INDIA BHARAT PAKSITAN-J SAI DEEPAK AND MY COMMENTS ON IT.

 

Sai Deepak ( Sai Deepak Iyer) is from Kerala and is a prodigy. He did his Law from IIT Kharagpur and is a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court. In the Ayyappa temple non entry for females controversy, he represented the Ayyappa Temple. He lost the case but became quite famous, especially among the right win Hindu intelligentsia. I have seen him speaking for the first time on Republic TV. His knowledge is immense and his logic even if one does not concur with his views, is irrefutable.

Words flow out from his mouth effortlessly. He has written two massive books 1. India That is Bharat-over 400 pages & 2. India, Bharat, Pakistan-over 600 pages. I had the chance of reading the 2^nd book in which he has studied all the Muslim movements in India which led to partition. I do not claim to have completed reading the book but read a large portion of it. As I read I abridged the matter and took notes as I always do. I am giving those abridged notes as a Word file. What amazed me was that Sai Deepak’s focus on the work and his extensive reading on Muslim movements that could bring out the book.  

This is a very informative work. Sai Deepak has delved deeply into the Islamic Wahabi movement in India to prove that it always had the intention of Jihad with which it wanted to establish an Islamic Caliphate. Muhammed Ibn Abd al Wahab founded this movement. It was later led by Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and later by Syed Shahid Ahmad Barelvi. The Faraizi movement in Bengal founded by Haji Shariatullah which is similar had later merged with the Wahabi movement.

SAI DEEPAKS THOUGHTS ON THE IDEOLOGY OF PAN ISLAMIC MOVEMENTS AND MY COMMENTS ON THEM: 

How to deal with the Pan Islamic movements? Sai Deepak has 3 lines of thought on that 

1.       Sai Deepak-Indic consciousness must revive its own ability to produce society based institutions and individuals who can constantly and uncompromisingly advance the Indic civilizational cause and space.

My comment: That means Sai Deepak wants to straight jacket Hinduism merely based on an assumption that non institutionalization of Indic consciousness has led to vivisection of India. On the contrary, for me the vivisection and bifurcation of India has helped the country to stem the rot that has set in by pitting one religion against another. The most virulent proponents of the theme have left the country. If that population had been present in India it would have been chaos today. Partition had been a case of unmitigated benefit and a boon for present day India. Such strong Indic consciousness as Sai Deepak indicates would turn more people towards religion. Religion is an intensely personal thing and depends on the faith of the believer and it should not be dictated by anyone or any institution. If that is done, then the result would be the same as what happened to Islam. That religion had been totally distorted by commentators and its original simplicity was lost.

2.       Sai Deepak-The importance and criticality of Indic oriented state power must not be undermined, since that gives the society the means to implement and amplify civilizational goals.

My comment: This is a joke on Sai Deepak’s thinking. Is he indicating a Hindu theological dictatorship for that? So what Sai Deepak wants is Hindu institutions modelled on the ways of Islam. For all his brilliance he has fallen prey to this.

3.       Sai Deepak-Creating a civilizational safe space in the immediate neighbourhood of Bharat is imperative so that pax indica becomes a reality, at least in the sub-continent, before we aspire for the Vishvaguru status.

My comment: This is a joke. Why should we aspire for a Vishwaguru status? Let us first lift the remaining people out of poverty and insecurity before we aspire to teach others. And then how does Sai Deepak think we would be able to create a civilizational space in the neighbourhood? Forget about creating anything, right now we have differences with Pakistan obviously because of ideology and can never bridge that gap ever. So Sai Deepak can forget about pax indica which is a myth.

MY CONCLUSION: Sai Deepak is brilliant, but he is trying to prove something by assumptions here which just does not get him anywhere. What I wonder is, how can such a brilliant guy lull himself into believing something impossible as possible? Is he trying to fool himself, or is he trying to fool others? With this exposition of his, my respect for the guy has come down a notch. I still respect him as a brilliant intellectual, yet he let his thought go astray as he has some pre conceived notions which he holds supreme and he tries to use his amazing intellect towards building a thought process on Indic consciousness based on his thinking. So what he is professing to do is to formulate an Islamic Wahabi like movement in Hinduism while he criticises the Islamic one.  

To get into a discussion with Sai Deepak on this topic and besting him is impossible because he is extremely erudite on the subject, and Saraswati (for the believers because I am an atheist) sits on his tongue and words pour out of his mouth like a torrent with great and unmitigated power. A most brilliant speaker but despite all that reading and intellect he goes by strong pre conceived notions to prove what he believes as the truth.

 

ABRDIGED MATTER FROM SAI DEEPAK’S WORK-BHARAT INDIA PAKISTAN.

The Wahabism comprises of 4 tenets 1. Montheism, 2. Ijtehad which says right of interpretation was given to the Muslims, 3. No intercession which means they do not believe in mediators like the saints, 4. Innovation- the Wahabis condemn any sort of innovation and oppose the other religious practices. They oppose ceremony and even the celebration of the Prophets birthday. They oppose tomb worship and veneration of peers.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi is the son of Shah Abdul Rahim one of the founders of the Madrasah Al Rahimiyah in Delhi. Dehlavi mentions in his work Tafhimat-i-Ilahiyya that swords should not be sheathed till Allah has separated Muslims from Polytheists and the rebellious Kafirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless.

The point Sai Deepak is making from this is that Islam, even in India had always been opposed to other religions and had never been accommodating as some secular scholars lead us to believe.

Sai Deepak did his Engineering from Anna University at Madras and then did his Law from IIT, Kharagpur. He was the counsel for Lord Ayyappa in the women’s temple entry case.

Dehlavi as part of his teachings exhorted Muslims of the Sub Continent not to integrate into society, since contact with Hindus would contaminate their Islamic purity. He mandated that the Muslims of the Sub Continent follow the customs of the Arabs as they were the original followers of the Prophet.

Dehlavi translated the Quran into Persian, thereby making it understandable to people who did not know Arabic and the official language of the Mughal Empire was Persian. According to Dehlavi it is Jihad that makes Islam the most perfect of all revealed religions, as it had enabled the Islamic Prophet to conquer territories.

Dehlavi also took forward the work of Syed Ahmad Sirhindi, a contemporary of Akbar. Sirhindi strongly espoused the cause of Islamic reformation and revivalism by seeking to re-establish Islam  in Bharat in its most pristine form through strict adherence to the Shariat and by purging it off its heresies such as Sufi mysticism and its attendant un-Islamic practices. He sought imposition of Jizya on Hindus and exhorted Muslims to subordinate non-Muslims instead of integrating with them.

While Sirhindi lived in the old Mughal times when Akbar flirted with other religions, Dehlavi lived in modern times, but this did not prevent him from being as orthodox. Dehlawi considered the Muhammed of Ghazni as Islam’s greatest ruler. He wrote letters to Ahmad Shah Abdali inviting him to attack India and conduct a Jihad. Of course neither the Nizam to whom Dehlavi also wrote, nor Abdali gave any credence to his writings and ignored them.

