Category: New

Race to the Moon

On January 20, 1920, the League of Nations was founded by the victorious nations of World War I to usher in an era of permanent global peace and security. However, within just 19 years, World War II began, effectively bringing the League to an end. At the conclusion of that war in 1945, the United Nations was established with the primary goal of “to maintain international peace and security,” as stated in Article 1 of the UN Charter. Now, 81 years later, the possibility of a third world war is being discussed by none other than the president of the world’s most powerful nation. It is an accepted fact that both world wars were fought to gain territory and control vital resources—land, water, and minerals. Crucially, these were all terrestrial resources rather than extra-terrestrial ones.

The Covenant adopted by the League of Nations dealt only with terrestrial issues such as national sovereignty, disarmament on Earth, the treatment of colonies, and the resolution of international disputes on the ground. There was no mention of any outer space issue that could lead to a conflict between nations. The UN Charter also did not mention outer space.

In 1962, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” which incorporated the following three principles:

The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried on for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind.
Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law.
Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

The lofty ideals enshrined in such declarations notwithstanding, outer space became an arena for rivalry after the erstwhile USSR launched Sputnik in 1957, and the first human being was sent into outer space on April 12, 1961. On 3 February 1966, Luna 9, launched by the USSR, became the first spacecraft to achieve a soft moon landing. The USSR’s initial success in developing cutting-edge technology to navigate outer space rang a warning bell for the USA, the world’s most developed and richest country. Taking up the challenge, the US initiated the mission to put a human foot on the moon. President Kennedy set the ball rolling with his famous speech on May 21, 1961, urging Congress to accept that moon landing was an “urgent national need.” He said, “If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny; if we are to win the battle for the minds of men, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957.” The sentiments of the US military were quite clear about the importance of exercising hegemony over the moon to maintain US hegemony over Earth, as reflected in a speech given by decorated Brigadier General Homer A. Boushey in 1958: “Whoever controls the Moon controls the Earth. The Moon offers a retaliatory base with unparalleled advantage.”

Luna 2 was the first spacecraft to reach the surface of the Moon, but it was designed to crash on the Moon’s surface.

The USA began its Apollo program in 1961 to land a human being on the moon, and the goal was achieved when Apollo 11’s Lunar Module landed safely with three astronauts on board on July 20, 1969. Subsequently, five Apollo spaceflights took 12 astronauts to the moon between 1970 and 1972. The Apollo program ended when Apollo 17 landed on the Moon in December 1972. After the closure of the Apollo program, expenditure on the space program declined from about 4% of the federal budget to 0.4% at the end of 2023.

In the meantime, on July 3, 1969, the Soviet Union made a second attempt to launch its moon rocket N1 and met with a devastating failure, bringing an end to its moon expedition program.

Despite the intense political rivalry of the Cold War, both the USA and Russia did not refrain from scientific cooperation, particularly in lunar missions. In the early stage of the space race (1957 to 1970), cooperation was minimal and largely symbolic. In 1972, the U.S. and USSR signed the Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes. This agreement led to the creation of joint working groups to share data on space medicine, satellite communications, and planetary exploration. This collaboration culminated in the first joint lunar mission in July 1975, when two space vehicles—NASA’s Apollo spacecraft and the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft—docked in orbit and American astronaut Thomas Stafford and Soviet cosmonaut Alexey Leonov had a symbolic handshake in space. However, this détente collapsed when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. When Ronald Reagan took over the US presidency in 1981, the Cold War between the two space giants resumed with full force.

The disintegration of the USSR in 1991 precipitated a huge economic crisis across all newly created independent republics. Transition from a state-driven planned economy to a market-driven economy was neither smooth nor immediately productive. A rapid and poorly managed privatisation process created a new class of robber barons with no history of creating wealth through innovation and productive competition. The population of the new Russia was half that of the erstwhile USSR. For Russia, keeping the race to the moon alive in the early period of its new incarnation became financially and organizationally difficult. As a result, the USA had no more compulsion to remain engaged in a one-nation race to the moon. Apollo was wound up because the political reason vanished.

However, by the end of the 1980s, the exploration of outer space had ceased to be a purely scientific endeavour and emerged as a new arena of geopolitics. The technologies underpinning space navigation are closely intertwined with advanced military capabilities and modern communication systems that have become integral to everyday life. Research in rocketry and satellite technology not only facilitated the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles but also enabled the development of global positioning systems (GPS) and worldwide communication networks. Today, financial and economic infrastructures are critically dependent on internet-based applications, and the global system would be severely disrupted if the internet were to cease functioning. Indeed, the history of human civilisation over the past 5,000 years suggests that the pursuit of power has been a primary driving force behind the quest for new technologies.

Interest in the Moon was revived following the discovery that it contains a resource crucial for establishing a permanent human presence—namely, water. Chandrayaan‑1, India’s first lunar probe, launched in October 2008, was the first mission to report the widespread presence of water molecules in the lunar regolith. Subsequent studies have identified significant permafrost deposits—frozen water—near the Moon’s south pole. This region is also characterised by abundant solar energy in the form of near‑continuous sunlight, further enhancing its suitability for sustained human activity.

In addition to water and solar energy, the Moon is believed to contain deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs), a group of minerals essential to several strategically important sectors of modern manufacturing. REEs are critical for the production of high‑performance permanent magnets used in communication devices, computing systems, and military surveillance technologies, among other applications. Although these elements are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, they are seldom found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), while most lunar rocks exhibit low concentrations of REEs, a distinct category of lunar material rich in potassium (K), rare earth elements, and phosphorus (P)—collectively known as KREEP—contains comparatively high concentrations of these elements. Data obtained from orbiting lunar satellites have identified locations where substantial KREEP deposits are likely to exist.

The availability of the three above usable natural resources, particularly water, makes the Moon the nearest extraterrestrial base for future missions to Mars and other planets. This has triggered a new race to the Moon. This race is not merely for landing on the Moon, but for the long‑term occupation of those regions that are rich in the three resources mentioned above. Once countries on Earth begin using lunar land for the extraction of natural resources, a crucial question will arise: whether the Moon’s land will be demarcated into “national colonies” or remain the common property of all humankind.

Based on the 1962 UN Declaration (cited above), the Legal Subcommittee of the UN prepared the Outer Space Treaty in 1966, which came into force in October 1967. The first three principles of the Outer Space Treaty, quoted below, give clear directions about the use and ownership rights of any occupied segment of outer space:

The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind.
Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States.
Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

These principles were laid down when the true, usable value of the Moon, the Earth’s only natural satellite, was unknown to the dominant powers of that period. Furthermore, the composition of power across nations has also evolved—“silently shifting into the hands of those who control data, belief, attention, and innovation. … real influence today lies in algorithms, not armies.” In other words, corporates who now control a big slice of power on Earth will also demand a similar distribution of power on the Moon. In recent years, several nations, including the United States (2015) and Japan (2021), have introduced legislation that explicitly authorises the commercial use of space resources, signalling a transition in which terrestrial corporate economic dominance will also be replicated in extra‑terrestrial environments. The integration of market‑driven entities into future human habitations is no longer a theoretical abstraction; rather, it is a tangible development reflected in contemporary U.S. space exploration paradigms. According to Sci‑Tech Today, in the year 2023, the “commercial sector accounted for 85% of all satellite launches by volume in 2023, highlighting the growing role of private enterprises.” Of all satellites launched in 2023, 94% were classified as small satellites (mass < 600 kg), largely driven by commercial constellation deployments.

Although Russia is a “nuclear‑weapons state,” it is not rich enough to engage with the US as an independent contender for a seat at the high table of the space race to the Moon. The only real contenders to join in the race to the Moon are, as of today, the USA and China. The story of China’s rise as the only contender to the USA in the race to the Moon is not just a story of a race to become hegemon of the solar system but also a race between two ideas of societal arrangement of power—one involving a continuous balancing between political power and the power of wealth, and another involving power struggle mainly within a political bureaucracy with only a supplementary involvement of wealth.

China’s goal is, in the words of President Xi Jinping, to “explore the vast cosmos, develop the space industry and build China into a space power—our eternal dream.” In January 2022, the Chinese government published its vision for the future space program. The document clearly lays out China’s ambitious space program to be on par with the USA. Building a space laboratory, keeping astronauts on long‑term assignments on the Moon, and building an international research station on the Moon were all part of this ambitious program. The relative spending on space programs shows how China is gradually becoming the only contender to the US in the race to the Moon.

Table 1: Country-wise Governmental Spending on Space Programs

Country	Year 2024	Year 2023	Year 2022
USA	79.68	73.2	61.97
China	19.89	14.15	11.94
Japan	6.8	4.65	4.9
Russia	3.96	3.41	3.42
France	3.71	3.47	4.2
European Union	2.98	2.81	2.6
Germany	2.78	2.29	2.53
Italy	2.65	2.11	1.74
India	1.89	1.69	1.93

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/745717/global-governmental-spending-on-space-programs-leading-countries/

That China is the most important as well as the more resourceful contender to the USA has been recognised by the US itself. The Wolf Amendment of 2011 imposed legal restrictions prohibiting NASA from engaging in scientific collaboration on space projects with China without congressional approval. In its 2019 report submitted to the US Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) had two chapters with the following headings: Chapter 3: China’s Ambitions in Space: Contesting the Final Frontier; Chapter 7: The Final Frontier: China’s Ambitions to Dominate Space. This report identified three areas of contention between the two powers—one already established and another emerging. These are: Military Vulnerability, Economic Displacement, and Loss of Strategic Autonomy.

