque has been superimposed on it? Does the "character" of a temple change if namaz is being offered on its campus? And what if there is a dual character - a temple as well as a mosque coexisting within the same structure, as in Gyanvapi?

So, this hurriedly enacted Places of Worship Act 1991 generated more questions than answers.

Dear readers, this post is only about the judgement in the Bhojshala case. I know, as does everyone else, that countless temples had been demolished by the Muslim rulers during the mediaeval period of Indian history. I agree with the RSS chief's view that we should not search for a temple underneath every mosque in India. A society cannot thrive in a situation of permanent animosity, bordering at civil war. However, the Muslim community should also show maturity instead of stubbornness in the case of sensitive places like Kashi and Mathura. 

On Versions of History

I am wading into one of the most fierce ongoing debates. It is about shrinking the space occupied by the Mughals in the history textbooks, which, the so-called seculars and liberals think is unfair to the legacy of the Great(?) Mughals. However the other view is that the space hitherto occupied by them is disproportionately large, overtly glorified and embellished with a lot of fiction.

Let us examine some of the facts. The 'glorious' period of the Moghul empire - between Babur's arrival in 1526 and Aurangzeb's death in 1707 - is 181 years and it occupies nearly 1/3 of history textbooks. The peak period of the Gupta dynasty was between 319 to 477 CE, 158 years and it is wound up in one chapter by historians like Romila Thapar. 

The admirers of the Mughals talk passionately about the Taj Mahal and Red Fort but would never dare discuss the destruction of the traditional architecture of India - the Kashi Vishwanath temple, the Ram Janmbhoomi temple and Krishna Janmbhoomi temple. 

They also never tell that the most valuable literature in North India was created not with the support of the Mughal court, but in spite of them. Tulsidas, Surdas, Mirabai and Kabir never got any royal support or patronage whereas the Gupta courts actively promoted the likes of Aryabhatta and Kalidas.

A certain Shashi Tharoor has given a very funny logic that Mughals were 'Indian' because more than half of the Mughal princes were born to Indian mothers. Dear Tharoor, why are you rubbing salt into the wounds of a hurt psyche? Can you give one, only one, example of a Mughal shahzadi being given to an Indian family in marriage?

Furthermore, why the obsession that the history of India is only the history of monarchies in and around Delhi? How much space do you give to the Vijaynagar Empire, its economy and socio-cultural richness? In fact , I don't remember if Odisha and the North Eastern parts of India get any coverage during the Mughal era.

And why only the Mughal period? Even before that period the history of the southern India never got proportionate coverage. How many students of history have in depth knowledge of Cher-Pandya-Chola? How many know that more than 2000 years ago a certain Ilangovan created a classic called "Shillapadikaram" which should be ranked alongside the best literature created in the subcontinent? Mir and Ghalib were great poets but there were better and greater poets.

The fact remains that the history of India has been written more like fiction (like Nehru's Discovery of India) rather than History.

Akbar and Bharmal, a Mughal emperor and a Rajput king, between themselves stitch up a political treaty whereby the later "gives away" his daughter to the former. The poor girl, raised in Rajput customs and traditions, goes into a household with unfamiliar culture and food habits. She finds herself in a very large harem of women acquired through a large variety of formal and informal marriages. And the fools create romantic concoctions around this story. No feminist cries foul that Akbar, a party to this treaty, was anything but great.

*Akbar the 'Great':* The oft-quoted icon of the composite culture. We can try to sift what has been presented from what really happened.

The siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568) when Akbar was already married to Harka Bai. So it's not like Asoka's invasion of Kalinga that happened soon after Asoka's coronation. The 'secularisation' of Akbar had already happened in 1562 when, through a treaty with Aamer, he married Harka Bai (filmi name Jodha Bai).

It is documented in the contemporary sources that Akbar gave a religious colour to the struggle by declaring it as a Jihād against the infidels. After the conquest of the fort, Akbar ordered a general massacre of Chittor's population in the course of which 30,000 Hindu civilians were slaughtered and a large number of women and children were enslaved.