After Dehlawi’s death, his son Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi took the leadership of the movement. In 1803 after British gained control of Delhi from the Marathas he issued a Fatwa- Fatawa-e-Azizi which declared Bharat to be a house of war in control of the infidels. The fatawa took note that while the Christian rule extended from Calcutta to Delhi it left the religious affairs of Muslims untouched.

The Fatawa created a confusion among Muslims in North India, the other parts of India gave rise to Pan Islamic movements.

The Faraizi movement that finally led to the partition of Bengal in 1905 was founded by Hazi Shariatullah of Faridpur. Around 1820 he started a movement in Bengal similar to the Wahabi movement in Arabia. Shraiatullah declared Bengal under British rule as Da al-Harb, which is portrayed as a movement against the British by Islamic scholars but it also included the breaking of Idols of Hindu deities, destruction of Hindu temples and slaughter of cows.

After Shariatullah, his son Muhsinuddin Ahmad (Dudh Mian) took up the movement and extended its influence. He rallied the peasants (predominantly Muslim) against the landlords (predominantly Hindu) and the English. The movement was shown as a rebellion against the British by contemporary scholars just like in the case of Moplah rebellion.

The Faraizi movement later merged with the Wahabism then under Syed Ahmad Barelvi. Barelvis disciple Mir Nisar Ali led the Wahabi movement in Bengal.

The Wahabi movement flowered under Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi up till 1831. Barelvi was born in 1786 at Rai Bareli and he was the 36^th direct descendant of Hasan, the son of Ali ( son in law of the Prophet). Barelvi came under the tutelage of Dehlawi’s son  Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi. He was also initiated into the Quadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya sufi orders by Shah Abdul Aziz. 

Barelvi after becoming Khalifa joined as a preacher and mercenary under the Nawab of Tonk named Amir Khan Pindari who himself was a well-known mercenary at that time. He gained a reputation of a camp sage after the preaching he undertook. However, the rising power of the Sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh and also the British made it difficult for him to continue as a mercenary. He then quit and returned to Delhi in 1817. The members of the Dehlawi family of this time like Maulana Abdul Hai and Maulana Muhammed Ismail (Dehlawi) were taken in by his personality and his approach supported him and asked him to resume his preaching. They became his close companions. Ultimately as his grandson and other relations were following Barelvi, Shah Abdul Aziz was forced to accept Barelvi as his father’s successor for restoring Tariqa-e-Muhammadiyyah in Bharat knowing fully well that Barelvi preferred means was a physical or armed Jihad.

The growing clout of the Sikhs worried Barelvi. He began emphasizing a large-scale militarization of the Muslim community and led by example by bearing arms on his person. Barelvi created a vast and organized network carefully chosen stationary and roving preachers by establishing a permanent centre at Patna. There he appointed 4 Caliphs and a High Priest. These Caliphs were sent to different parts of Bharat to Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad, Bengal and Bihar to spread his message and attract more Muslims to his cause.

From Patna Barelvi travelled to Calcutta in 1821 which led to the absorption of the Faraizi movement into Wahabism. However, the growing power of the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh troubled him no end. To check this Barelvi followed what Dehlawi did and urged the Nizam of Hyderabad, Prince Kamran of Herat, Amir Nasrullah of Bukhara and the Pathan tribes in the Northwest Frontier province to liberate Bharat from the British as well as the Hindu infidels.

Of these only the Pathans of NWFP heeded him as also the Bengali Muslims who travelled to NWFP to participate in the Jihad against the Sikhs called by Barelvi. Barelvi now left for the NWFP where he issued Fatwa for Jihad against the Sikhs. This began a series of bloody battles starting with the battle of “Akora” between the Wahabis and the Sikhs. These went on till the annexation of Punjab in 1847 by the British after Ranjit Singhs death in 1839 and Barelvis death at the battle of Balakot in 1831.

Barelvi wanted to liberate Kashmir from the Sikhs but was foiled in his attempt by the Sikh Commander Hari Singh Nalwa. Before this, by June 1830 the Mujahadeen under Barelvi made significant progress and had Peshawar under their control and the Wahabi state so formed had an army of 1,00,000 soldiers. This naturally posed a threat to Ranjit Singh who used his diplomatic skills to bring a schism between the Pathan and non Pathan Muslims which culminated in a bloodbath between the 2 factions in which Barelvi barely escaped with his life. Finally in May 1831 at the battle of Balakot (remember the Balakot airstrikes) Prince Sher Singh led the Sikhs where Barelvi was beheaded. Also killed in the battle were Shah Ismail Dehlawi and Sayyid Ahmad of Rae Bareli.

Growth of the Wahabi Movement after Barelvi (1831-1858):

After the death of an Icon like Barelvi and other influential men of Balakot, the Wahabi movement should have  withered away. However, Barelvi put up an excellent network in place to propagate the movement. The Ali brothers (Wilayat ali, Enayat Ali) from Patna (not to be confused with the Jinnah brothers) took over the movement after the death of Barelvi. The brothers propagated the movement very well and ensured its continuity up till 1915. 

While Wilayat Ali focussed on expanding the movement in Bombay and the South, Enayat Ali propagated it in NWFP and Bengal which finally led to the partition of Bengal on religious lines. Enayat Ali exhorted the members of the movement to avoid all forms of interaction and transaction with kafirs including the state apparatus set up by the British.

At the Patna centre students who showed aptitude for Islamic studies were educated in it, whereas those who are more inclined to action were sent to the NWFP to take part in the war against the infidels.

The Ali brothers intensified their action after the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839 when the British were pre occupied with the Afghan war till 1842. Enayat Ali was sent by Wilayat Ali from Bengal to NWFP to conquer back the territories lost to the Sikhs in 1831. Accordingly by 1846 Balakot and 22 other forts were captured by the Wahabis. Wilayat Ali too left Patna and moved to NWFP for a showdown with the British who have by this time established their dominance over the Punjab.

The Wahabi campaign started with the battle of the Doob pass which proved disastrous for the Wahabis. It resulted in the surrender of the Ali brothers to the British who were sent to Patna in 1847 and asked not to move out of there for 4 years. However, by 1850 both the brothers moved back to the NWFP. Till that time the British were not aware of the extent of the Wahabi movement.

In 1852, treasonable correspondence from the Wahabis to the British troops was transmitted, specifically to the native infantry stationed at Rawalpindi. This opened the eyes of the British to the extent of the Wahabi problem. Then Lord Dalhousie decided for a war on the NWFP and also a number of British Muslim soldiers were convicted for treason.

By this time the Ali brothers developed a difference of opinion with Wilayat Ali felt that the English are better organized than the Sikhs and therefore should not be confronted without adequate preparation but Enayat Ali disagreed with it. Enayat then moved to another place and came to take charge only after Wilayat’s death. When Enayat tried to implement his program he could get nowhere as his brother had been right and after a series of defeats by the British he died of starvation as a disgruntled man in 1858.

Enayat’s ill prepared campaign made the British aware of the Wahabi network all over India. Before he died the Sepoy Mutiny broke out, and it was believed by the Indian leaders that the Wahabis of NWFP sided with the mutineers, but that was not the case as the movement’s wars started immediately after the death of Wilayat Ali in 1852 itself. The Wahabis attacked the British before and after the mutiny but stayed out during the most important part of the mutiny. 