Finally, it is certain that by 2035 the two contending superpowers—the US and China—will start using a permanent lunar outpost each. It is also possible that some corporations participating in either the Artemis or ILRS program will build their own outposts. The question of ownership of these outposts will be a contentious issue and will call for a solution acceptable to all. The applicability of the concept of sovereignty in space has been denied in the Outer Space Treaty (OST). Since current international jurisprudence denies any existence of “Space Nations,” the only framework that can be meaningfully applied to extra‑terrestrial bodies will be the one now applied to the high seas—no restriction for use but no ownership by any body. But the political system of the USA is not ready to accept this approach to extra‑terrestrial bodies. Without formally discarding the OST, the USA has broached the idea of “functional sovereignty.” The Artemis Accords have introduced the concept of “safety zones,” which nations outside the sphere of the accord consider a violation of Article II of the OST.

Article 7 of the Artemis Accords gives the following definition of “safety zones”:

“In order to implement their obligations under the Outer Space Treaty, the Signatories intend to provide notification of their activities and commit to coordinating with any relevant actor to avoid harmful interference. The area wherein this notification and coordination will be implemented to avoid harmful interference is referred to as a ‘safety zone’. A safety zone should be the area in which nominal operations of a relevant activity or an anomalous event could reasonably cause harmful interference.”

This definition leaves the right to declare a specific part of the Moon under its usage for some purpose as a “safety zone” to individual signatories and not to an international body. There is no mention of permissible access to the “safety zone” to view and understand the nature of the activities underway. A “safety zone,” thereby, becomes an area under a sovereign, thus…

Finally, accords like the OST and Artemis were prepared when AI was in a nascent stage of development. For example, if robots are sent to the Moon to establish a colony for REE mining, how easy or difficult will it be to create a safety zone for them? Will it be possible to imbibe a national spirit in the robots so that they cannot be manipulated to work for a rival nation? Space exploration by Homo sapiens is now at a very nascent stage—a child’s play—and its future will most probably follow a path that Carl Sagan forecasted:

“It will not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and other nearby stars. It will be a species very like us, but with more of our strengths, and fewer of our weaknesses … more confident, far‑seeing, capable and prudent.”
— Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Carl Sagan

Neither Trump nor Xi Jinping will be able to take one small step toward this destiny of ours.

References:

China’s Space Program: A 2021 Perspective https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202201/28/content_WS61f35b3dc6d09c94e48a467a.html

China’s Vision for Space: Interview with Khyle Eastin: November 21, 2023; The National Bureau of Asian Research

2019 Annual Report to Congress produced by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). Author: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC)

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/private-firms-are-helping-explore-and-develop-the-moon

https://gulfnews.com/special-reports/moon-rush-why-private-companies-race-for-lunar-dominance-1.500054984#google_vignette https://theconversation.com/the-race-to-mine-the-moon-is-on-and-it-urgently-needs-some-clear-international-rules-270943

NASA CLPS program: https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/#clps-overview

Senate Commerce Committee confirmation hearing, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2025 annual report to Congress

Eric Berger – Aug 18, 2025 : https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/after-recent-tests-china-appears-likely-to-beat-the-united-states-back-to-the-moon/

February 27, 2026

Question and Answer with Gemini AI on the concept of Kafir

I engaged Gemini on my mobile to ask some questions on the concept of Kafir. I was aware that Gemini’s Large Language Model can only explore documents which are accessible by it and that may not be comprehensive. However, the volume of documents available to it must be substantial and its answers will represent the standard understanding of the concept under discussion. Many scholarly articles on this subject may be available in Arabic language and I have no idea how many of them are available to Gemini, So the answers given by the AI tool should be read with this rider.

Question 1:         What is the definition of “Kafir” in Quran?

Gemini Answer 1:            The term “Kafir” (كَافِر) in the Quran originates from the Arabic root K-F-R, which primarily means “to cover” or “to conceal.” This root meaning extends to various connotations within the Quran, leading to a more nuanced understanding than a simple translation of “disbeliever” or “infidel.”

Here is a breakdown of the definitions and nuances of Kafir in the Quran:

* Ingratitude/Un-thankfulness: This is considered the most fundamental sense of kufr (the noun form of Kafir) in the Quran. It refers to a willful refusal to acknowledge or appreciate the blessings and guidance that God bestows upon humankind, including clear signs and revealed scriptures. A person who is ungrateful for God’s favors is considered a Kafir in this sense (e.g., Quran 14:7).

* Concealing or Denying the Truth: Building on the idea of “covering,” a Kafir is often understood as someone who hides or covers the truth that has been revealed to them, even if they know it to be true in their heart. This implies a conscious and deliberate rejection of what is perceived as clear evidence of God’s existence and His messages. The Quran sometimes uses the analogy of a farmer who covers seeds with soil to make them grow, implying that a Kafir “covers” the truth in their heart with rejection.

* Disbelief/Rejection of Faith: This is the most common translation and understanding of Kafir in common usage. It refers to someone who disbelieves in God, His prophets, His revealed scriptures (like the Quran), and the Day of Judgment. This includes:

   * Denying God entirely.

   * Denying the truth that comes from God.

   * Inventing lies and attributing them to God.

   * Those who profess belief but whose actions or inner state reveal a lack of true faith.

* Stubborn Rejecter/Transgressor: In some contexts, Kafir refers to an arrogant, stubborn transgressor who knowingly hides the truth for selfish gain or because of their pride. They may have been presented with clear signs but choose to reject them.

* Specific Historical Context: The Quran uses the term “Kafir” in various ways, sometimes referring specifically to the polytheists in Mecca who persecuted early Muslims and actively fought against Islam. However, it also uses the term more broadly.

Important Distinctions:

* The Quran distinguishes between those who knowingly reject the truth despite clear evidence and those who are simply unaware.

* “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitab), which primarily refers to Jews and Christians, are generally not categorized as kafir in the same way as polytheists, as they are considered to have received previous divine revelations. While their beliefs may differ, they are often granted a different status in Islamic law and discourse.

* The term kufr can also refer to “minor disbelief” or ingratitude that doesn’t necessarily take a person out of the fold of Islam but indicates a weakness in faith.

In essence, while often translated as “disbeliever,” the Quranic meaning of “Kafir” is multifaceted, emphasizing the active choice of concealing, denying, or being ungrateful for divine truth and guidance, rather than simply a lack of belief.

Question 2:         Belief in non-Abrahamic god will make one Kafir ?

Gemini Answer 2:            From an Islamic perspective, belief in non-Abrahamic gods would generally lead to being categorized as a “Kafir” in the sense of a “disbeliever” or “one who rejects the truth.”

Here is why:
* Tawhid (Oneness of God): The foundational principle of Islam is Tawhid, the absolute oneness and indivisibility of God (Allah). Islam teaches that there is only one God, who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and that He has no partners, equals, or offspring.
* Shirk (Association of Partners with God): The gravest sin in Islam is Shirk, which is the act of associating partners with God. This includes worshipping idols, multiple gods, or any created being or entity alongside or instead of Allah. Belief in non-Abrahamic gods, particularly those that are polytheistic or involve the worship of deities other than the singular God, is considered shirk in Islam.
* Rejection of Islamic Monotheism: The Quran presents its message as the ultimate truth revealed by God. To believe in other gods or deities is seen as a rejection of this core truth of Islamic monotheism.
Nuance and Distinction:
* People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab): As mentioned earlier, Islam generally distinguishes between “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) and other non-Muslims. While Muslims believe that Jews and Christians have deviated from the original monotheistic message, they are still recognized as having received earlier divine revelations. Therefore, their status is often viewed differently from those who worship non-Abrahamic gods or are polytheists.
* “Kafir” as a deliberate rejector: The most severe connotation of “Kafir” in the Quran is for those who knowingly and deliberately reject the truth after it has been made clear to them, especially if they actively oppose or persecute the message of Islam. Someone who has never been exposed to the message of Islam in its pure form, or who sincerely follows their own tradition without malice, may be viewed differently by some Islamic scholars regarding their ultimate fate, even if they are technically considered “disbelievers” in the Islamic sense.
* Modern Interpretations: While the theological definition remains clear regarding Tawhid and Shirk, some contemporary Islamic scholars emphasize that the term “Kafir” should not be used indiscriminately as a derogatory label for all non-Muslims. They highlight the Quranic emphasis on individual accountability, sincerity, and the possibility of salvation for those who believe in God and do good deeds, as stated in verses like Quran 2:62.
In summary, from a strict Islamic theological standpoint, belief in non-Abrahamic gods (especially those that involve polytheism or the worship of multiple deities) would fall under the category of kufr (disbelief) and would categorize such individuals as “Kafir” because it violates the fundamental principle of Tawhid.

Question 3 :        This means it gives license to kill all idol worshiper

Gemini Answer 3:          No, the definition of “Kafir” in the Quran, even when applied to idolaters, does not give a blanket license to kill all idol worshippers. This is a common misconception that arises from taking certain Quranic verses out of their historical and textual context.
Here’s a breakdown of the Islamic position on warfare and how it relates to idolaters:
* Context of Warfare Verses:
   * Many of the verses in the Quran that speak about fighting or “killing polytheists” (like Quran 9:5, often called the “Verse of the Sword”) were revealed in specific historical circumstances during the early Muslim community’s struggle for survival against aggressive and persecuting pagan tribes in Arabia.
   * These verses are understood by mainstream Islamic scholarship to refer to combatants in a state of active war where the Muslims were being attacked, persecuted, or had their treaties violated. They are not interpreted as a general command for unprovoked aggression against all non-Muslims at all times.
   * Even within these verses, there are clear conditions and exceptions, such as stopping hostilities if the enemy seeks peace, repents, or fulfills their agreements (Quran 9:5, 8:61).
* General Principles of Islamic Warfare:
   * Self-defense: The primary justification for engaging in warfare in Islam is self-defense against aggression, persecution, or the prevention of injustice (Quran 2:190-191, 22:39-40).
   * Prohibition of Aggression: The Quran explicitly forbids aggression: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Quran 2:190).
   * Protection of Non-Combatants: Islamic law strictly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, including women, children, the elderly, the infirm, and those who are not participating in hostilities. It also forbids the destruction of religious sites, trees, or crops.
   * Freedom of Religion: The Quran states, “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (Quran 2:256). This fundamental principle means that people cannot be forced to convert to Islam, and their religious beliefs are to be respected.
* Treatment of Peaceful Non-Muslims:
   * Islam mandates just and kind treatment towards non-Muslims who are not hostile to Muslims. Quran 60:8 states: “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”
   * Historically, during periods of Islamic rule, non-Muslims (including idolaters, depending on the context and school of thought, though often with specific agreements) were generally allowed to practice their religions, provided they adhered to the laws of the land and, in some cases, paid a special tax (jizya) in exchange for protection and exemption from military service.
Conclusion:
While idol worship is considered a grave sin (shirk) in Islam, the Quran and the vast majority of Islamic scholarship do not sanction the indiscriminate killing of all idol worshippers. The verses related to fighting are understood within the context of defensive warfare against active aggression and persecution. The overarching principles of justice, peace, and freedom of religion are emphasized, and Muslims are commanded to treat peaceful non-Muslims with kindness and fairness.