He also issued a victory letter on 9 March 1568 where he addressed his governors of Punjab about the campaign (quoted by Andre Wink):

"We, as far as it is within our power, remain busy in Jihad and owing to the kindness of the superior Lord, who is the promoter of our victories, we have succeeded in occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to the infidels and have established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword we have erased the signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those places and also all over Hindustan."

Do we know that Akbar was created as "Akbar the Great" as a parallel to Ashoka the great? And, mind you, Ashoka was not created by a JNU bunch and a Nehru. Ashoka's name was lost to history until he was identified by the British scholar and orientalist James Prinsep (l. 1799-1840 CE) in 1837 CE. After reading Ashoka's inscriptions, and being amazed by the contents thereof, Prinsep accorded the status of "Great" to Ashoka.

Lest misunderstood, let me confess that Nehru's Discovery of India is a great writing. I dare not contest that. But does it pass for 'History'? I concede that Pt Nehru's account is not altogether fictional, but he certainly did not carry out any research to form opinions and derive conclusions. Pt Nehru has derived conclusions of his choice. Had he accessed any primary sources? There is no evidence. Did he have knowledge of historiography? Certainly not. I am giving an example of another book, "Aag Ka Daria" by Qurtlain Haider. In her book she has traced the evolution of Indian culture from the 6th century BC till her own times, the twentieth century. Maybe purely my personal view, but her book, categorised as 'fiction', is less opinionated about different phases. So, my view about the book by Nehru is that it may not be fiction, but it is not history either. Nehru was a very learned person, he has written a great book, but he was not a historian.

When historians like Prinsep and Vincent Smith wrote, before picking up the pen they had carried out extensive research of the primary sources, the scriptures in the case of the history of ancient India. Even our own historians of the first generation, scholars like DR Bhandarkar, RK Mukherjee and RC Majumdar have all supported their theories with intensive study of primary sources. Till date, to my mind, the least opinionated book on mediaeval history is by Iswari Prasad. Unfortunately, their works got systematically marginalized to promote the 'desirable' version written by the likes of Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and Bipin Chandra.

The greatest disservice to our collective psyche has been to present a 'desirable' history. Unfortunately, we don't have a supply of the likes of Majumdar and Roychaudhary. My worry is who will pick up the threads from where they left? 

We are living in an era of intellectual fraudsters.  There is one Ramchandra Guha who carries the tag of a historian. His academic credentials? He graduated from St. Stephen's College, Delhi with a bachelor's degree in economics in 1977, and completed his master's in economics from the Delhi School of Economics. He then enrolled at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, where he earned a Ph.D. in Sociology, focusing on history and prehistory of the Chipko movement.

Historical blunders have to be corrected.

Method in Trump's Madness

Without doubt Donald Trump has been the most talked about person since he commenced his second term as the President of the USA. Being the most powerful country in the world the US always gets extra attention and some of it is also reflected on the individual heading the country. But in the case of Trump it has been more about the person.

His campaign was constructed around MAGA (Make America Great Again) theme and for the first few months it appeared that this greatness would be achieved through imposing punishing tariffs. The earliest heavy tariff was announced against China which was first deferred and then kept in abeyance. The apparent reason was USA's heavy dependence on the rare earth minerals supplied by China. However, Trump did impose heavy tariff on various other countries including India, Brazil and South Africa. India was chosen for a special treatment with 25% penal tariff for purchasing oil from Russia.

These tariffs showed an obvious inconsistency and double speak because the USA and Europe make a lot of purchase from Russia. The U.S. continues to import key goods from Russia, primarily fertilizers, precious metals (like palladium, platinum), and inorganic chemicals, despite sanctions, with these commodities dominating trade, alongside uranium (under waiver). The EU buys huge amount of energy from Russia and is heavily dependent on that.

While the tariff tool was being applied, the USA continued with other methods to harass India. Support to Pakistan has been a favourite and time tested tool of the West. There appeared to be a pause over the last twenty five years. However, they are now leaning back on Pakistan. With its economy in shambles, Pakistan is ever willing to comply.  Besides, the USA openly or covertly engineered unrest and regime changes in the neighbouring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh. All this to surround India with a hostile neighbourhood.

And there was, also, a China specific strategy. Its move into Pakistan will certainly weaken the Chinese influence in the country where China is heavily invested. Occupation of Venezuela is the first direct military intervention aimed at hurting China. 