The aloofness of the Wahabis in 1857 was consistent with their belief that Bharat was Dar al-Harb as long as it was ruled by non-Muslims and the British, Hindus and Sikhs were infidels in their eyes. The Wahabis were the first to originate an organized attempt on a large scale to drive out the British from India, but their grounds were religious and not nationalistic

After the death of Enayat Ali, the leadership of the movement fell on Ikramullah, Nurullah and Mir Taqi. After the Sepoy Mutiny was supressed, the British handled the Wahabis of NWFP very firmly with 20 expeditions and 60,000 troops and they have clamped down on everything in Patna so that no flow either of men or money flows to the Wahabis of NWFP. Despite this as the movement was widespread through most of Northern India it took many years for the British to put them down and even then there were minor incidents in 1915 as well.

Section 124(a) of the constitution which deals with Sedition had been brought in with a view to the Wahabi movement. Nevertheless, the movement may have been supressed by the British, but not its ideology. The trials of the Wahabis in 1863 and after drew a lot of public attention and attracted more Muslims towards themovement despite not being able to participate in the movement on account of the law of sedition. So, they in turn did not call themselves Wahabis but founded their own respective movements based on it.

These spin off movements  avoided naming Syed Ahmad Barelvi and instead opted for Dehlawi and reiterated their commitment to the two pillars of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith and discarded the un Islamic variants of Sufism. Some of these movements went on to establish Madrassas to institutionalise the teachings of Dehlawi. Some of them did not oppose the British as long as the British did not touch their beliefs and practices. Some few others went on to establish institutions that blended Islamic education with English education. The Ahl-i-Hadith, Deobandi, Barelvi, Nadwah and the Aligarh movements fell into this category. 

Of course these Sunni reformist movements had their own differences in ideas, but their basic idea is to purge Sufi excesses and Shia/ Hindu influences from the practice of Islam with a long term goal of restoration of Islamic sovereignty over Bharat.

The following are the individuals and the movements that have come out of that churn.

1.       Maulana Syed Mohammed Nazir Husssain Muhaddith Dehlavi (1805-1902) founded the Ahl-i-Hadith movement along with Nawab Sidiq Hasan Khan Bhopali at Patna.

 

The Ahl-i-Hadith movement formed in 1864 from Tariqa-i-Muhammadiyyah/Wahabi movement and established separate mosques, madrasas and seminaries. After the 1857 struggle it became clear to Nazir Hussain that physical jihad against the British was suicidal and this movement was founded to avoid being branded them as Wahabis. They expressed vehement opposition to shrine based Islam of veneration of Pirs/Muslim saints and sufi practices pitted them against the other major movement the Barelvi. 

In a short span of time this movement rose to become one of the most important theological seminaries in Northern India. As of 2005, it had 400 madrasas in Pakistan which are linked to the Lashkar e Tayyiba. It also produced the Ahl-i-Quran movement whose founder Maulvi Abdullah Chakralawi rejected even the authority of the Hadith and made Quran the only authority in Islam. 

2.       Maulana Mohammed Qasim Nanuwatavi (1833-1879) Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi founded the Deobandi movement  which was modelled on Dehlawi’s Madrasah-i- Rahimiyah.

This movement actively rejected un-Islamic sufi mysticism and also Shia/Hindu influences were actively rejected. It became actively involved in the politics of the North West Frontier Province. In 1919 the political wing of the movement the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) was established. By 1924 it had a strong presence in Peshawar which led to the establishment of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Sarhind for NWFP. Allegations were made on Hindu shopkeepers in Nowshera of misbehaving with Muslim women. Hindus were declared enemies of Islam and were economically boycotted. By 1936 Hindu girls were being abducted, converted to Islam by force and married to Muslim men. By 1945 the movement split into JUH and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Pakistan (JUI-P). The JUI-P had leaders like Shabbir Ahmad Usmani one of the leading lights of the Pakistan movement and was one of the founders of Jamia Milia Islamia.

In the 1980’s the JUI-P split into JUI-F & JUI-S. It was in JUI-S, the future leaders of Taliban like Mullah Omar were educated. Pakistan had become a Barelvi-Deobandi state. The golden age of Deobandi’s arrived with the rise of Taliban in 1979 which led to a Deobandi-Wahabi alliance with the arrival of Osama Bin Laden. For Kashmir the Deobandis created the terror outfit Harkat-ul-Ansar.

Many Deobandis went to establish their own movements. In the 1920’s Maulana Mohammed Ilyas founded the Tablighi Jamat. It believed in taking Islam out of the seminaries into the society.

Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi founed the Jamat E Islami party in 1941. According to him Jihad was central to Islam because Islam’s stated objective was to alter the social order. He therefore believed that for the welfare of humanity Muslims had an obligation to destroy all states and governments that were opposed to the ideology of Islam and this was the essence of Jihad. For him dance, music and art are remnants “Jahilliyya “ or ignorance. Mawdudi (a distant relative of Syed Ahmad Khan) initially opposed partition because it would divide the Muslism of the sub-continent. After partition, he moved to Pakistan and founded Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan. He supported the Taliban against Russian invasion and also supported Zia Ul Haq’s policy of turning Pakistan into a Shariat compliant state. 

With over 30,000 seminaries the world over, the Deobandi movement is the most influential that drew inspiration from Dehlawi.

3.       Ahmad Raza Khan (1856-1921) founded the Barelvi movement.

The movement was founded as a reaction to both Ahl-i-Hadith and Deobandi movements on their negation of saints or pirs and shrine based Islam. Another founder Raza Khan rejected Jihad against the English as they were found to accommodate Islam. 

4.       The founders of Nadwatul Ulama movement in Lucknow founded by a group of Ulema and Muslim officials in the employ of British.  Mohammed Ali Mungeri is one of them. It looked up to Dehlawi. This movement is not against English as it felt that people from England and the US had to be converted to Islam later. The focus of this school was defence of Islam from the west and from Hindu resurgence. 

5.       Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) founded the Aligarh movement is one of the earliest proponents of the two nation theory.

 

PROPHET MOHAMMED & ISLAM.

 

Islam is much misunderstood by many of its followers now, but when it was first propounded it was a simple religion which taught ethical behaviour to its followers.

Before Prophet Mohammed came on to the scene, the Arabs were peaceful Semitic Sheppard’s who inhabited and roamed the Arabian Peninsula. They were nomadic pastoral tribal societies split into numerous tribes. Each of the tribes had their own religion and way of worship.

Prophet Mohammed was born at Mecca in 570 AD as Ahmed but was later known as Mohammed which means ‘He who will be praised.” He was the son of Abdullah & Amina and was a camel driver. He was an epileptic and suffered from spells of unconsciousness when he dreamed strange dreams and heard the voice of Angel Gabriel.

Khadija Bint Khuwaylid was born into the Arsitocratic clan Asad of the Quraysh tribe. She was a rich merchant by herself and was considered as a noble personality in her tribe. She first employed Mohammed to manage her caravan in Syria, but later impressed with his skills, had offered to marry him which he accepted. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old, while Khadija was 40. She was the first convert to Islam.

