Tuesday, January 3, 2017

DeMonetization: Pros, Cons, and the way Forward

Note: I consider "Black Money" to be a fuzzy term, a loaded term, and more often than not a term from "Commie/Marxist paradigm". For example, there is back money owing to tax-non-compliance. And then there is "black money" that is used for human trafficking, crime etc. One may need to distinguish these two. Also, while cash facilitates many unlawful activities, all cash is not "black money". On the other hand, corruption has been an endemic problem in India. Bribery, under-quality performance in government projects etc. In some way this also is related to "black money". So things are somewhat convoluted. In some sense, we can safely assume, that a significant fraction of people who kept large amoounts of cash with them, had a sizable amount in terms of money acquired using unlawful means, and also maintained likewise. So we need to keep all this at the back of our minds.

The lightening struck on 8th November. You might be surprised to know that this time almost everyone forgot 6th December. See? Now would you call this too a Narendra Modi master-stroke? Ha.

So let us get back to business. The demonetization has been described, criticized and eulogized in many ways and many fora. I do not understand (and often do not care to) the "genius brigade of economists". Not that I despise them or want to underrate them. After all academic pursuits must remain honorable professions. However, one must always bear in mind that a doctor's prescriptions which do not save lives or restore health, though in principle, can be read as pieces of literature, they surely undermine his reputation as a doctor. Well, I was about to write "... his/her reputation ...", but I have been heavily irritated by Feminism of late. And well, there are so many lady doctors these days that we may even use "he" as a gender neutral term, just as anti-sexists often use "she" to refer in a gender neutral manner. Okay enough digression.

So the question remains, is/was demonetization a success or failure? I will say that it is too early to say; but that does not mean that we should not say what can be said now.

There are certain observations which have been fairly obvious.

1. It inconvenienced a large number of people, including poor, middle class, rich, and all.

2. It almost rattled, nay drove mad, some people at "high places".

3. While the basic announcements of Dec 8, remained fixed, there were frequent announcements in the nature of what the eulogizers called "fine tuning" and the detractors called flip-flopping.

4. A large fraction of the amount that got demonetized (old 1000, 500 notes) got deposited in banks (almost 90-95%?).

5. During salary days of Dec 1-10 there were problems, but they do not seem to be there in Jan. So situation seems easing out. Or do we conjecture that December problems were choreographed?

Before I put forth my "economics" related view, let me present my view regarding general news etc.

The political clan/class got even more polarized into pro-Modi anti-Modi camps. So pro-M kept singing glories, and anti-M kept screaming. I would even hypothesize that anti-M swung into action to pursue by hook or by crook a complete failure of the demonetization scheme (check point 5 above, for example). So from this perspective, what politicians have been saying is not worth much.

The same can be said re' media and the so called public intellectuals etc.

The common people also got polarized. I mean, at least the hardcore supporters of anti-M leaders were venting bile. We can choose to ignore the pro-M as well. However, the large number of commoners, while being inconvenienced and admitting to being inconvenienced, continued to speak positively about the decision. You must bear in mind that media was constantly stoking people into anger against Modi, and yet, many many people remained upbeat about demonetization.

I think there is a very important take away here. I am trying to understand it as follows. People in India know that things had been getting worse and worse as days went past (in terms of corruption etc), and something needed to be done. Demonetization is seen as one such thing, may be, among many other things. I think, people chose to give Modi the benefit of the doubt. Even if they do not trust Modi's intelligence, they did exhibit trust in Modi's integrity and intention. And I think they expressed a feeling like so: Okay, there is this tough problem (say Corruption and all), and this guy wants to do something about it. Okay, let's go along. And I think this led to the underlying theme of cooperation with government. And I read it as a very very good sign. If Modi is serious about doing something, he should consider this as his great capital. In more of his future plans, he could even go a step further and say that we are going to try many things (say these 10 things), and it is not necessary that all will succeed, and that even among the things that succeed, all will not succeed equally. Some may succeed more and some less; and that we need to keep striding forward. If he can deliver the message and take necessary bold steps, he can make significant difference. To me, this has been a very important take away. Even more important than success (or not?) of demonetization.

Most economists kept themselves busy re', what I would term, petty issues. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a dip in the growth rate is not an issue, etc. Let me explain it in Cricket-commentary terms. A lateral digression: Some one made a very apt comment during this demonetization. He twitted: India had 1.2 billion Cricket Experts until now, and now we also have 1.2 billion economists. So as one among the 1.2 billion "cricket experts" (BTW I am not a cricket buff in any way, though I am highly opinionated) let me explain what the economists were doing. There has been this Ravi Shastry, who was also team India coach, I guess, for some time. Long time ago I heard him commentate once, he used to fill all his time commentating with a truism like this: What India (batting side) needs are a couple of good overs, and what XYZ (bowling side) need are a couple of wickets. Unfortunately Demonetization needs to be evaluated in terms much more complex compared to a one day match in cricket. However, I felt, many "economists" were doing just the same, ranting truisms. And, yes, let me warn you here, that even if the terms are complex, we must still approach them in simple manner (not necessarily simplistic manner) and not obfuscatory manner (something that economists often do, even when they are ranting truisms).