Do we see a method in this madness?

China's bargaining chip was its rare earth minerals. USA is trying to choke China's oil supply. China is the biggest importer of oil.

Venezuela has been seized.

Iran, it appears, is close to regime change. And the next regime would be compliant to the Americans. Columbia could be the next. The other oil producers of the Middle East are already under the American net.

It may be bad news for China but not good for the rest of the world either.

What will happen to BRICS? USA is determined to protect its petro dollar hegemony.

We may or may not like it but we are living in a unipolar world. I have never believed in the military might of China and, now, it's unlikely that China would confront the USA militarily.

Many of us choose to write off Trump as 'insane'. But if we carefully examine what he has been doing, we can notice a much larger objective. 

How did the US achieve the hegemonic position?

- Post WW-ll it moved quickly to seize the opportunities. Europe, realising that the Soviet Union had raised an "iron curtain", was feeling a security threat, particularly in view of the partition of Germany. The US moved in to help the Western European countries rebuild their war torn economies. It extended a $1.3 billion aid under the Marshall Plan. 

- On the defence front, NATO was formed as a collective defence system. In the process of operationalizing NATO, the US has its military bases across Europe, focusing heavily on Germany, Italy, the UK, and Spain. With the eastward expansion of NATO after the collapse of the USSR it has built bases in Poland and Romania. So, it knows that the EU and UK are captive for its designs. If one ever had any doubt, the open threat to 'snatch' Greenland from Denmark demonstrates how helpless Europe is in front of the USA.

- Besides, realising that the future of the world was going to be tied with oil, the USA created a pivotal role for itself and its currency by introducing the petro dollar system. 

How does this strengthen the USA and its economy?

Oil-exporting nations agreed to price their oil in U.S. dollars. 

Dollar Demand: Countries needing oil must first acquire U.S. dollars, creating a steady global demand for the currency.

Petrodollar Recycling: Oil-rich nations earn vast amounts of U.S. dollars (petrodollars) and often reinvest these funds into U.S. financial assets, like Treasury bonds, a process called petrodollar recycling.

So, there are multiple benefits that the USA has been reaping. Can it afford to let it go through a formation like BRICS?

But, the petro dollar system was not created without political and military back-up. The oil rich countries of the Middle East also outsourced their defence to the USA and, like Europe, the USA has its bases across the Arab World. These include Qatar (Al Udeid AB), Kuwait (Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem AB), UAE (Al Dhafra AB), Bahrain (NSA Bahrain - 5th Fleet HQ), Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan AB), Jordan (Muwaffaq Salti AB), and smaller presences in Iraq (Al Asad, Erbil) and Syria (Tanf Garrison).

Let us visualise the situation. America has its hold over the oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran could be the next, through a regime change. The middle east is already a captive territory.

Middle East holds the largest share of proven oil reserves (around 50%), followed by regions with substantial reserves in Venezuela (around 25%), Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, and Iraq. The combined oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran are 512 billion barrels.

Theoretically BRICS sounds good, but what is left of the oil reserves? Russia has around 80 billion barrels. Canada, with large reserves, cannot align itself with those against the USA.

Tough days ahead for the world, and, particularly, India. Can the world unite to thwart this new version of imperialism?

Trump's Tantrums - Theatre of Absurd

Theatre of Absurd

Pioneered by European playwrights like Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, this art form has got a new exponent in (Mc)Donald Trump. And the absurdity is illogical and extreme.

Disrespect is his new diplomatic tool, and he spares no one. He rebuked Zelensky, he mocked Macron and humiliated Kier Starmer. They are all his 'subjects'. 

But now he has tried to land a blow on the Indian PM.

The Apache helicopters reference shows how this theatre works. Trump recalls Modi supposedly saying, ‘Sir, may I see you, please?’ Anyone who has watched Modi in bilateral settings knows this is not his register. He has always been Formal, 'Mr PM', 'Mr President', 'Your Excellency', as the protocol demands. But Modi being 'deferential'? No, that is unimaginable. Here is someone who has risen through the rigours of public life of half a century. He knows the ground he stands on. The phrasing sounds less like Modi and more like Trump’s familiar storytelling habit, where other leaders appear as supplicants and he plays the towering boss.