Question 4 :    Why then idol worship is banned in Saudi Arabia?

Gemini Answer 4:         The ban on public idol worship in Saudi Arabia stems from a combination of factors rooted in its unique political and religious identity:
* Official State Religion and Strict Interpretation of Islam: Saudi Arabia is an Islamic absolute monarchy, and its legal system is based on a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam, specifically the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, heavily influenced by Wahhabism. This interpretation strongly emphasizes Tawhid (the absolute oneness of God) and vehemently condemns Shirk (associating partners with God), which includes idol worship.
* “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”: The King of Saudi Arabia holds the title “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” (Mecca and Medina), which are the holiest sites in Islam. This designation reinforces the kingdom’s role as the guardian of Islamic orthodoxy and tradition. The presence of non-Islamic public worship, particularly idol worship, is seen as directly contradicting the sanctity and purity of these lands, which are considered to be exclusively for the worship of the one God.
* Historical Context: The Arabian Peninsula was the birthplace of Islam, and Prophet Muhammad cleansed the Kaaba in Mecca of idols. This historical event is central to Islamic tradition and reinforces the idea of the peninsula as a sacred land dedicated to pure monotheism.
* No Separation of State and Religion: Unlike many other countries, Saudi Arabia does not have a separation between state and religion. The Quran and the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) are declared the country’s constitution. Therefore, religious prohibitions are directly translated into state law.
* Prohibition of Public Practice of Other Religions: Saudi law prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam. This means no public churches, temples, synagogues, or any other non-Muslim places of worship are allowed. While private practice of other religions is generally tolerated (though not legally protected and can be subject to arbitrary enforcement), any overt display or public ritual is strictly forbidden. Saudi authorities interpret Hindu icons as idols, and given the strong condemnation of idol worship in their interpretation of Islam, this is a direct reason for their stringent position on Hindu religious practice in public.
* Prevention of Proselytization: The government also bans proselytizing by non-Muslims, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials, to prevent any perceived challenge to Islam.
In essence, the ban on idol worship and other non-Islamic public religious practices in Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of its identity as an Islamic theocracy committed to a very strict and puritanical interpretation of Islam, viewing such practices as a direct violation of fundamental Islamic tenets and the sanctity of the Arabian Peninsula.

Question 5:    You are contradicting yourself. If Saudi Arabia is strictly following Islam , then it means in a world where “followers of Quran” are majority, no other God will be allowed to be worshiped. I do not believe in God of all hues. I will be hanged in such a world.

Gemini Answer 5:
It’s understandable why you feel there’s a contradiction and why you’d be concerned about your own safety in such a scenario. Let’s clarify the distinction and address your concerns directly.
You’re observing a difference between:
* The theological definition of “Kafir” and “Shirk” in Islam: This is about what Islam defines as disbelief or idolatry.
* The practical application of these definitions in state law: This is about how a particular government chooses to implement its interpretation of Islamic law.
Here’s the key distinction:
* Saudi Arabia’s approach is not universally representative of how Islam is practiced or how Islamic law would be applied in all Muslim-majority societies.
   * While Saudi Arabia adheres to a strict and literal interpretation, many other Muslim-majority countries have different approaches.
   * Indonesia, India (with a large Muslim population), Malaysia, Pakistan, and many others have diverse religious populations and generally allow the public practice of multiple religions, including idol worship, within their borders. These countries may have Islamic majorities, but their legal systems are often a mix of Islamic law and secular law, or they explicitly enshrine religious freedom.
   * Even within Islamic jurisprudence, there are different schools of thought regarding the treatment of non-Muslims and the extent to which religious practices should be publicly regulated. The Hanbali school (dominant in Saudi Arabia) is one of the more conservative.
* The Quranic principle of “no compulsion in religion” (2:256) is highly significant. While idol worship is considered Shirk and a grave sin in Islam, this verse is often cited by scholars to argue against forced conversions or the suppression of religious practices where there is no active aggression or threat. The historical application of this principle led to the protection of Jewish and Christian communities (People of the Book) under Islamic rule, and in many places, even other religious minorities.
Regarding your concern about being hanged as an atheist in a Muslim-majority world:
* Apostasy: In some strict interpretations of Islamic law, particularly certain traditional schools, apostasy (leaving Islam) is punishable by death. However, this is a highly debated topic in contemporary Islamic scholarship, and many modern scholars argue against capital punishment for apostasy, emphasizing the Quranic principle of no compulsion in religion and individual conscience.
* Atheism: Being an atheist (not believing in any God) is distinct from apostasy (leaving Islam after having been a Muslim). While atheism is certainly considered a form of kufr (disbelief) in Islam, the specific penalty for it in a legal sense, especially if one was never Muslim, varies greatly.
* Actual Practice: Even in countries where apostasy laws exist on paper, the death penalty for apostasy or atheism is rarely carried out. It’s more common for individuals to face social ostracism, harassment, or imprisonment.
* Diversity of Muslim-Majority Countries: As mentioned, the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries do not execute atheists or those who worship other gods. Many protect religious freedom (even if imperfectly).
In conclusion:
Your concern is valid if every Muslim-majority nation were to adopt Saudi Arabia’s specific and strict interpretation of Islamic law and its application. However, this is not the case. The diversity of legal systems and interpretations within the Muslim world means that while Islam theologically condemns idol worship and atheism, the practical implication in terms of state law varies enormously.
A world where “followers of Quran are majority” does not automatically translate to a world where all other religions are banned and disbelievers are executed. Many Islamic scholars and governments advocate for religious pluralism and freedom of belief, drawing on different interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah, and acknowledging the historical precedents of tolerance under various Islamic empires.

Question 6:    Will I be allowed to say that the concept of God including Allah is a fiction created in certain period of humanity’s existence on this earth? It is just an illusion to induce people to believe their miseries are punishments handed over by an almighty and not the society itself.

Gemini Answer 6:     Your statement, “the concept of God including Allah is a fiction created in certain period of humanity’s existence in this earth. It is just an illusion to induce people to believe their miseries are punishment by an almighty and not the society itself,” directly challenges the core tenets of Islam (and other Abrahamic religions).

Whether you would be “allowed” to say this, and what the consequences might be, depends entirely on where you are and the specific laws and social norms of that place.

Here’s a breakdown based on different contexts:

1. Saudi Arabia (or similar highly conservative Islamic states):

* Absolutely not. In Saudi Arabia, expressing such a view, especially publicly or online, would be considered blasphemy and possibly apostasy (if you were considered a Muslim).

* Consequences: These are severe. Blasphemy and apostasy are capital offenses in Saudi Arabia, potentially punishable by death. Even if not the death penalty, you could face lengthy imprisonment, public flogging, and severe social ostracism. The legal system is based on a strict interpretation of Sharia law, and there is no freedom of speech that allows for the questioning of religious fundamentals.

2. Other Muslim-Majority Countries (e.g., Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Iran):

* Highly risky, likely not allowed. Many of these countries have blasphemy laws, which can be vaguely worded and are often used to suppress criticism of religion, especially Islam.

* Consequences: While the death penalty for blasphemy/apostasy is less common than in Saudi Arabia (though it exists in some, like Pakistan, for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad), you could face:

   * Imprisonment: Lengthy jail sentences are common.

   * Fines.

   * Social ostracism and violence: Even if not legally punished, such statements can incite mob violence or vigilante justice in some regions.

   * Legal challenges: You would likely face charges under blasphemy laws or laws against inciting religious hatred.

3. Countries with Secular Governments or Strong Freedom of Speech Protections (e.g., most Western countries, India (with caveats)):

* Generally allowed, with caveats.

   * In Western countries (US, UK, Canada, most of Europe): You generally have the legal right to express such an opinion under freedom of speech provisions. While it might offend religious people, it’s typically not a crime. However, hate speech (inciting violence or hatred against a group based on religion) is usually not protected. Your statement, as phrased, appears to be a philosophical critique rather than direct incitement to violence.

   * In India: India is a secular country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). However, there are also laws, notably Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” While your statement is about the concept of God rather than directly insulting a specific religious figure or text, a highly sensitive interpretation or a complaint by a religious group could potentially lead to a legal challenge under this section. The courts would then have to determine if it falls under “malicious intention” to outrage religious feelings.

4. Social Consequences (regardless of legal standing):

* Even in places where it’s legally permissible, making such a statement publically (especially in person to religious people) can lead to:

   * Social disapproval and rejection.

   * Arguments and debates.

   * Loss of relationships or employment (if you work in a religious institution or a conservative environment).