The couple had 2 sons; Qasim and Abdallah and 4 daughters; Zaynab, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum and Fatima.

At Mecca, Mohammed started telling his neighbours and others that he was the long expected prophet sent by Allah to save the world. His neighbours laughed at him and hated his speeches, but Mohammed continued them and one day they decided to kill Mohammed as they regarded his as a lunatic and public bore.

Mohammed came to know about the plot and in the dark he fled to Medina with his most trusted pupil Abu Bakr. This happened in the year 622 AD when Mohammed was 52 years old and is considered as the important date of Hegira by the Muslims.

Unlike Mecca, the people of Medina did not know Mohammed and were more willing to listen to his teachings. He named his faith as Islam or “The submission to the will of God” which Mohammed praised as the highest of all virtues. Soon his following increased and for 7 years he preached at Medina.

Then, in 629 AD, he marched his followers across the desert and they took Mecca easily, and when a number of its residents were killed by Mohammed’s followers, they could easily convince others that Mohammed is a great Prophet.  From that time till his death in 632 AD, Mohammed was successful in whatever he had undertaken.

Mohammed had 13 wives with the eldest being Khadija and the youngest, Aisha.

Why did Islam succeed so well?

Firstly the Arabs had numerous Gods with their own way of worship. They were a tribal people and their religion was rudimentary.

Islam was a simple religion and was superior to any religion that was practiced in Arabia at that time.  The disciples were told to love Allah, the ruler of the world, the merciful and compassionate. They must honour and obey their parents. They were warned against being dishonest to their neighbours and were asked to be humble and charitable to the poor and the sick.

They were ordered to abstain from strong drinks and be frugal in what they ate. There were then no priests in Islam. The mosques were just large stone halls without benches or pictures where the faithful could gather to read and discuss the chapters from the Quran. The average Muslim was not restricted by the regulations of an established Church. He turned his face towards Mecca 5 times each day to recite a simple prayer.   

As you can see from what it said then, Islam remained a simple religion and had inculcated morals and ethics of behaviour.

Secondly, the Muslims had been successful in their warfare against the Christians because the Prophet promised that anyone who died fighting the enemy would go directly to Heaven. It gave an enormous advantage to the Muslims over the crusaders who in contrast were in dread of the dark world hereafter.

After putting the people around him in order and making his religion popular in the region, Mohammed then began to enjoy the power of being the undisputed ruler of a large number of Arab tribes. Then he favoured the rich people by a number of regulations. He allowed men to have 4 wives. As an ordinary person could then (perhaps even today) maintain only one wife with his resources, this move was obviously aimed at the richer classes. Slowly, the simple religion meant for the tribal communities of the desert got transformed to suit the needs of rich merchants.

Mohammed went on preaching Islam and proclaiming new rules of conduct till his death in 632 AD due to a fever. He was then 62 years old.

As long as Khadija was alive, Mohammed did not take a 2^nd wife and did so only after her death. Mohammed married his 3^rd wife Aisha (daughter of Abu Bakr) in 619 AD when she was 6 years old and Mohammed was 50 years old. Their marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. Before the marriage Mohammed reportedly said that he saw Aisha twice in his dreams and an angel told him that she would be his wife.

When Aisha’s hand was asked for marriage to Mohammed, Abu Bakr hesitated but later agreed. Aisha’s engagement to another boy was cancelled for the sake of Mohammed’s marriage to her. Aisha is regarded in the Sunni tradition as intelligent, inquisitive and scholarly and contributed in the transmission of Mohammed’s sayings for 44 years after his death.

She is credited with having narrated some 2000 Hadiths on Mohammed’s personal life and also on legal, ritual and theological subjects. Her knowledge of poetry, medicine and Islamic jurisprudence was praised by Islamic scholars. She was active in Islamic discourse during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr, Uthman & Ali.

After Mohammed, Abu Bakr became the first Caliph for 2 years and was succeeded by Omar who in less than 10 years conquered Egypt, Persia, Phoenicia, Syria & Palestine and made Damascus the capital of the first Islamic empire. Omar was succeeded by Ali the husband of Fatima the daughter of Mohammed.  

However, a quarrel broke out on a point of Muslim doctrine and Ali was murdered in 661 AD. The Muslims then split into Sunni & Shia. After his death, the Caliphate was made hereditary and the spiritual head became the head of a vast empire and this is known as the Ummayed Caliphate. A new city Baghdad was built by them and the capital was shifted to that city from Damascus. The Arab armies marched and in 700 AD, a general by the name of Tariq crossed the sea and reached Gibraltar ( Gibel al Tariq) in Europe.

11 years later in 711 AD, Tariq defeated the king of the Visigoths, and then the Muslim army moved northward following the path taken by the Carthaginian general Hannibal, crossed the Pyrenees and defeated the Duke of Aquitania near Bordeaux and marched on to Paris. However, in the year 732 AD, the Muslim armies were defeated by the Frankish chieftain Charles Martel and Europe was saved from the Muslims. Charles Martel drove them out of France but they maintained themselves in Spain where Abd ar Rahman founded the Caliphate of Cardoba which became a great centre for science and arts in medieval Europe. This kingdom known as Moorish kingdom so called because the people came from Mauritania lasted for 700 years.

It was only after the conquest of Granada (by Ferdinand Aragon & Isabella Castille in Spain), the last Muslim stronghold in Europe in 1492, Columbus received the Royal Grant for his journey. Of course, the Muslims regained their strength with the new conquests they made in Asia and Africa.   

AP ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS 2024.-MY COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY PARAKALA PRABHAKAR -THE WIRE MAGAZINE.

Parakala Prabhakar comes from a staunch Congress family. Both his father and mother had been Members of the Legislative Assembly representing the Congress. His father held cabinet positions 3 times in the AP Assembly.

Prabhakar is from Narasapuram and he did his BA from Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada. Then he did his MA and M Phil from JNU, Delhi. He later took his doctorate from the London School of Economics in 1991. 

Parakala Prabhakar and Nirmala Sitharaman met when they both were studying at JNU and got married in 1986. On political ideology, they are dead opposed to each other. Although Nirmala Sitharaman never makes any public statement against his beliefs, Parakala Prabhakar overdoes that and is highly critical of her party, the BJP. Despite his vehement criticism, the marriage endured for 29 years now and that is a testament to her patience because I have not seen her giving a single public comment about his political views while he excels at it. Each to their political opinion, and no one bothers but when they start airing their opposing political views in public then it can lead to many interpretations.

After education Prabhakar never took up any job despite being a Phd from London School of Economics and chose to remain merely as a political commentator. He was a communications advisor to the YSRCP Government between the years 2014-2018. He is called an Economist but I have not seen any of his works as an economist at all. He is only good at criticism and offers nothing constructive. His prominence was merely because he is the husband of Nirmala Sitharaman. Had that not been so, probably no one would have noticed him.       

Parakala Prabhakar chose to write a note on the Assembly elections of AP held in 2024 titled “Is there Mischief Behind the Miracle of the 2024 Polls”.