This ‘Sir’ routine is a well-worn Trump device. He has used it with allies and adversaries alike. It elevates him in the story and shrinks everyone else. The anecdote does not have to be accurate. It only has to reinforce the hierarchy Trump wants his audience to see.

But the factual inaccuracies make his statements fall flat. Trump speaks of 68 Apaches and five-year delays. India ordered 28. Twenty-two were delivered to the Air Force years ago. Only the later Army batch ran into delays. It is selective exaggeration.

Was it an innocent mix up or a deliberate exaggeration? It might be a deliberate exaggeration. Because scale creates grievance. Sixty-eight helicopters waiting five years sounds like injury. Twenty-eight across two deals, mostly delivered on time, does not. 

Which brings up the question: Why does Modi not respond? I would ask: Why should he? 

Trump is not arguing. He is creating an imaginary aura. Why should we give a body and a form to something that is imaginary? Narcissists, like Trump, thrive on reaction, which they interpret as acknowledgement. Silence denies it. It denies them the oxygen to survive.

There is also a deeper asymmetry at play here. 

Trump responds warmly to those who flatter him, like Asim Munir. When Trump praises Pakistan’s self-styled Field Marshal, it fits the pattern.  But the logic is simple. Munir needs American goodwill, so he offers admiration. And Trump reciprocates.

India sits in a different category. It trades with the US on a transactional basis. It cooperates where interests align and resists where they do not. India thwarts, successfully, the USA's attempts to enter its agriculture and dairy sectors. Modi does not need American approval to legitimise his leadership at home. That independence irritates Trump. Modi is not waiting for validation because he has not usurped the power, like Shahbaz Sharif, through manipulation which needs sustenance from a super power. Modi's position is validated by a mandate, a support from allies and the inherent strength of the Indian constitution.

This is why Trump keeps poking. He invariably either prefixes or suffixes his provocative statements with "Modi is a good man", almost like a refrain. The aim is not policy correction alone, it is psychological repositioning, seeking to get Modi, and India, on knees.

For India, responding emotionally would be a mistake. A sharp rebuttal might satisfy domestic audiences for a day, but it would feed Trump’s narcissistic ego. A mature  silence denies him the confrontation he seeks and allows India to absorb noise while negotiating substances elsewhere.

Venezuela and Threats to Sovereignty

My grandfather used to say, "A weak person's wealth is the most endangered thing." (कमज़ोर का धन खतरा ए जान) Venezuela has oil but it didn't have the strength to protect it. The international referee, the UNO, is a toothless tiger that has neither the strength nor the desire to act. So, each one on their own. Defend yourself lest a bully humiliates you.

I have seen some people - however small in number - feeling happy that a dictator has been vanquished. There was a similar jubilation in some quarters after the fall of Saddam Hussein. If we go by the Western narrative there are many dictatorships in the world, with Russia topping the list. But they had no qualms in dealing with Zia ul Haq or Parvez Musharraf. There is an Urdu couplet:

उस के क़त्ल पे मैं भी चुप था मेरा नम्बर अब आया

मेरे क़त्ल पे आप भी चुप है अगला नम्बर आपका है

Loosely translated, it means, " When he was getting killed, I kept silent; now, you, watching silently as I am being killed, could be the next."

So, who knows who will be the next target?

Here, in India, a former Chief Minister, Prithviraj Chavan, hit a new low when he discussed the possibility of the USA kidnapping our PM as it did in Venezuela. 

However, the way the USA has treated Venezuela, or, in the past, Iraq, it's worth considering how to protect the sovereignty of a nation when the UNO has become a caricature.

To start with, let me share a famous quote of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State of the US:

 "To be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."

So, let us examine the cases of the friends first. When Tony Blair was the British PM, a section of the British media used to sarcastically call him "a poodle of George Bush" for blindly obeying Bush on every issue, particularly parroting his rhetoric that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Europe is completely dependent on NATO, led by the US. And let’s be honest: NATO IS the U.S. Europe has outsourced its sovereignty — and is now powerless and helpless. Just see how helpless they are about Ukraine, as Trump is charting a separate path, not consistent with its initial stand, after pushing Ukraine into a disastrous war with Russia.