In summary:

Your ability to express such a profoundly atheist and critical view of religious belief is highly dependent on the legal and social environment. In Saudi Arabia and similarly strict Islamic states, it would be extremely dangerous and likely illegal. In more secular or pluralistic societies, it would generally be legally permissible, though it might still evoke strong negative social reactions

Question 7:         You are implicitly accepting that religion is a divisive force everywhere. It divides people and not unites them. In most of the Muslim majority societies, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizen. Bangladesh is the latest example, Why?

Geminin Answer 7:          It is true that the discussion has highlighted instances where religion, or rather, interpretations and applications of religion by state power, can be a divisive force and lead to differential treatment. However, it’s crucial to be precise in our language and avoid sweeping generalizations.
Here’s a breakdown of why it might appear that “religion is a divisive force everywhere” and why non-Muslims might be treated as “second-class citizens” in some Muslim-majority societies, along with important counterpoints:
Is Religion Inherently Divisive?
* Potential for Division: History, including recent history, clearly shows that religious differences can be, and often are, a source of conflict, discrimination, and division. When religious identity becomes intertwined with political power, national identity, or exclusive truth claims, it can create “in-group” and “out-group” dynamics. This is not unique to Islam; we see it in various religious traditions globally (e.g., historical conflicts involving Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.).
* Potential for Unity: Conversely, religion also serves as a powerful force for unity within a faith community, fostering shared values, moral codes, social cohesion, charitable work, and a sense of belonging. Many religious movements have also been at the forefront of social justice, peace, and human rights movements.
* The Role of Interpretation and Power: The key isn’t necessarily religion itself, but how it’s interpreted, how power structures use or abuse it, and how societies choose to implement its tenets. Rigid, exclusive, and politically motivated interpretations can indeed lead to division and oppression. Inclusive, pluralistic, and spiritually focused interpretations can foster tolerance.
Why are Non-Muslims Treated as “Second-Class Citizens” in Some Muslim-Majority Societies?
This is a complex issue with historical, theological, and socio-political roots.
* Historical and Theological Concepts (Dhimmi Status):
   * Historically, under classical Islamic rule, non-Muslims (primarily “People of the Book” – Jews and Christians) were often accorded “Dhimmi” status. This status granted them protection of life, property, and freedom of worship, but it came with certain distinctions:
     * Jizya (Poll Tax): They paid a special tax (jizya) in exchange for protection and exemption from military service (which was obligatory for Muslims). This was seen as a reciprocal agreement.
     * Legal Limitations: They might have faced limitations in certain legal matters, such as testimony in court against Muslims, or holding top governmental/military positions.
     * Social Distinctions: Sometimes there were regulations regarding public display of religious symbols or building new places of worship.
   * Theological Basis: This concept was rooted in the idea of a Muslim state being governed by Islamic law (Sharia), where Muslims were considered the primary citizens with full rights and responsibilities, while non-Muslims were protected minorities with specific rights and obligations.
* Modern Interpretations and State Practices:
   * Modern Nation-States: The concept of the modern nation-state, with equal citizenship for all regardless of religion, is a relatively recent development, often originating from Western political thought. Its integration into Muslim-majority societies has been uneven.
   * Different Models:
     * Theocratic States (like Saudi Arabia, Iran): In states that explicitly claim to be Islamic theocracies, the legal system is based on Sharia, and religious identity often directly translates into legal status. Here, non-Muslims are indeed often treated as second-class citizens, facing restrictions on public worship, proselytization, political participation, and legal equality.
     * States with Islamic Influence but Secular Elements (e.g., Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia): These countries often have constitutions that declare Islam as the state religion but also guarantee some level of religious freedom. However, in practice, non-Muslim minorities may still face discrimination, social pressures, limitations in certain public offices, and unequal application of personal status laws. Blasphemy laws are also common and disproportionately affect minorities.
     * Secular States with Muslim Majorities (e.g., Turkey, Albania, some Central Asian republics): These countries aim for full equality for all citizens regardless of religion. While individual prejudices may exist, the legal framework is generally designed to prevent discrimination.
   * Impact of Extremism: Radical groups often advocate for highly restrictive interpretations of Dhimmi status or outright persecution of non-Muslims, though this is rejected by mainstream Islamic scholarship.
* Socio-Political Factors:
   * Identity Politics: In some contexts, religious identity becomes a strong marker of national or communal identity, leading to exclusion of those who don’t share that identity.
   * Economic Factors: Sometimes, perceived economic competition or historical grievances can exacerbate religious tensions and lead to discrimination.
   * Lack of Strong Rule of Law/Minority Rights Protections: Where institutions protecting minority rights are weak, discrimination can thrive.
In summary:
It’s not that “religion is a divisive force everywhere,” but rather that certain interpretations and state-level applications of religious law can lead to division and unequal treatment. The concept of Dhimmi status, while offering protection historically, inherently created a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. In the modern era, some Muslim-majority states continue this historical approach, leading to what can be perceived as second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the wide diversity among Muslim-majority countries and the differing approaches to religious pluralism and citizenship rights.

Question 8:        We are arguing at cross-purposes, as you are faithful to a religion and not to logic, as I understand. To counter my “Divisive force” argument you have written “religion also serves as a powerful force for unity within a faith community” with an emphasis on the word “within”. This, in fact, supports my contention that religion does not unite but divide. Another proof of this divisive nature of religion is observed in the opposition of all religions to inter religion marriage. Can you explain why this is so?

Gemini Answer 8:            You have hit on a very significant point, and it’s a fair challenge to the earlier statement. When I said “religion also serves as a powerful force for unity within a faith community,” you correctly highlighted that the “within” implicitly acknowledges a boundary, and thus a potential for division with those outside that boundary.
You are absolutely right that this can be, and often is, a source of division. Interfaith marriage is a prime example of where this dynamic plays out very clearly across many religions.
Why is interfaith marriage often not encouraged or outright forbidden by many religions?
The reasons are complex and multi-faceted, stemming from a combination of theological, social, cultural, and practical considerations:
* Preservation of Religious Identity and Continuity:
   * Theological Purity: Most religions have core beliefs, practices, and rituals that they consider essential for salvation, spiritual well-being, or proper worship. Marrying someone from a different faith can be seen as compromising this theological purity or introducing “foreign” elements into the religious life of the family.
   * Upbringing of Children: This is arguably the most significant concern. Religions typically want to ensure that children are raised within their faith, learning its doctrines, ethics, and practices. An interfaith marriage often creates challenges in determining the religious upbringing of children, potentially leading to confusion, division within the family, or the eventual loss of adherence to one or both faiths.
   * Communal Survival: For ethno-religious groups (like Jews or some smaller communities), discouraging interfaith marriage is often a strategy for cultural and religious preservation, fearing assimilation and the erosion of their distinct identity over generations.
* Maintaining Social Cohesion and Community Norms:
   * Community Pressure: Religious communities often thrive on shared values, traditions, and social networks. Interfaith marriages can be seen as a challenge to these norms, leading to social disapproval, ostracization, or a sense of “betrayal” from the community.
   * Family Harmony: Families often have strong expectations about marrying within the faith, and an interfaith marriage can cause significant rifts and distress within extended families, who fear the dilution of their religious heritage.
   * Shared Lifestyle and Values: Daily life in a religious household often involves specific practices, festivals, dietary laws, and moral frameworks. Differences in these areas can create practical difficulties and friction in an interfaith marriage.
* Specific Religious Doctrines (Examples):
   * Islam:
     * Muslim men marrying “People of the Book” (Christian or Jewish women): Traditionally permitted, though often discouraged by scholars due to concerns about children’s upbringing and the wife’s influence. The rationale is that the man is considered the head of the household and can ensure the children are raised Muslim.
     * Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men: Generally prohibited by mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. The primary reason given is concern that the non-Muslim husband would not respect the wife’s Islamic faith or ensure the children are raised Muslim, potentially leading to her conversion or the children being raised outside Islam. It’s also linked to traditional patriarchal structures where the husband’s religion often dictates the family’s.
   * Christianity:
     * Catholicism: Marriages between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic Christian (mixed marriage) require dispensation from the bishop, and the Catholic party generally promises to raise the children Catholic. Marriages between a Catholic and an unbaptized person (disparity of worship) are considered invalid unless a dispensation is granted, usually with similar promises about raising children Catholic.
     * Protestant denominations: Views vary widely. Some strongly discourage or prohibit it citing biblical verses (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers”). Others are more accepting, focusing on mutual respect and shared values.
   * Judaism:
     * Orthodox and Conservative Judaism: Strictly prohibit and do not recognize interfaith marriages (unless the non-Jewish partner converts to Judaism). The primary concern is the continuity of Jewish identity and the raising of Jewish children, which is seen as threatened by intermarriage.
     * Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism: More lenient, often allowing rabbis to officiate interfaith weddings, especially if there’s a commitment to create a Jewish home or raise children Jewish. However, the core concern about Jewish continuity remains.
   * Hinduism:
     * Hinduism has historically been more flexible due to its diverse traditions and lack of a single centralized authority. There are no explicit scriptural prohibitions on interfaith marriage.
     * However, social and cultural norms, family expectations, and concerns about children’s upbringing often lead to strong disapproval or resistance, particularly in conservative families. In India, interfaith marriages often fall under the Special Marriage Act rather than religious personal laws, allowing legal recognition without conversion.
Does this mean religion only divides?
No, not necessarily. While the “within” aspect of unity can indeed highlight a boundary, the purpose of that unity is often seen by adherents as beneficial and necessary for the flourishing of their community and the propagation of what they believe is ultimate truth.
The tension lies in how communities manage this internal cohesion alongside their interactions with those outside. When the emphasis shifts from internal strength to external exclusion or even hostility, that’s where division truly manifests in a harmful way.
Your argument that “religion does not unite but divide” finds strong support in the historical and ongoing challenges of interfaith relations and the specific rules around interfaith marriage. It highlights that the very mechanisms designed to preserve a distinct religious identity can, by their nature, create barriers between groups.