Now as for my political belief, I prefer Jagan to Chandrababu as CM, however, truth is truth and it cannot be seen through the political spectrum and get colored accordingly. I strongly feel Parakala Prabhakar had done a grave injustice to truth by this article and want to put the position straight by commenting on it below:

Before we go to examine the issue of the allegations of Parakala Prabhakar, let us take the figures first from his own write up. Because based on those, he wove a web of concocted stories trying to implicate the Election Commission in malpractices. 

I give a link to his article below:

https://thewire.in/government/is-there-mischief-behind-the-miracle-of-the-2024-andhra-pradesh-polls

As per his own figures

But before commencing on the critique I have to admit that the Election Commission, be that of AP or the ECI has committed a monumental blunder in announcing figures without properly taking in the figures reported and consulting each other. I cannot say whether the blunder is from the AP EC or the ECI because they are contradicting themselves because the former said it was 68% by 5 PM, while the latter said it was 68% by 8 PM. So both the figures cannot be correct and one of them has to be compulsorily wrong. This is fact that cannot be denied and such uncoordinated actions by the state and National Commissions is totally improper and it gives chances for such interpretations like that of Parakala Prabhakar. All one needs is one inconsistency like in this case and the issue can be blown up to accuse the EC itself of favouring one party at the expense of the other.   

The figure that initiated all this controversy was the voting figure released by the AP EC as 68.04% up till 5 PM on that day. On this figure he did not give any press statement or apress note or a tweet, but merely stated it to the press.

Now let us have a look at the figures                     

Before we go to examine the issue of the allegations of Parakala Prabhakar, let us take the figures first from his own write up. Because based on those, he wove a web of concocted stories trying to implicate the Election Commission in malpractices. 

But before commencing on the critique I have to admit that the Election Commission, be that of AP or the ECI has committed a monumental blunder in announcing figures without properly taking in the figures reported and consulting each other. I cannot say whether the blunder is from the AP EC or the ECI because they are contradicting themselves because the former said it was 68% by 5 PM, while the latter said it was 68% by 8 PM. So both the figures cannot be correct and one of them has to be compulsorily wrong. This is fact that cannot be denied and such uncoordinated actions by the state and National Commissions is totally improper and it gives chances for such interpretations like that of Parakala Prabhakar. All one needs is one inconsistency like in this case and the issue can be blown up to accuse the EC itself of favouring one party at the expense of the other.   

The figure that initiated all this controversy was the voting figure released by the AP EC as 68.04% up till 5 PM on that day. On this figure he did not give any press statement or apress note or a tweet, but merely stated it to the press.

Parakala Prabhakar, in his haste to prove the EC guilty takes the flawed figure of 68.04% given till 5 PM as the basis of his entire calculation. This figure was never put out as a tweet or as any press release by the AP EC. He merely mentioned it to the press reporters who were eager to grab it and transmit it all over.  

Another important number Prabahkar puts in the AP ECs mouth on which his entire calculation is based is that large voter queues are there only in 3500 booths. What the EC of AP mentioned was that even at 5 PM large queues of voters are there in many booths and he never mentioned that figure of 3500. Parakala Prabhakars entire calculation is based on these 3500 booths which never came out of the EC’s mouth. Only some officials indicated this 3500 figure to the press. Some official telling something to the press is not official news coming from the EC of AP.  

Prabhakar also assumes that polling has concluded at 11.45 PM and bases his Calculation on that. The ECI never said that polling had concluded when it gave a press release on the 11.45 PM figures.

If these factors are taken into consideration, then Prakala Prabhakars theory falls flat on its face. No doubt the EC of AP quoted a polling figure of 68% till 5 PM, while the ECI said it was 68% only by 8 PM. Such mistakes are not at all expected from poll bodies at the state and the centre and they have certainly bungled on that.

The ECI had been very consistent on reporting of poll percentage as 68.12% at 8 PM, 76.5% at 11.45 PM and finally 81.79% at conclusion. There is no such thing as only 3500 booths on which Prabhakar fully bases his calculation on.

Also regarding the small differences in reporting, consider this. Each EVM is a standalone machine and is not attached to any other by way of either a connecting chord or a Wifi. The isolation of the EVM’s has been deliberately done by the EC because they should not present any chance of getting hacked online.

That means each booth has to manually report the figures to the polling station in charge. He/she in turn would have to report the figures to the AP EC and the reporting is not automatic. Obviously the EC of AP would have software to collate all the individual data that is coming in from the polling stations.

But the weak in this chain is the Polling station in charge who has to manually feed the data into the software supplied by the AP EC or get it fed by another person because the EVM’s cannot be linked to any other device. At the time of this entering of data mistakes can take place because there are 46,389 polling stations and that many individuals feeding the data.

Based on that, intermediate duration data would never be accurate because different booths can have different voting patterns with each of them registering voting at different times and also reporting at different times. So the intermediate data is only an approximation and can never be perfect. So the ECI, to make sure that such interpretations as that of Parakala Prabhakar arise due to doubt and also bias, and has to make sure that either they report the data or the concerned state EC’s do it. If both lack the coordination, then it would end up only in such a fiasco.  

Then there is another important factor which Prabhakar has conveniently forgotten or chose to ignore deliberately. Each booth has agents of all major parties and the EVM’s after completion of voting are sealed in their presence.

The sealed EVM’s in turn are moved to highly guarded strong rooms in the district in the presence of party agents and the rooms are sealed in their presence. The strong rooms are again opened in the presence of party agents. So how can any malpractices or tampering can be done in this operation?  Unless, of course the agents of all parties compromise at all the strong rooms in unison and the officials too collude in it. Is such a thing possible without a leak from thousands of people? The chances for this not even 1 out of 1 crore or even more.

So, yes there are inconsistencies in the statement by the state Commissioner for AP and the Election Commission, and that should be condemned for creating a doubt in the minds of the people, but that does not compromise the election in any way at all.   

SINGAPORE THE ASIAN TIGER-HOW IT GOT THERE?

 

Singapore is a great country/city in the world and there is none to equal it in many ways. Singapore consists of 63 islands. It has a population of 61 lacs and is multi religious and multi ethnic with Buddhism being the leading religion with 31% following it. 20% people do not follow any religion, 19% follow Christianity, 16% follow Islam, 9% follow Taoism & 5% follow Hinduism.  On ethnicity, 74% are Christian, 14% Malay & 9% Indian. That means there are 550,000 Indians in Singapore of which 198,000 are Tamils. Tamil is one of the official languages of Singapore. 

If one checks the countries in the world with over 100,000 in population, then the list on nominal per capita is headed by Ireland with USD 129,132, followed by Switzerland with USD 111,047 and the 3^rd place is taken by Singapore with USD 94,481. Of course among the bigger countries the US stands unequalled on nominal per capita with USD 89,599. Singapore is also ranked as one of the most expensive cities in the world for expatriates & foreign workers. Singapore is the world’s 3^rd least corrupt country after Denmark & Finland. Incidentally on this corruption index, of the 180 countries India is ranked 96, Pakistan 135, Bangladesh 151, the 178, 179 & 180 ranks go to Venezuela, Somalia & South Sudan respectively.   