Japan is another example of a friend country which is only theoretically sovereign, or has encumbered sovereignty. It was demilitarised after WW II,  with a protection assurance though a treaty and reconstruction assurance under the Marshall Plan. The country with the most U.S. military bases on earth is not “protected” — it is occupied by a treaty.

Russia survived relentless U.S. attacks because it invested in defence — not narratives, not alliances, not “values". Its economy was too small when compared with the US, but it's defence capabilities were a complete maych. Similarly, China has fortified itself by strengthening both it's economy and its defence.

So. I would rephrase Kissinger's quotation:

If you are not a friend (not necessarily an enemy) of the USA, strengthen yourself. If you are a friend, you are in a hopeless situation.

Now, the critical question: what should India do? In my view, there are two points 

1. Build our own defence system and our own military power which is not heavily dependent on the supplies or technology from the neo-imperialists. Do not outsource security to white supremacist power blocs. I think India has realised the importance of indigenous defence capability.

2. Do not confuse partnership with submission. All the defence offers from the US have hidden traps. Besides, we have observed that what it supplied to India at a cost, was given to Pakistan as aid.

Sovereignty is defended — not gifted. You have to defend your sovereignty yourself.

Demonetisation: The Causes and the effect

When facts and fiction get intertwined – the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns*

The sudden announcement by the Prime Minister on 8th November 2016, that 500 and 1000 currency notes were being discontinued, took the nation, and the world, by surprise. Certainly such a momentous decision would not have been taken on the spur of a moment. A very serious and well thought out strategy would have gone into it. 

Expectedly, the entire opposition and its aligned ecosystem sprang in a loud and noisy confrontation. But the PM, with his strong goodwill among the masses, remained undeterred and his popularity remained intact. 

However, as nearly all of the currency in official circulation returned back to RBI, even the PM’s supporters started questioning the outcome of the move which had caused a lot of pain to the masses.

But now, nine years after it was done, the demonetisation is back in discussion. A recently released movie, “Dhurandhar” has highlighted that, due to some loopholes in the system, ISI backed fake-note factories were churning out “near-perfect” rupees, funding terror and hurting the Indian economy. You may call it ‘economic jihad’ if you wish.

We can agree with the movie that the fake currency made its way to India through Dubai and Nepal, both considered as safe havens for the underworld and their outlawed activities.

However, the film, being a film, has made insinuations which I don’t agree with. It’s too far fetched to imagine that anyone, even the PM, can breach the multi-layered security and make the currency printing plates available to the fake currency printers in Pakistan. If the Pakistanis were able to do it, there might be some other source.

But some breach did happen. What was that? A report that appeared in The Indian Express on 14 January 2023 said, “The CBI has registered an FIR against former finance secretary Arvind Mayaram for alleged cheating, criminal conspiracy, and corruption. Mayaram, whose premises in Delhi and Jaipur were searched on Thursday, is accused of extending undue favours to the UK-based company De La Rue by giving a three-year extension to its “expired contract” for supply of exclusive colour shift security thread for Indian currency notes when he was finance secretary.”

What is the De La Rue case?

De La Rue is a British firm, now listed on the London Stock Exchange, which designs and prints currency notes and produces other features used in banknotes like security thread and security holograms for central banks across the world. It was contracted to supply the currency notes printing material to India.

It was in 2010 that De La Rue was embroiled in its first commercial controversy in India, and was subsequently denied security clearance by the Home Ministry for currency paper contracts.

Then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee had ordered an inquiry into the faulty currency paper supplies. Towards the end of 2010, he approved a proposal to suspend supplies from De La Rue. And thus the company was blacklisted.

However, when Chidambaram returned as Finance Minister (31 July 2012 – 26 May 2014), De La Rue was reinstated as the supplier even though, allegedly, no fresh contract was signed. And that forms the basis of the FIR against Arvind Mayaram who had placed the order as the Finance Secretary. We don’t have anything to conclude whether it was business expediency or any foul play was involved.