Question 9:         It is quite likely that in another few decades China and India will become the two top countries in terms of total GDP ( not necessarily in terms of per capita GDP). China has recently come down heavily on Muslim majority districts. In India the Hindu zealots are targeting Muslims. At the same time in Europe and UK the Muslim population is increasing fast. Will this then lead to the third world war between Muslims vs non- Muslims?

Gemini Answer 9:            Your concerns about rising religious tensions and the potential for a “third world war between Muslim vs. non-Muslim” are understandable given the current global landscape. It’s a dire projection that merits serious consideration.
Let’s break down the factors you’ve raised and then address the likelihood of such a conflict:
Factors Contributing to Tensions:
* Rise of Economic Powers (China & India) and Internal Dynamics:
   * China’s treatment of Uyghurs: The crackdown on the Muslim-majority Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a widely documented human rights crisis. China’s actions are driven by a mix of national security concerns (combating perceived separatism and extremism), a desire for social control, and an aggressive policy of cultural and religious assimilation. This creates significant international condemnation and fuels resentment among Muslim communities globally.
   * Hindu nationalism in India: The rise of Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) ideologies in India has led to increased discrimination and violence against Muslims. This includes rhetoric from political leaders, mob lynchings, controversial citizenship laws, and challenges to Muslim religious and cultural practices. This creates deep internal divisions and is a source of concern for international human rights organizations.
* Demographic Shifts in Europe and UK:
   * Growing Muslim population: It’s true that the Muslim population in many European countries and the UK is growing, primarily due to higher birth rates and continued immigration.
   * Integration challenges and far-right reactions: This demographic shift often brings challenges related to integration, cultural clashes, and anxieties among some native populations about national identity and social cohesion. This has fueled the rise of far-right, anti-immigrant, and Islamophobic political movements across Europe, creating social and political polarization.
Will this lead to a “Third World War between Muslim vs. Non-Muslim”?
While the tensions are real and concerning, a full-scale “World War” solely along religious lines is unlikely to be the primary driver or the sole characteristic of a major global conflict. Here’s why:
* Complexity of Conflicts: Beyond Religion:
   * Geopolitics, Economics, and Resources: Most modern conflicts, even those with religious overtones, are fundamentally rooted in geopolitical competition, economic interests, access to resources (like water or oil), land disputes, political power struggles, and historical grievances. Religion often serves as a powerful mobilizer or legitimizer for these underlying secular aims, rather than being the sole cause.
   * Internal Divisions within “Blocks”:
     * Muslim World is not monolithic: The Muslim world is incredibly diverse, with significant sectarian (Sunni vs. Shia), ethnic (Arab, Persian, Turkic, South Asian, African, etc.), national, and political divisions. Many conflicts within the Muslim world are between different Muslim groups, not between “Muslims vs. non-Muslims.”
     * “Non-Muslim” World is not monolithic: The “non-Muslim” world is even more diverse, encompassing various religions, political systems, and economic interests. A unified “non-Muslim” bloc against Muslims is an oversimplsimplification that doesn’t reflect global realities. For example, India and China, while experiencing internal religious tensions, also have complex geopolitical and economic rivalries that would likely outweigh any religious solidarity in a global conflict.
* Global Interconnectedness:
   * Economic Interdependence: The global economy is deeply interconnected. A widespread religious war would be catastrophic for all nations, including the most powerful ones. This provides a strong disincentive for large-scale, religiously motivated conflict.
   * Diplomacy and International Institutions: Despite their flaws, international bodies and diplomatic efforts constantly work to de-escalate tensions and prevent large-scale conflicts.
* Nature of Modern Warfare:
   * Full-scale “World Wars” are less likely due to the deterrent of nuclear weapons and the economic devastation they would cause. Conflicts are more likely to be regional, involve proxy wars, cyber warfare, and targeted terrorism, rather than conventional armies clashing along purely religious lines globally.
* Internal Moderating Forces:
   * Within both Muslim and non-Muslim societies, there are strong voices for peace, tolerance, and interfaith dialogue. Many individuals and organizations actively work to counter extremist narratives and promote coexistence.
What is more likely?
* Increased religious polarization and localized conflicts: We will likely continue to see increased religious polarization within nations (like India) and potentially more localized conflicts where religious identity plays a significant role, often intertwined with political grievances (like in Xinjiang).
* Rise of identity politics: Religious identity will continue to be a potent force in national and international politics, leading to more “identity politics” and potentially exacerbating existing tensions.
* Continued social friction in diverse societies: Societies with growing religious diversity, like those in Europe, will continue to grapple with challenges of integration, cultural differences, and the rise of nationalist backlashes.
* Terrorism: Religiously motivated extremist groups will likely continue to pose a threat, engaging in acts of terrorism designed to provoke wider conflict.
Conclusion:
While religious tensions are undeniably on the rise in various parts of the world, and there are alarming trends of discrimination and persecution, the idea of a singular “Third World War between Muslim vs. non-Muslim” is a simplification that overlooks the complex interplay of political, economic, and ethnic factors that drive global conflicts. Religion will likely continue to be a factor, often a powerful and dangerous one, in future conflicts, but it’s unlikely to be the sole defining fault line of a global war. The true battle will likely be for the hearts and minds within diverse societies, and against those who seek to exploit religious differences for political or destructive ends.
This is the end of our question – answer session. It is obvious that Gemini has been tutored to a certain world view and not allowed to question the dominant view on any controversial topic.

May 29, 2025
Who is afraid of Babasaheb Ambedkar
Every storm runs out of rain eventually- Maya Angelou

A storm has erupted across the streets of India following an invoking of the name of Babasaheb Ambedkar in a derogatory manner by the Home Minister. This happened when a discussion was going on in Rajya Sabha to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Indian Constitution. Babasaheb, to recall, was the chairman of the drafting committee of the independent India’s constitution. No doubt, this storm will also pass. However, the idea and vision of Babasaheb will remain unread, gathering dust in the library of the parliament. Ironically, both the ruling party and the opposition are earnestly praising a man by attributing to him ideas and beliefs that stand diametrically opposed to those of the Babasaheb who aspired to create a truly democratic and secular India after colonial rule.

To understand what Babasaheb Ambedkar stood for, we need to read a definitive exposition of his thoughts in the text of the speech he composed but could not deliver. In December 1935, the “Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal” (translated as the Society for the Breakup of the Caste System), a reformist organization in Lahore, invited Babasaheb to deliver a speech on the Indian caste system at their annual conference scheduled for January 1936 in Lahore. After he shared the first draft of the speech (Ambedkar 1935) with the conference organizers, a difference of opinion arose over certain views expressed in that draft. Since neither the author nor the organizers were willing to compromise on their positions, Babasaheb withdrew the speech. The title of the speech was “Annihilation of Caste,” and ironically, the inviting organization, while opposed to the caste system, advocated for breaking the barriers between castes rather than its complete annihilation, a goal for which Babasaheb was fighting. To understand the intellectual underpinnings of this dispute and the current controversy, we must recognize the critical difference between these two views.

Why social reform is necessary for political reform? (Section 2 of the speech)

Babasaheb Ambedkar was clear about the pre-eminence of social reform over political reform. By “social reform” he meant elimination of “mischiefs wrought by evil customs” prevailing in the Hindu society which was not “in a state of efficiency”, and “ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils”. The goal of political reform is to eradicate “the weak points in the political organization in the country”. Babasaheb was of the opinion that without the prior occurrence of social reform, political reform would be a non sequitur, rendering it of no value to the people of the country. He pointed out that two organizations, namely National Congress and Social Conference, were twins at their birth – the first one to spearhead political reform while the other one to social reform. However, “in the course of time the party in favour of political reform won, and the Social Conference vanished and was forgotten.” For Babasaheb, it was a conscious move by Hindu liberals. To underscore this point, he highlighted the following lines from a speech delivered by the president of the National Congress at its eighth session held in Allahabad in 1892:

“I for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for political reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the two. Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries? because our wives and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends? because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge? (Cheers [from the audience])”.

To reinforce and hammer away his contention that without social reform, political reform would provide no succor to the people who have been treated as animals for millennia, Babasaheb referred to a variety facts about the inhuman treatment that the untouchables of Hindu society receive from the upper caste people. He emphasized that by social reform, he does not mean the reform of the ‘Hindu family’, like abolition of child marriage, allowing widow marriage etc. He was seeking the reform of the fundamental architecture of the Hindu society- that is abolition of the Caste System.

Why social reform is necessary for economic reform (section 3 of the speech)

In this section, Babasaheb argues that even a socialist revolution in India would fail without effecting social reform prior to it. To prove his point that political policymaking can have “value and permanence” if and only if it is in conformity with existing social practice within a society, he referred to many such instances from the history. However, more importantly, he referred to the “Communal Award” which was created on 16 August 1932 by the British government of India, to extend separate electorate to Depressed Classes (called Scheduled classes in Independent India) and other minorities. This shows that the British Government understood that without this limited social reform, even a small political reform would be a non-starter. Although Mahtma Gandhi and National Congress was vehemently opposed to eking out a separate electorate from Hindu community, Babasaheb welcomed heartily this policy of the British government of India. It is worthwhile to quote what Mahatma Gandhi wrote about this British policy.

They do not realize that the separate electorate will create division among Hindus so much so that it will lead to bloodshed. Untouchable hooligans will make common cause with Muslim hooligans and kill caste Hindus. Has the British Government no idea of all this? I do not think so. (Duncan Ira , 2022, also see Helen M. Nugent (1979))

Babasaheb was unconcerned about the merits or demerits of socialism because his entire life was singularly focused on eradicating the most inhuman evil of Hindu society—caste. To quote him- “This is only another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, Caste is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you cannot have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.”