On PPP per capita Singapore is the country with the 3^rd highest in the world with USD 157,000 only after Monaco & Liechtenstein where the latter 2 are very small countries with about 40,000 populations each. Singapore is the only country in Asia with a sovereign credit rating of AAA from all major rating agencies. There are only 10 such countries in the world on AAA rating and 8 of them come from Europe and the rest 2 are Australia and Singapore.

Singapore was supposedly founded by Sang Nila Utama, a prince from Palenbang in Java in 1299 AD. It was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom. It was originally known as the Kingdom of Singapura. After coronation Nila Utama’s official adopted title was Sri Tri Bhuvana. Singapore in the 14^th century was known as Temasek and was part of the Indosphere.

                            INDOSPHERE IN ORANGE. 

Indosphere is a term used for areas of Indian linguistic influence in the neighbouring Southern Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian regions. It is commonly used in linguistics in contrast with the Sinophone languages of the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area of the Sinosphere.

In the 14^th century Singapura’s  ruler Parameswara was attacked by the Javanese or Siamese kingdoms and was thrown out. In 1613 AD Portuguese raiders burned down the settlement. For the next 2 centuries Singapore was under the Johor Sultanate and the Dutch conquered it when they conquered Malacca in 1641 AD. The British arrived in the island in 1819 and the then the sultan of Johor gave them rights to establish a trading post in return for USD 5000 per year. In 1824 another treaty with the British made the entire island a part of the British Empire. When the British first arrived in 1819 there were hardly 1000 people living on the island. By 1860 this has boomed to 80,000. Later Singapore grew rapidly.

In the 2^nd World War the British suffered their worst defeat in Singapore when 60,000 British forces surrendered, and 5000- were killed and wounded. The British forces planned to liberate Singapore in 1945/46, but by that time the war ended on account of the Atom bombs. The British, Indian and the Australian forces under Mountbatten accepted the surrender of the Japanese forces.

Much of the infra of Singapore was destroyed during the 2^nd World War, Shortage of food led to malnutrition, disease and rampant crime and violence. A series of strikes crippled the economy. However, by late 1947 the economy began to recover.

The failure of Britain to successfully defend Singapore in the war made the image of the British tarnished in the eyes of Singaporeans. On 1^st April 1946 Singapore became a British crown colony. During the1950’s the Chinese Communists waged a war in the state. In 1959 the British agreed to give full independence to Singapore except in defence and foreign affairs. This happened days before the general election when the PAP (People’s Action Party) party of Lee Kuan Yew won a landslide victory.

Lee was an outstanding scholar and earned a double starred first class honours at Cambridge which showed his consistent academic excellence.  He was also a brilliant lawyer who defended radical students and postal and port workers at the same time not losing the confidence of the establishment.  In 1959, when PAP won 43 seats out of the total 51, Lee himself drove his car to the Government house to be sworn in as PM.

Singapore had strong links with Malaya (now Malaysia) and the PAP leaders believed that their future lay with Malaya. In 1961 Malaya offered a federation named Malaysia of which Singapore would also be a part with high autonomy. Singapore accepted that after a referendum. Indonesia was against this arrangement.

However, in this federation Singapore was discriminated against and there were lots of political and economic differences between Malaya and Singapore. In August 1965 Singapore separated from the Malaysian Federation and became an independent country with Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister.

In 1967 Singapore co-founded the ASEAN. Lee’s emphasis on rapid economic growth, racial integration, promotion of business entrepreneurship and curbs of democratic freedoms by governing with extensive legal powers shaped Singapore’s policies for the next half a century.

Steady Economic growth continued throughout the 1980’s at 8% with the unemployment rate falling to 3% and continued till 1999. Lee’s government developed Singapore port into one of the world’s busiest ports and service and tourism industries also expanded significantly during this period.  

The PAP under Lee has remained in power since 1959 and is the political party in power with the most longevity in the world. 

As usual opposition political parties view the PAP as having tight regulation of political and media activities along with its stringent laws as an infringement on political rights.

In 1990 Goh Chok Tang became the 2^nd PM of Singapore after Lee. Goh had to face two crisis’s; the 1997 Asian Financial crisis & the 2002-04 SARS outbreak. In 2004, Lee’s son became the 3^rd PM of Singapore. After mismanagement of the economy by him the PAP had the worst victory in the elections ever in 2011. Of course that was a good 60% vote share though. In 1968 elections the PAP had the best ever tally of 87%. Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015 brought back the PAP with a 70% vote share in the elections held that year. In 2024 Laurence Wong of the PAP became PM.

The PAP stormed into power in 1959 and has never looked back since. In 1968 it won with a massive 87% vote share and no party could ever defeat them till now. That is the real magic of Lee Kuan Yew. PAP ruled Singapore for 67 years in succession without a single defeat and the least percentage of vote share they ever got in an election was 60%.

How did that happen? Singapore was described by a British politician as a “Pestilential and immoral Cesspool”. From there it transformed itself into a powering tiger marching forward nonstop.  

This was because of the amazing first leadership of Lee Kuan Yew provided to Singapore, which built a lasting legacy that could not be erased from people’s minds. When he died in 2015 Singapore mourned the loss of a great leader which shaped its destiny. But he must have died a truly happy man for his achievement of making Singapore a great country and gave his countrymen what they wanted. That is a glorious death which is not possible for everyone.

But he was pretty strict in Singapore and also authoritarian. The sole opposition MP J.B. Jayaretnam at one time was ruined by continuous lawsuits. A political activist spent 32 years in detention. Lee believed that good governance did not depend on human rights or liberal democracy. I am completely with him on that. He never accepted the press as a guardian of the nation as he felt the media houses were too corruption ridden.

Tom Abraham was India’s first High Commissioner to Singapore. He was a lifelong friend of Lee. He said of Singapore that he knows about all the beatings and tortures and what happened in Singapore but despite all that the PAP has done a remarkable job. No doubt about that at all because the worst vote share PAP got in their elections was 60%. So, there is not a shred of doubt about their delivery. 

Singapore is one of the 4 countries in the developed world to retain the death penalty. Apart from it, only the USA, japan and Taiwan have retained it. Singapore levies a death penalty for drug trafficking on which Amnesty and Human Rights Watch cry hoarse about. They want human rights for drug traffickers.

This is what AI says about Lee; 

"Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding father, was a notoriously tough, pragmatic leader who transformed a vulnerable, resource-poor island into a global economic powerhouse. He wielded significant, sometimes authoritarian power, acting as a "benevolent dictator" to enforce discipline, root out corruption, and drive rapid modernization, often using an "iron" will to secure the nation's survival." 

I personally think that the policies followed by Lee were perfect for a developing country. While for a developing country, providing living security and governance to its population should become the primary task and freedoms should take a backseat.

For a developing nation the priorities are different with policies hinging on development with selective curb on freedoms. This does not mean that dissenting people should be tortured but certainly they should be dealt with firmly because they act against the larger goal set for the country. 