But in 2016 the name of De La Rue appeared in the Panama Papers with evidence that it had authorised a payment of a 15% commission via its subsidiary company, Portals, to its Indian agent for securing banknote contracts.

After the publication of the Panama Papers, the RBI had advised the Home Ministry to continue the blacklisting of De La Rue.

Connecting the dots

Now, let us look at the events that took place in 2016:

- De La Rue’s foul play got exposed in the Panama Papers.

- The infamous Karachi based Khanani brothers, Javed Khanani and Altaf Khanani, money launderers who were involved in moving money for terrorist groups and criminal gang groups, got exposed. They were also said to be involved in printing fake Indian currency with the backing of ISI, which was peddled into India through Dubai and Nepal.

- Altaf Khanani was arrested in September 2016 in Panama by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, and transported to jail in the United States. He pleaded guilty of money laundering only. After serving three years in prison he was released in July 2020

- Javed Khanani, his brother committed suicide.

- Their front company, Khanani & Kalia International (KKI) was a foreign exchange company that operated until November 2017, when it was closed down by the Government of Pakistan for being involved in money laundering.

- While all this was happening, the Government of India moved to discontinue its currency notes of 500 and 1000.

Now, we can connect the dots and understand the full context of the 2016 demonetisation.

Several things have happened after that. India has moved very rapidly towards digital transactions which has significantly reduced the creation of black money in the domestic system. But, more importantly, the move broke the back of the notorious counterfeit peddling infrastructure of Pakistan and ISI which straightaway affected the funding of the Pakistan based terror groups. So, even if the genuine currency, even the black money, made its way back to RBI, we should feel happy that it was a very successful move from the point of view of national security.

That explains, to a great extent, the unrest among the ‘ecosystem’ with the movie Dhurandhar.

Revisiting the Bangladesh Story

 हमने क्या खोया, हमने क्या पाया? Is it the time to revisit our success story of creating Bangladesh? 

.............................

Our books on India's freedom struggle, particularly the one published by the National Book Trust and authored by Bipan Chandra, Amlesh Tripathi and Barun De, would argue against the two nations theory that religion could not be the basis of nationhood.

They would support this argument by quoting the example of Bangladesh, which broke out of Pakistan in spite of both being Muslim majority countries. Well, even without the formation of Bangladesh there were too many Islamic countries. So, the point could have been illustrated even without quoting the example of Bangladesh. There are things beyond the territorial boundaries of a nation state. How did the word 'Christendom' originate? It defined the entire Christian population as one brotherhood. Does the Pope not enjoy the authority over the Catholics all over the world?What was the authority of the "Khalifa"? Who would a Muslim obey if there was a conflict between the nation state and the Caliph's decree?

So, territorial boundaries apart, there have been supranational authorities based on faith. The very concept of "Ummaah", meaning the whole community of Muslims is bound together by ties of religion, is supranational.

So, do we need to revisit the outcome of the 1971 war through which we 'liberated' Bangladesh? We have been thinking all along that breaking up Pakistan was a huge achievement and that we have created a nation which will remain perennially indebted to us for its creation. But the most recent Bangladesh creation day, Vijay Divas for India, showed that the Bangladeshis are an ungrateful lot. Many videos suggested that instead of thanking India they were throwing scorn and abuses only. 

Why did we expect otherwise? A fiercely secular republic established by Kemal Pasha Ataturk was turned on its head by Recep Tyep Erdogan to become another Islamist country. So, almost certainly, a secular republic in a Muslim majority country is a utopia. Bangladesh has only reaffirmed it.

We, as a nation, have been gloating over the disintegration of Pakistan. But what is our gain from their loss? 

Nothing much, it seems. Through the Simla agreement it was agreed that India and Pakistan would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". India thought that this would make the contentious PoK issue a bilateral matter, but Pakistan has not agreed to it and has been trying to internationalise the matter from time to time. Apart from this we returned 93,000 prisoners of war without securing any releases from Pakistan. So, as it appears, instead of one hostile Islamist country on both sides, we are having two hostile Islamist countries on our two sides. And a huge number of infiltrators is a bonus.

P.S.: I request my friends not to view this post as a criticism of the then government or PM. The 1971 war is a point of general consensus among Indians.