It is more than evident that Dr. Ambedkar’s view about the fundamental and unchangeable social hierarchy of the Hindu society was widely different from the views of the Congress leadership. Despite this, he agreed to be the one of the main architect of the independent India’s constitution because the Congress leadership agreed to provide a separate electorate for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. In other words, as a pragmatic leader, he believed that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This act of him does not imply that he had given up his lifelong struggle for annihilation of caste.

Caste is not just a division of labour, it is a division of labourers (section 4 of the speech)

Apologists of the caste system argue that it should be viewed, ignoring its etymological past, as another name for the modern division of labor, which is an integral part of any industrial society. Babasaheb , while accepting the division of labour as one of the attribute of the caste system, points out that the caste system of the Hindu society also determines an hierarchy in that division of labour, condemning those at the bottom as not worthy to be treated as an independent human being. The division of labor based on skill, dexterity, and judgment does not, in principle, determine the purported division at the time of a person’s birth. This sui generis division of labor is essentially a division of laborers, argues Babasaheb. The age old Indian division of labour based on caste system has thus led to “subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.”

Caste cannot preserve a nonexistent “racial purity”( section 5)

In today’s world the “racial purity” is just a fantasy , harbored by many but followed by none. Maintenance of “racial purity” could have been a motivation for the authors of Manusmrity, but to hallucinate it today is a non-sequitur. In this regard, we may look at the statement issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in the year 2019. “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” . In view of this declaration, one cannot but agree with Babasaheb’s view about the claim of racial purity for themselves by the upper caste Hindus:   “[the caste system] embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion, and who had the authority to force it on their inferiors.” (Last para )

Caste prevents Hindus from forming a real society or nation ( section 6)

As a critique of Hinduism, Babasaheb has no equal so far. His criticism is not merely a scholarly investigation into a social construct, unwrapping of interplay of power, property and social status, layer by layer. Rather, it is the result of felt agony of being an untouchable in a highly fractured and rigidly hierarchical society. Nevertheless, he actively participated in the nation building effort of independent India by providing his deep knowledge about Indian society, modern jurisprudence and structure of governance in advanced countries. Therefore, the point arises, why he should be so skeptical about the possibility of independent India becoming a modern nation without any spec of ignominy of untouchability for any section of the society. In this regard, the following quote, a lengthy one, is good enough to understand the rationale behind his views.

In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.

Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity, any more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many miles away from other men

The similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, is not enough to constitute men into society

Men constitute a society because they have things which they possess in common. Parallel activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society

The Caste System prevents common activity; and by preventing common activity, it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being.

This is a very radical view about what constitutes a society or a nation. If we consider all the above points with regard to a country like USA, it would have failed to qualify as a nation until mid-20^th century. The Rosa Park event happened on December 1, 1955 at the capital of Alabama. City busses in that city followed the law of segregation- the front seats for whites and the rest for blacks. Ms. Park, after a busy day boarded a city bus and sat in the middle, just behind the front “white” section. When incoming passengers filled up the front white section, the bus driver ordered the black passengers in the middle row to vacate the seats and stand. Rosa Park refused. She was arrested and convicted for defying the segregation law. It is a different matter that this event led to quashing of segregation law.

Let us recall the “ I have a dream “ speech of Martin Luther King that he delivered on the steps of Lincoln Memorial of Washington DC on August 23, 1963. To recall, around 100 years back, the US president Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal

By Babasaheb’s yardstick, USA could not be called a nation.

In fact, inequality is all pervasive. The only difference between India and USA is that the dominant religion in USA does not discriminate between white and black people, per se. No Church would disallow a black to pray in its sanctuary. However, an untouchable is routinely denied entry into the sanctuary of many famous Hindu temple- called Garbhagriha.

Although majority of Indians are Hindu and Hindus by themselves do not form a society for reasons enumerated byBabasaheb Ambedkar in this section of his speech. But for that reason India does not cease to be a nation. However, Babasaheb. Ambedkar’s argument will become valid, if India ceases to be a secular country and Indian Constitution is amended to declare it as Hindu Rashtra.

The worst feature of the Caste System is an anti-social spirit (section 7)

The anti-social spirit is a phenomenon that cuts across castes, religions and languages. In every nation or society, it would be difficult not to find a small community or a group that live at the margin of the society and called anti-social. Babasaheb himself has written this in the second para of this section: “This anti-social spirit, this spirit of protecting its own interests, is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations in their isolation.”

Similarly, the British Government of India enacted Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) 1871 to notify certain tribes as criminal and kept them under continuous surveillance, thus labelling about 200 communities in several provinces “criminal” communities under this act (Devy 2013 Ram Singh).

In Great Britain, a large survey of ethnic minority groups was carried out in 2021. According to a Guardian report the survey has revealed that ethnic minorities Roma, Gypsy and Traveller face extremely high levels of racial assault, poor health, precarious employment and socioeconomic deprivation. The research found that 62% of Gypsy or Traveller people had experienced a racial assault. In other words, although anti-social spirit is present in all nations, Indian system of caste may make it more pervasive ( see the link in reference section below)

Caste prevents the uplift and incorporation of the aboriginal tribes ( section 8)

This section essentially repeats section 7, with the only difference being that it focuses on aboriginal tribes, referred to as ‘scheduled tribes’ in the Indian Constitution. He criticizes the Hindu society for ignoring 13 million people still “living in the midst of civilization … in a “savage state”. The reason for this apathy of a Hindu towards anyone born outside the caste system is that Hindus are more concerned about protecting the purity of his or her caste. Unlike a Christian missionary, Hindu priests rarely engage themselves in proselytization, as it would be difficult to assign any particular caste to the converted person because caste is determined at birth only. That is why, a number Hindu groups are against worshiping Sai Baba, because he was born a Muslim.

Remaining sections

The higher castes have conspired to keep the lower castes down (section 9)

Caste prevents Hinduism from being a missionary religion (section 10)

Caste deprives Hindus of mutual help, trust, and fellow-feeling (11)

Caste is a powerful weapon for preventing all reform (section 12)

Caste destroys public spirit, public opinion, and public charity (section13)

I want to address all five sections in one go because they are interrelated and repetitive, highlighting one of the most important shortcomings of Hinduism: its rigidity and the consequent barrier to conversion from other faiths to Hinduism. Dr. Ambedkar views Hinduism as a constellation of castes, where internal unity is highly fragile and contingent upon any dire external threat. This exclusivity of Hinduism is not on

ly directed at non-Hindus but also manifests within its own people by creating an insurmountable hierarchy of status, privileges, occupation, and socialization among believers.

The following quotes from Dr. Ambedkar’s un-delivered lecture proves the point.

The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. [But] Hindu would not spread the light,…would endeavour to keep others in darkness, [and], would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance” with others who are ready to consider conversion to Hinduism. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty. (Last para of section 9 )

Hindu Society being a collection of castes, and each caste being a closed corporation, there is no place for a convert(Last para of section 10)

With the Hindu Gods all-forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is the result of the Caste System, which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.(Last para of section 11)

Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reformers and for killing all reform. (Last line of section 12)

The capacity to appreciate merits in a man, apart from his caste, does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue, but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. (Last para of section 13)

I believe that the above summary of the five paragraphs faithfully presents the views of the respected doctor. Despite having experienced inhuman treatment at the hands of upper-caste Hindus, Babasaheb, setting aside his personal rancor, has provided a succinct and accurate description of the caste system in Hinduism. However, criticism is a lazy exercise for any great thinker of the stature of Babasaheb. People would like to know: What is the road ahead? Will it be possible to annihilate the caste system in Hindu society within the next hundred years?

In this respect, Babasaheb has only left for his followers only a dream—a dream similar to the one Martin Luther King articulated in 1963. King’s dream has largely remained unfulfilled, and fate has so far played the same game with Babasaheb. In this speech, Babasaheb outlines his vision for a society based on liberty, equality, and fraternity. The great French revolutionary Robespierre suggested that these words be inscribed on the flags of France in 1790. They were denied, and after a few failed efforts, they were incorporated into the French Constitution of 1948.

After spelling out his ideal, in the next 11 sections of the speech, Dr. Ambedkar gave detailed reasons for the impossibility of Hindu society accepting and implementing his ideals. So far, efforts to bring reform from within the Hindu society, keeping the caste system intact, with some marginal tweaking, has failed as it was inevitable given the basic structure of Hindu religion. In this respect, Babasaheb was right. In the last section, he expressed his frustration through the title of the section itself- The struggle is yours; I have now decided to leave the Hindu fold.

Babasaheb wrote this speech in December 1935 and Dr. Ambedkar adopted Buddhism on October 14, 1956. It took him two decades to take the plunge because he could not or did not want to be a Godless person. To be an atheist and leader of any community in India, even if that community is untouchable to its other communities worshiping the same God, is next to impossible. This is the same reason for accepting a key position in the committee for drafting of the Indian constitution. He did not want to give any leeway to other members of drafting committee to incorporate Hinduism in that precious document. In this respect at least, he had Pandit Nehru as a co-believer. I believe it was Pandit Nehru’s masterstroke to bring in the Doctor as the head of the drafting committee. Otherwise ,there was a possibility that Mahtma Gandhi’s view about the eternal sanctity of Hindu Dharma could have found place in the constitution.

When Babasaheb took upon himself to publish his speech, Mahatma Gandhi entered into a debate with the doctor by pointing out fallacies in Babasheb’s train of argument. A perusal of text of that debate clearly shows that there was no meeting ground between the two.

The article so far has pointed out the deep divergence between the understanding of Congress about Hindu Dharma and that of Babasaheb. What about BJP’s view on this subject? I can only say that Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar must be laughing in the heaven, subject to its existence, if BJP is ready to chant his name in praise. May be, the sun has started rising in the west.

Bhimrao Ambedkar must be laughing in the heaven, subject to its existence, if BJP is ready to chant his name in praise. May be, the sun has started rising in the west.