By the way, in an interview to India Today (here), PM Modi himself has outlined his thoughts very lucidly (though he may still be keeping some trump cards close to is chest).

Coming to the meat of demonetization: Any decision has to be evaluated in terms of the following (among other things): 1. What were its goals. 2. How long was the achievement of the goals to take; and then 3. Does achievement time-line reconcile with intended time-line? 4. What grade will we give to the decision and implementation.

Now, if you look at any one, whether politicians, economists or media persons and media intellectuals, they are all at sea in defining (even in their own framework) these terms. If you read the interview, you can see that Modi has chewed them alive.

About the goal of demonetization I can say this: Modi had a double edged sword. If a significant fraction of demonetized currency notes had not come back, he would have thumped his chest and said "See? I was telling you! So much black money has been neutralized, blah blah". Now that most of it is back, he is comfortably saying "All the money has come into the formal banking system, and we can do, .. blah blah". So is Modi cheating? His political opponents will shout so. But I think Modi is not that foolish. Actually if you read the interview, you can notice that he is very intelligent. I mean he can beat hands down these Manmohan Singhs and PChiddus hollow, playing left hand blindfolded. I think, Modi took the demonetization decision realizing that it would "work" in either of the case (money comes back, does not come back).

Now, while it is true that money not coming back would have (likely) meant a big blow to those who lost it; but I think the money coming back could prove to be worse. It may lead to some very big fish getting caught, and brought to book. I think that is where Modi's challenge will lie. And I am quite sure that all those who got their "wealth" converted, are still shitting in their pants, re' what might happen.

An equally big, if not bigger, challenge is to ensure that further "black money" is not generated. I think his thrust for digital-money is a step towards that goal. However, cyber systems and their security are another level of challenge. I can only hope that Modi is not on flimsy grounds here in terms of getting sane advice. While I have recommended to Modi (come on, I am a nobody and not his advisor, I am a 300 followers twitter guy. I just twitted to him) an article "Reflections on Trusting Trust" (link here), I would remind him of another few quotes: 1. Cryptography is not broken, it is bypassed. 2. Security does not work because we have locks, it works because we have police. Again, I am no expert, I have merely gleaned this from the web, and also confirmed it with some people who I think know at least a little about cyber security. So Modi needs to be aware of two things: 1. While cryptography is a great science and engineering marvel, it by itself does not ensure security. Designs must incorporate mechanisms to thwart its bypassing. I am mentioning this because I think presently Modi is relying on UIDAI flunkies who seem cyber-security dumb-fucks. I earnestly hope that I am wrong, but I fear I am not. So he needs better cyber security advice. 2. He needs to strengthen cyber police. I mean this obsession with tracking down who posted Sonia's nude pics etc needs to give way to teams which monitor real security threats, intrusions, breaches and pursue and apprehend the perpetrators and bring them to justice. However, if Indian cyber police remains as bad as India's normal police, this fetish re' digital-currency could lead to a pretty bad wash-out!

So to summarize: In terms of goals, demonetization has (already) succeeded in bringing (all) money to formal economy. The remaining parts are: 1. How many (big) fish are caught, brought to book etc? Time will tell. 2. What additional measures are taken (like benami property etc)? In near future, time will tell. 3. How to stop generation of black money? In addition to. so called digital economy, simplification and rationalization of tax laws will be needed. So the forthcoming budget might give some hints.

So in that sense, one could say, so far so good.

But there was another aspect: Implementation.

Now, while this was not the best of implementation, it was reasonably good, except, and I insist except, that I suspect there was some insider treason. I mention a few points. That's not all of it though. Others may mention other points.

1. I think sufficient adversarial analysis was not done. I had twitted the suggestion for indelible ink mark re' cash-exchange. I do not know if the clerks in Modi's team already had thought of it. If they had not thought of it, I consider it a very very serious lapse. And besides such collossal incompetence, there is this aspect of deliberate subversion. I think, demonetization has also brought this aspect into the fore that "government system" is infested with bugs and worms (likely loyalists of previous governments, politicians etc). This is a major problem. Modi will have to ReBoot this part also.

2. I would strongly recommend that Modi gets bank records digitized and secured (has multiple copies etc). For, I suspect that "big fish" will surely attempt destruction of records to escape law. We have seen such things happen many times. Recall Abhishek Manu Singhvi claiming that something got eaten by termites.

3. Detecting fraud etc will need really able minds. Just "imported" big-data software may not suffice. And if Modi's big data team will be like his BJP-IT cell team, MyGov team, etc., then Modi can kiss success a good bye. Modi is already making noises like, for the first time some thing so large has been attempted. Sounds so much like the Aadhaar blabber. The Aadhaar promoters were using the exact same language. Modi should understand that such statements can also be read as: For the first time we screwed 1.2 billion people on such a large scale, so quickly. So get rid of such platitudes. Get the real job done.