China succeeded because of following this policy and so did Singapore while great colonial powers like the UK and France which had immense resources at their command could become prosperous only in hundreds of years while both Singapore and China took far less than a hundred.    

Once the country develops then the security issue gets sublimed with that of freedoms and then they become important. Having no freedom for a developed nation is bad and the people would be disillusioned.

Amazingly Lee visited India 17 times during his tenure starting in 1959. In contrast he visited China only in 1976. When the then Chinese premier gave him a copy of “India’s China War” of Neville Maxwell telling Lee that it was the correct version,  Lee politely returned the book stating that it was Chinas version and there was another Indian version.

Lee was a man who recognised India’s potential even before Indians themselves did. It was he who introduced India to the ASEAN. 

Even before the ASEAN he wanted involve India in the region and suggested to Indira Gandhi that India should enforce a Monroe like doctrine to Asia. 

He warned south East Asian students in 1962, with China rising, unless India emerged “Asia would submerge”. He attributed his strategic vision to Nehru and KM Panikkar. He spoke with reverence of Indian civilization and that it played a role in Asia as Greece and Rome have done in Europe. He always alluded to Singapore’s Sanskrit name Singapura. For him Nehru was his failed God who failed because of allowing populist politics to erode his promise.

 

HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN SLEEP SAFELY IN AN AIRTIGHT AIRCONDIONED ROOM FOR 8 HRS.

 

Once I had a discussion with someone as to what happens if the doors of room are kept closed for a long time with a person inside it. How long would he be able to sustain his breathing? When I enquired on that I found the following facts.

A room can be of different sizes and can contain different quantities of Oxygen. Let us take a room of 10*10*10 (length 10 feet, width 10 feet & height 10 feet) with an area of 1000 cubic feet or 28.31 Cubic Mtrs.

The density of air is 1.225 Kg/m ³. So a room of 1000 ft³ would have 28.31*1.225 or 34.68 Kgs of air. Now we think that air is weightless, so this weight surprises us.  

Air contains 21% Oxygen, so a room of 1000 ft³ would have 34.68*21/100 or 7.28 Kgs of Oxygen. 

A person consumes about 700 gms of Oxygen in 24 hours’ time or thereabouts. So if he sleeps in a completely closed room (air conditioned) with an area of 1000 ft³ without opening the doors then the Oxygen in the room would be sufficient for 7280/700 or 10 days. But there are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. 

Humans consume only 5% of Oxygen per breath and of the 21% we breathe in 16% is exhaled out as the human body does not require it. So as long as the concentration of Oxygen in the air does not drop below one fourth there would not be any discomfort for a person in a completely sealed room that is airtight. 

However, there is another important factor to be considered and that is Carbon Dioxide because we give out CO2 while breathing out. Atmosphere contains .043% of CO2. 4% CO2 in the air is dangerous for humans and 10% is fatal. Each inhalation of ours gives out .04 gms of CO2.  An adult inhales 0.5 ltrs of air per breath while at rest. Exhaled air consists of 4% CO2. 

Considering the above factors, It has been estimated that in a closed room of 1000 cubic feet a person can remain safe for 2-3 days. So if 6 people sleep in such a room that is air conditioned which is airtight for a night (8 hrs) they would have no problem. Since the area of the room is so small, no way more than that number can sleep in it. An air conditioner does not make any difference to the equation as it only compresses the refrigerant and transfers the heat in the room outside and merely circulates the air in the room and does not bring in any fresh air. But even if the door of the room is opened once air from outside the room flows in and extends the safe time.

IRAN-ITS HISTORY & POLITICAL EVOLUTION.

 

Iran is quite a large country with about half the area of India but with a population of just 9.25 crores. It has borders with 7 countries; Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan of which 4; Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan & Afghanistan are major. Its nominal GDP for2025 was 357 Billion USD and the Per Capita was 4074 USD.

Iran is home to one of the world’s oldest continuous major civilizations with settlements dating back to 4000 BC. Iran was a part of the Assyrian state, and when that declined an Iranian state was established by the Medes in 612 BC.

The Achaemenids united all the Iranian tribes between 580 and 559 BC under Cambyses I. Under his son Cyrus II, also known as Cyrus the Great they defeated the Medes and established a unified Iranian state. By about 500 BC the Achaemenid empire stretched right from Turkey to Afghanistan and even into part of Egypt and also included parts of the Arabian peninsula and Central Asia.

This was the Persian Empire which was defeated by Alexander in 330 BC. After Alexander’s death his general Seleucus Nicator took control of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey and established the Seleucid dynasty. The Parthians challenged the Seleucid rule in Iran and wrested its control in 142 BC. Parthian power ended when Ardeshir II established the Sasanian empire in 224 AD. This dynasty ruled Iran and much of Middle east before the Muslims arrived on the scene in the 7^th century AD.

After the fall of the Sasanian Empire in 651, the Arabs of the Ummayed Caliphate (descendants of the first Caliph Omar) adopted many of the Persian customs. Arab provincial governors were mostly Persian.  Persian remained the court language of the Caliphate till about the end of the 7^th century AD when Arabic replaced it. However, entire Iran could not be brought under the Caliphate and the Daylam region and the Tabaristan region was under local kings who could not be subdued and together they defeated an Arab general.

Later anti Umayyad insurrections were supported by non-Arabic Islamic converts who were resentful as they were relegated to lower social standing. In one of these revolutions the Abbasids who were descendants of Mohammed’s uncle Abbas overthrew the Umayyad’s in 750 AD and established the Abbasid caliphate. The power of the Abbasids decreased by the 10^th century AD and there was an establishment of several independent Iranian dynasties.  

Then came the Seljuk Turks in the 11^th century AD and took over the Iranian region. The Seljuk Empire fractured in 1157 AD. The Islamization of Iran was a long process. The Muslim population of Iran was 40% in the mid-9^th century but it went up to 90% by the end of the 11^th century AD. Despite the Persians adopting the religion of their conquerors, they worked to protect and revive the Persian language and culture and Arabs and Turks participated in this process.

In the early 13^th century the Mongol hordes descended on the caliphate which finished off the Abbasid caliphate completely by 1258 AD. Later the Mongol Empire got fractured after the death of the Great Khan and the region including Iran fell to Hulegu Khan. There was a cultural renaissance and his descendant Ghazan Khan converted to Islam in the late 13^th century turning it away from the other Mongol khanates. After him, his nephew Abu Said became the Khan and when he died in 1335 AD, the Kingdom was fractured into several small kingdoms when black death arrived and killed 30% of Iran’s population. 

Timur  founded the Timurid dynasty in 1370 AD. He came from a Turkified tribe of Mongols. He invaded Iran in 1381 AD. He was most brutal and ordered the complete massacre of Isfahan killing 70,000 people. The Timurids ruled Iran till 1452 AD.

The Safavid Empire was founded by Shah Ismail in 1505 AD is considered as the beginning of the modern Iranian history. The dynasty unified Iran as a cohesive entity under Persian rule and as Shia Islam as the official religion. The Safavids ruled from 1501 AD to 1722 AD and had a brief restoration from 1729 to 1736. The Safavids ruled Iran with an iron hand in a despotic fashion.