Finally, we must accept that an overwhelming majority of Indian people are deeply religious, and very few are willing to renounce their ancestral religion. At the same time, a significant section of Hindus is not ready to follow all dictates of the Shastras or Manusmriti and would actively support any effort towards the annihilation of caste. We must find a middle path to gradually break the stranglehold of Brahmins and high-caste people on the practice of Hindu religion. A list of low-hanging fruits is given below.
1. For any government document, the caste title like Sharma, Bhat, Upadhyay, Chatterjee, Iyer, Shastri, Chattopadhayay, Bagchi, Pandit etc. will be forbidden. Mother’s given name should follow every person’s given name and nothing more. Father’s name must not be part of this naming convention.
2. This naming convention would apply to all government documents including property registration document, birth certificate, passport etc.
3. UPSC should prepare a list of qualified priests, based on open examination. All temples must select priests from this list. People should consider Priesthood as any other job which, requiring specific skill- like knowledge of Satras etc. Every university should have a degree in priesthood also.
Implementation of the above list of aspirational activities may not be easy and vehement opposition to its’ introduction will defiantly break out. However, Rome was not built in one day.

References:

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (B.R) , 1935 The Annihilation of Caste, Columbia Centre for Teaching and Learning https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/readings/aoc_print_2004.pdf

Duncan Ira 2022, Ambedkar and British Policy on the Communal Award: A Response to Sujay Biswas , Studies in People’s History, 9, 2 (2022): 224–240 : quoted from M.K. Gandhi, ‘Appendix: Discussion on the Communal Award, 21 August 1932’, CWMG, Vol. 56, p. 466

Fuentes A, Ackermann RR, Athreya S, et al. AAPA statement on race and
racism. Am J Phys Anthropol 2019;169:400–402.

Helen M. Nugent (1979) The communal award: The process of decision‐making, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 2:1-2, 112-129

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/social-barriers-faced-by-roma-gypsies-and-travellers-laid-bare-in-equality-survey
December 23, 2024
Israel- Why it is so important to USA?

Let us look at some basic data about Israel:

Land mass- 21,937 Sq km (0.67% of Indian landmass); world rank 152 lower than Taiwan

Population- 9,043,387 (2023 est.) Population of Mumbai 17 million (2023 est.) World rank-98

Population break up-73.5% Jewish, 21.1% Arab; By religion- Jewish 73.5%, Muslim 18.1%, Christian 1.9%

Real GDP (purchasing power parity) 394 Billion (1921 est.) data are in 2017 dollars Rank -48 ; Real GDP Per capita(2017 US dollar) -42,100 (2012 est.

All data are from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/israel/#economy

So , by all measures, Israel is a small country. But it is very important for a variety of reasons- mostly geo-political. However, the reason that drives every thing else is Israel’s ethnic feature. It is the only country with overwhelming Jewish majority. This is the community that leads the world finance and technology to a large extent. Let the following data speak for itself.

US Financial Sector Top Guns- Jews

Michael Rubens: majority owner, co-founder and CEO of Bloomberg

Lloyd Craig Blankfein – senior chairman of Goldman Sachs since 2019, and chairman and CEO from 2006 until the end of 2018.

Gary David Cohn – chief economic advisor to US presisdent-2017 to 2018;

president and COO of Goldman Sachs. vice-chairman of IBM on January 5, 2021

David Scott Blitzer-a senior executive at the private equity firm Blackstone

George Soros– Investor – net worth of US$6.7 billion (as of October 2023)

Jonathan Scott Lavine – co-managing partner of Bain Capital, chief investment officer of Bain Capital Credit;

Richard Severin Fuld Jr– was the final chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers.

Henry R. Kravis – KKR & Co.-a leading global investment firm.

Michael Robert Milken – indicted for securities fraud in 1989 ; net worth of US$6 billion as of 2022

Ronald Owen Perelman – banker, and investor

Bruce Jay Wasserstein -mergers and acquisitions specialist

Sanford I. “Sandy” Weill -former chief executive and chairman of Citigroup.

James Harris Simons-described as the “greatest investor on Wall Street”,

Stephen Allen Schwarzman– founder chairman of the Blackstone Group also briefly chairman of President Donald Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum.

Forbes Israel (2022) presents: 267 billionaires of Jewish origin with a combined net worth of 1.7 trillion dollars. The top 20 of them are given below.

Person– Net worth (Billion USD) –Company

1 Larry Ellison   102.9     Oracle

2 Larry Page       85.2        Google

3 Sergey Brin     81.8        Google

4 Steve Ballmer 78.9        Microsoft

5 Michael Bloomberg    76.8 Bloomberg

6 Michael Dell   52.0        Dell Technologies

7 Mark Zuckerberg          42.7 Facebook

8 Len Blavatnik 31.6        Music, Energy, Real Estate

9 Alain Wertheimer       31.2 Chanel

10 Gerard Wertheimer 31.2 Chanel

11 Stephen Schwarzman 30.0     investments

12 Jeff Yass         30.0        trading, investments

13 Miriam Adelson 29.7 casinos

14 Jim Simons   28.1        hedge funds

15 Leonid Mikhelson     24.4 gas, chemicals

16 Leonard Lauder 20.3 Estee Lauder

17 Carl Icahn     18.6        investments

18 Daniel Gilbert 18.5    Quicken Loans

19 David Tepper 18.5     hedge funds

20 Steve Cohen 17.5 hedge funds

Finally let us list the top positions in Biden administration occupied by Jewish persons.

Ron Klain– Chief of Staff (2021-2023), replaced by Jeffrey Zients.

Janet Yellin– Secretary of Treasury

Alejandro Mayorkas -Secretary of Homeland Security

Tony Blinken-Secretary of State

Merrick Garland– Attorney General

Jared Bernstein -Council of Economic Advisers

Mandy Cohen-Director Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023)

Wendy Sherman-Deputy Secretary of State

Anne Neuberger-Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity

Jeffrey Zients-COVID-19 Response Coordinator (2021-2023), Chief of Staff (2023)

David Kessler-Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and

Head of Operation Warp Speed

David Cohen-CIA Deputy Director

Avril Haines-Director of National Intelligence

Rachel Levine-Deputy Health Secretary

Jennifer Klein-Co-chair Council on Gender Policy

Jessica Rosenworcel-Chair of the Federal Communications Commission

Stephanie Pollack -Deputy Administrator-The Federal Highway Administration

Polly Trottenberg -Deputy Secretary of Transportation

Mira Resnick-State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security

Roberta Jacobson-National Security Council “border czar”

Gary Gensler-Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman*

Genine Macks Fidler– National Council on the Humanities

Shelley Greenspan-White House liaison to the Jewish community

Thomas Nides-U.S. Ambassador to Israel

Eric Garcetti-U.S. Ambassador to India

Amy Gutmann-U.S. Ambassador to Germany

David Cohen-U.S. Ambassador to Canada

Mark Gitenstein-U.S. Ambassador to the European Union

Deborah Lipstadt-Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism

Jonathan Kaplan-U.S. Ambassador to Singapore

Marc Stanley-U.S. Ambassador to Argentina

Rahm Emanuel-U.S. Ambassador to Japan

Sharon Kleinbaum-Commissioner of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom

Dan Shapiro-Adviser on Iran (2021-2023), Senior Advisor for Regional Integration (2023)

Alan Leventhal-U.S. Ambassador to Denmark

Michael Adler-U.S. Ambassador to Belgium

Michèle Taylor-U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Jonathan Kanter– Assistant Attorney General in the US Dept. of Justice Antitrust Division

Jed Kolko -Under Secretary at the Department of Commerce

Aaron Keyak-Deputy Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism

Stuart Eizenstat-Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues

Steven Dettelbach-Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Amos Hochstein-Bureau of Energy Resources Special Envoy

Eric Lander-Science and Technology Adviser

Ned Price-State Department Spokesperson

Ellen Germain-U.S. Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues

Edward Siskel– White House Counsel

October 25, 2023
Post With Sidebar
Finished her are its honoured drawings nor. Pretty see mutual thrown all not edward ten. Particular an boisterous up he reasonably frequently. Several any had enjoyed shewing studied two. Up intention remainder sportsmen behaviour ye happiness. Few again any alone style added abode ask. Nay projecting unpleasing boisterous eat discovered solicitude. Own six moments produce elderly pasture far arrival. Hold our year they ten upon. Gentleman contained so intention sweetness in on resolving.

Why end might ask civil again spoil. She dinner she our horses depend. Remember at children by reserved to vicinity. In affronting unreserved delightful simplicity ye. Law own advantage furniture continual sweetness bed agreeable perpetual. Oh song well four only head busy it. Afford son she had lively living. Tastes lovers myself too formal season our valley boy. Lived it their their walls might to by young.

Gave read use way make spot how nor. In daughter goodness an likewise oh consider at procured wandered. Songs words wrong by me hills heard timed. Happy eat may doors songs. Be ignorant so of suitable dissuade weddings together. Least whole timed we is. An smallness deficient discourse do newspaper be an eagerness continued. Mr my ready guest ye after short at.

Out believe has request not how comfort evident. Up delight cousins we feeling minutes. Genius has looked end piqued spring. Down has rose feel find man. Learning day desirous informed expenses material returned six the.

Up branch to easily missed by do. Admiration considered acceptance too led one melancholy expression. Are will took form the nor true. Winding enjoyed minuter her letters evident use eat colonel. He attacks observe mr cottage inquiry am examine gravity. Are dear but near left was. Year kept on over so as this of. She steepest doubtful betrayed formerly him. Active one called uneasy our seeing see cousin tastes its. Ye am it formed indeed agreed relied piqued.