The rival Asfaharid dynasty was established by Nadir Shah (1736-1747) & Zarid dynasty by Karim Khan( 1751-1777). Nadir Shah is described as the last great Asiatic military conqueror. His Empire at the maximum extent encompassed Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Oman, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, North Caucasus & the Persian Gulf. 

Although he sacked Delhi and looted the Peacock throne and the Kohinoor, India was not a part of his Empire because neither he nor his heirs ruled Delhi.  The Qazar dynasty took control of Iran in 1789 AD under Agha Mohammed Shah and unified Iran.  

In the 19^th century following the Russo Persian wars Iran lost significant amount of territory in the Caucasus to the Russian Empire. Britain then got involved in Southern Iran to counter the Russian presence in the North. This power struggle resulted in poor governance and culminated in the Great Persian Famine of 1870-71 which killed a significant portion of Iran’s population numbering millions.

In 1921 in a coup the Qajar dynasty was replaced by the Pahlavi dynasty founded by Reza Shah. He believed in an authoritarian government that valued nationalism, militarism, secularism and anti-communism with strict censorship and state propaganda.

Reza Shah introduced many socio economic reforms reorganising the army, government administration and finance. He ruled for 16 years before he was forced to abdicate by the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 overwhelming the weak Iranian army.

His rein brought in law & order, discipline, central authority and modern amenities like schools, trains, buses, radios, cinemas and telephones. However, his rein was perceived as a corrupt police state with only outward modernization. Reza Shah was deposed by the Soviet  Anglo alliance and they replaced him with his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. From that time (1941 AD) onwards till the revolution in 1979, Iran was ruled as an autocracy under the Shah with strong American support.

Shah initiated economic, social, agrarian, and administrative reforms to modernize the country which became known as the White Revolution. Many Islamic leaders criticised those initiatives and the land reforms had mixed results.

By 1978 the Shah had become widely unpopular among the Iranian people. Daily demonstrations destabilised the region and the Shah established martial law to curb the opposition. When hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrated, the security forces opened fire on the agitators in an incident that is known as Black Friday. In this incident about 100 protestors were killed and 200 injured by the army firing in Jaleh Square in Tehran.

The protests then grew and included 10% of the area of the country and involved 1% of its population. Anger with the Shah was so great that even secular and leftist groups supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution despite not sharing any of his ideas. Ultimately the Shah fled Iran and Khomeini who was then in exile was invited to come back. 

Khomeini on return claimed to support free democratic elections. On 31^st March 1979 a referendum was held in Iran seeking the people’s preference for an Islamic regime. The answer as per the official announcement was that a 97% yes. But no impartial observers from outside were allowed to oversee the elections, so despite it being a positive vote, it is very doubtful if it was actually 97% as stated. Anyway it is a yes for the theocratic regime due to the hatred of the people towards the Shah.  

The referendum mandated the creation of an assembly to draft a new theocratic constitution by which Khomeini became the Supreme leader in December 1979.  Industries were nationalised, laws and schools Islamized and Western influence was restricted.

In Sep 1980, the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran initiating the Iran-Iraq war. The war continued till 1988 when Khomeini accepted a truce mediated by the UN. The war killed 500,000 people and Saddam Hussein freely used chemical weapons against the Iranians.                

On his deathbed in 1989, Khomeini appointed a reform council which proclaimed Ali Khameini as his successor. President Rafsanjani concentrated on a pro business policy of rebuilding the economy. He supported free market favouring a privatization of state industries and took a moderate position internationally.  

In 1997 Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate Khatami as President who advocated freedom of expression, good diplomatic relations with Asia and the EU and a policy that supported free market and foreign investment.         

The year 2005, brought the hardliner Ahmadinejad to power as the President. He had hard line views on nuclearization, on relations with Israel and other countries.

In 2013 the centrist Rouhani was elected as President. He agreed to a Joint Comprehensive Plan in Vienna in 2015 between Iran & the P5+1 (UN Security Council + Germany) and the EU. The talks are about ending economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran’s cap on enriching Uranium.

In 2018 Trump withdrew from the deal and new sanctions were proposed on Iran. In 2020 IRGC General Suleimani, the 2^nd most powerful man in Iran was assassinated by the US, and in retaliation Iran rained missiles on the US airbases in Iraq. On Jan 8 2020 the IRGC shot down an Ukrainian International Airlines flight killing 176 civilians.

Hardliner Ibrahim Raisi was elected President in 2021. During his term Iran enriched its Uranium further and joined SCO and BRICS.  In 2024 Raisi was killed in a copter crash and Pezeshkian got elected as the President.

The weakening of Iran’s key allies and proxies since 2023 has left Iran isolated. In 2025 Iran was rapidly advancing its nuclear program. Iran and the US entered into negotiations for a new nuclear agreement but nothing came out of it. 

In June 2025 IAEA found Iran non-compliant with regulations. Totally disregarding that, Iran then announced the launch of another nuclear enrichment facility. 

On 13^th June 2025 Israel launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities killing top members of Iran’s military leadership. Thereafter in June 2025 itself, the US struck Iran’s nuclear facilities and Iran attacked the US bases in Qatar. On 24^th June Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on the insistence of the US.   

Since Dec 25 Iran has experienced mass demonstrations across many cities against the Islamic Republic due to frustration with the economic crisis. By Jan 13 some 12000 demonstrators have been killed by the regime after blacking out the internet.   

There was a regime change in 1979 when the regime killed only 100 people and I wonder what the people of Iran would do now when so many people have been killed.

A study of the economy of Iran clearly points out how detrimental to economic development the Islamic regime had been.

Under Shah the per capita income of Iran had been 344 USD in the year 1969, 10 years before the revolution. By 1979, the year of the revolution, this has gone up to 2352 USD. That means it has gone up by 683% in 10 years or 68% a year.

In contrast the Islamic regime started with a fair per capita of USD 2352 in 1979 and by the year 1989, 10 years after the revolution, it has actually come down to 2124 USD which means it declined by 10% in those 10 years decreasing about 1% each year.

On a long term average between 1989 and 2023 the per capita of Iran has gone up from 2352 in 1979 to 4465 USD in 2023. That is a growth of 90% in 34 years or about 2.5% per year. Clearly the Islamic rule has pushed Iran into an abyss and made the economic life of the people miserable. No doubt the sanctions on Iran badly affected its economic situation. However, that alone is not the sole contributing factor for the decline and the Government policies too are negative and affected it. 

Between the years 2014 and 2024, in 10 years Iran’s GDP has fallen from USD 460 billion to USD 437 billion.

When this sort of growth rate is there for a country and then it registers a huge fall in its currency rate coupled with 40% inflation, then it is disaster time for a country and its people. One can only pity all those people whose life had been made hell by the Islamic regime.

It is very convenient to push all the ills to sanctions, but how a country in such a precarious economic condition could fund militant groups outside the country and supply them with arms to fight Israel. So for that regime religion is much more important than people and people do not matter at all except for giving excuses. The regime wants to fool the people with lies and continue on their religious agenda.