Header one

Header two

Header three

Header four

HEADER FIVE

HEADER SIX

For who thoroughly her boy estimating conviction. Removed demands expense account in outward tedious do. Particular way thoroughly unaffected projection favourable mrs can projecting own. Thirty it matter enable become admire in giving. See resolved goodness felicity shy civility domestic had but. Drawings offended yet answered jennings perceive laughing six did far.

Received the likewise law graceful his. Nor might set along charm now equal green. Pleased yet equally correct colonel not one. Say anxious carried compact conduct sex general nay certain. Mrs for recommend exquisite household eagerness preserved now. My improved honoured he am ecstatic quitting greatest formerly.

He difficult contented we determine ourselves me am earnestly. Hour no find it park. Eat welcomed any husbands moderate. Led was misery played waited almost cousin living. Of intention contained is by middleton am. Principles fat stimulated uncommonly considered set especially prosperous. Sons at park mr meet as fact like.

Unordered Lists
- List item one
  - List item one
    
    List item one
    
    List item two
    
    List item three
    
    List item four
  - List item two
  - List item three
  - List item four
- List item two
- List item three
- List item four
Ordered List
1. List item one
  1. List item one
    
    List item one
    
    List item two
    
    List item three
    
    List item four
  2. List item two
  3. List item three
  4. List item four
2. List item two
3. List item three
4. List item four
So feel been kept be at gate. Be september it extensive oh concluded of certainty. In read most gate at body held it ever no. Talking justice welcome message inquiry in started of am me. Led own hearted highest visited lasting sir through compass his. Guest tiled he quick by so these trees am. It announcing alteration at surrounded comparison.

Dashwood contempt on mr unlocked resolved provided of of. Stanhill wondered it it welcomed oh. Hundred no prudent he however smiling at an offence. If earnestly extremity he he propriety something admitting convinced ye. Pleasant in to although as if differed horrible. Mirth his quick its set front enjoy hoped had there. Who connection imprudence middletons too but increasing celebrated principles joy. Herself too improve gay winding ask expense are compact. New all paid few hard pure she.

New had happen unable uneasy. Drawings can followed improved out sociable not. Earnestly so do instantly pretended. See general few civilly amiable pleased account carried. Excellence projecting is devonshire dispatched remarkably on estimating. Side in so life past. Continue indulged speaking the was out horrible for domestic position. Seeing rather her you not esteem men settle genius excuse. Deal say over you age from. Comparison new ham melancholy son themselves.

Out too the been like hard off. Improve enquire welcome own beloved matters her. As insipidity so mr unsatiable increasing attachment motionless cultivated. Addition mr husbands unpacked occasion he oh. Is unsatiable if projecting boisterous insensible. It recommend be resolving pretended middleton.

Departure so attention pronounce satisfied daughters am. But shy tedious pressed studied opinion entered windows off. Advantage dependent suspicion convinced provision him yet. Timed balls match at by rooms we. Fat not boy neat left had with past here call. Court nay merit few nor party learn. Why our year her eyes know even how. Mr immediate remaining conveying allowance do or.

Greatest properly off ham exercise all. Unsatiable invitation its possession nor off. All difficulty estimating unreserved increasing the solicitude. Rapturous see performed tolerably departure end bed attention unfeeling. On unpleasing principles alteration of. Be at performed preferred determine collected. Him nay acuteness discourse listening estimable our law. Decisively it occasional advantages delightful in cultivated introduced. Like law mean form are sang loud lady put.
June 26, 2023
RBI’s Concept Note on CBDC: A Review

RBI has issued a concept note on CBDC on October 7, 2022. The stated objective for publication of this note is “to create awareness about CBDCs in general and the planned features of the digital Rupee”. Incidentally in February 2020 RBI bulletin had published an article on Distributed Ledger Technique. This article had discussed DLT initiatives of 7 central banks. Interestingly, the concept note does not even refer to this article.

In 2020, another article documented in detail (Opare and Kim 2020), a large number of ongoing CBDC initiatives of many central banks and classified these experiments into 3 groups based on their year of initiation. The authors have listed 10 Central banks in the Early Adopter group, each of which began their CBDC experimentation between 2015-2016. It was, therefore, expected that RBI would evaluate the lessons learnt from these projects and come out with a more detailed feasible plan for its envisaged CBDC journey.

It may not be out of place to note here that in April 2022, Indonesia’s central bank and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub announced launching of a global hackathon on 3 potential areas of CBDC’s uses. These areas are: use of CBDCs as a medium of exchange; use of CBDCs in a central bank’s financial inclusion initiatives; and use of CBDCs in cross-border payment system.

Coming to the main content of RBI note, I would like to dwell on certain aspects of CBDC implementation that would be relevant in the context of India, a country of 1.38 billion people and which have been either not dealt with or dealt with perfunctorily in the concept note.

1. Financial Inclusion as one of the objective of CBDC (section 3.3.5 page 20 of the Note): CBDC is neither necessary nor sufficient for financial inclusion. Predominance of cash as medium of transaction is one indicator of a financial exclusion. The share of ”money in circulation “in M1 is 59% in India (end March 2022) while for USA it was only around 11% (end august 2022). For China, this figure was around 13% at the end of 2017. So financial inclusion is more of a function of formalization/ corporatization of economy and not of the form of money in circulation.

2. [F]irst and fundamental question that needs to be answered is the choice of technology platform (section 5.1 page 31).: Here lies the major confusion that RBI internal committee is plagued with. Once CBDC is designed as a platform based medium of payment like a bank account, it loses the main characteristics of paper money-that is instant settlement of a monetary transaction. One does not need an internet connection or a mobile connection for verification with a third party in case of a paper money mediated transaction. You should be able to make a cash payment and, therefore, payment with CBDC at the top of Everest or in a submarine at the bottom of Indian ocean.

3. DLT could be considered for the indirect or hybrid CBDC architecture (5.2.2.2 page 32): The word “could” is somewhat equivocal. In an “Indirect Model”, “consumers would hold their CBDC in an account/ wallet with a bank, or service provider. …. The central bank would track only the wholesale CBDC balances of the intermediaries. ”(Section 4.3.2 page 24). It follows that the responsibility of maintaining DLT would lie with the intermediaries. It is not clear whether DLT would be blockchain based or not. If blockchain is not to be part of any solution, then the architecture of any DLT needs more clarification which is missing from the concept note. It is not clear who will bear the cost of maintaining DLT, if it is to be based on blockchain. Will it be a permissioned or permission-less? If an intermediary issues a CBDC to its customers, can that customer use that CBDC in another place which is under the jurisdiction of another intermediary? The concept note is silent on all these issues

4. Further, systemic checks through third party validation should ensure that in case of a token system, only such tokens issued by the Central bank are circulating in the ecosystem. Additionally, a competent party should be able to verify identity information before a participant is allowed to join the CBDC network. (section 5.4, page 33). This requirement of RBI’s CBDC can be considered as the last nail on the coffin of RBI CBDC. RBI annual report of 2022 puts the total number of banknotes in circulation at 1305326 lac or 130.5 billion pieces. If each note participates at least one transaction in a year, at least 1 billion transactions need to be validated in one-year period. I left to the imagination of my readers about the feasibility and cost of such an exercise. Even verification of half a billion transactions will be a humongous task. Furthermore, verification of identity information of a participant in CBDC network can be considered as a gross violation of privacy of a citizen. The very purpose of issuance of bank notes will stand completely negated by this requirement.

5. In offline mode, the risk of “double-spending” will exist because it will be technically possible to use a CBDC unit more than once without updating the common ledger of CBDC (5.6, page 34). I may humbly submit that I have proposed a detailed protocol by which the goal of preventing double –spending can be achieved (Nag 2021). My protocol tries to mimic all properties of paper note. The anonymity of transacting parties is largely achieved, although absolute anonymity cannot be achieved in a digital world.

6. Indirect Model: The concept note has argued that this model is the most suitable for India. Under this model, “RBI will create and issue tokens to authorised entities called Token Service Providers (TSPs) who in turn will distribute these to end-users who take part in retail transactions.” It is like a customer of a bank withdrawing cash from ATM/bank counter and then spending it outside. In this case CBDC will be withdrawn. But suppose the bank customer wants to pay CBDC to her maid who does not have a bank account, will it be possible? If that bank customer withdraws the money from her account at Mumbai and wants to spend it in Kolkata, how the ledgers will get updated? If the CBDC paying wallet has been issued by a Bank A and the receiving wallet has been issued by bank B, how the shake hand will take place in the absence of internet connection?

7. China has started experimenting with CBDC since 2016 and has now started issuing e-CNY, which has now 260 million individual users.

References

Fintech Department (October 2022). Concept note on Central Bank Digital Currency

https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/CONCEPTNOTEACB531172E0B4DFC9A6E506C2C24FFB6.PDF

Ashok K Nag (December 2021). A Proposed Architecture for a Central Bank Digital Currency for India. ORF Occasional Paper No. 340, Observer Research Foundation.

https://www.orfonline.org/research/a-proposed-architecture-for-a-central-bank-digital-currency-for-india/

Bhowmick Sayantika and S. Majumdar (February 2020). Distributed: Ledger Technology, Blockchain and Central Banks RBI Bulletin

https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Bulletin/PDFs/0BUL11022020FL847E8EFB34744BAEBB2E45E91759ACCD.PDF

Opare Edwin Ayisi and Kwangjo Kim (June 2020) A Compendium of Practices for Central Bank Digital Currencies for Multinational Financial Infrastructures in IEEE Access

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9115606

October 19, 2022

Category: New

Race to the Moon

Question and Answer with Gemini AI on the concept of Kafir

Who is afraid of Babasaheb Ambedkar

Israel- Why it is so important to USA?

Post With Sidebar

Header one

Header two

Header three

Header four

HEADER FIVE

HEADER SIX

Unordered Lists

Ordered List

RBI’s Concept Note on CBDC: A Review