4. Modi must smoke out treasonous bugs from his team. As well as, get loyal as well as competent teams built.


1. Demonetization has been so far so good: Money has got entry into the formal accounted economy.

2. Sustained and high quality effort will be needed to catch the fraudsters. Ditto to thwart further generation of black money, as well as checking corruption.

3. Digital Currency, Digitial economy is promising, but without proper care it could lead to precipitous situations. Get sane and competent Cyber advice, set up cyber police (not a la 66A kind though).

4. The biggest take away has been the human-trust capital that people have showered on Modi. He must humbly accept it, and make use of it to lead people to their greater destiny. If he can work out a few great ideas (not the fucked up "true secular" ones), and succeed (say) even in 3 out of 5, he would do wonders to his people. While planning for winning 2019 elections must not be taken lightly, with such trust-capital he must aim much higher, and as well achieve more than his aim.

Monday, May 16, 2016

A Letter To Narendra Modi On His Government's Second Anniversary

Dear Shri Narendra Modi,

These are celebration times again. Two years after historic election victory, and nearly two years of being in government. There will be a lot of articles praising and analyzing your past two years. There will be various "samvads" and such. You also know how such "intellectual/academic/media" crowd is divided into doomsayers and boomsayers. I won't bore you with that stuff.

Last year, I wrote a series (mentioned here) evaluating your first year in office. I wrote that much later than on 16th May, for in my opinion, none had really broached the perspective I had in mind. That is why this year I wrote my article much earlier. I attempted highlighting your falls, to caution you lest you forget your urgent "to-do list" in the din generated by conflicting cacophony. In the end I cursorily touched upon what you could do (redo) to (re)gain momentum.

This letter is in a similar spirit. I was contemplating writing a somewhat bigger summary of the combination of what I wrote last year as well as this year. However, I decided against it. There is no point in repeating things all over again.

Instead, I want to write a somewhat oblique observation. I will try to cut the drab and give only a small number of paragraphs, which (I hope) have explosive punch. This might give you another perspective:

1. You got to office, riding on support as well as expectations of people. Instead of making a head-start, you have been dabbling with established non-workable solutions, as well as dilly-dallying regarding taking meaningfully tough decisions.

To cut the story short:

Two years have gone behind. I do not want five or ten years also to go behind similarly. You have striven in some ways for these two years. You may have learned something about these ways. The least you should have learned is what does not work. So what does one do if one discovers that things one tried did not work? One changes course.

2. Dharma is eternal, though particular warriors for dharma are place-holders who execute the fight. If those who are put as place-holders do not hold their place, replacements must and will happen. We as individuals are at best place-holders, and we do service to ourselves by holding our place well, and work for dharma.

In light of the above, I adjure you to consider this:

Spend the next ten days, relaxing and mulling over what to do, and more importantly what not to do. Since you dislike taking holidays, I will avoid suggesting that, though that might be even better. Even otherwise, relax, in the sense that, you take routine decisions, you attend "government anniversary parties", you listen to media review, and you answer their questions also. Yet, at the back of your mind, remain quiet and meditate.

Few people voted for you to make you a Prime-Servant so that they could relax. Most people voted for you to enable you to take a position of "General" with whose leadership they could fight the long war that needs to be fought and won.

You need to change course radically. In fact it should actually be a new course. Whether Jaitley or  Irani, whether Modi or  SubbuSwamy, names and persons are not the issue. Charting on the new course is.

We have had too many of "If only Prithviraj Chauhan had not pardoned Ghori" analyses of history. Let this time it be such that "This Prithiviraj does not pardon Ghori" builds the future.

Imagine, as if this year you have won an election for a three year term. Think afresh. It is time for you to Reboot.

All the best.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

The Fall, Fall, and Fall of Narendra Modi

I am often asked as to why I write with a dozen paragraphs containing caveats, clarifications, disclaimers, only to finish the apparent "substance" of the article in much fewer paragraphs.

The answer is twofold.

1. In my arrogant spirit, I could say that this is MY style. However, I am NOT that arrogant, so let me tell you the real reasons.

2. It is actually my limitation. Firstly, I dislike obfuscating tactics practiced by many authors who focus on pretending to be "balanced", rather than writing/saying what they want to write/say. I prefer to express my views even if they appear to be harsh and extreme, and let the readers decide how and where to find their balance. In that sense, I am decentralizing this "balancing" mechanism.

3. Secondly, I am not a gifted writer. So I prefer to make the context clear by writing seemingly innumerable denials. For then, I find it easy to communicate what I want to.

So, for whatever it is worth, let us begin. While the title may seem quite self explanatory, let me clarify the context:

1. Modi-bhakts and Modi-tards are warned that if their love for Modi supersedes their love for Hindus, they may find this article very disturbing. So please read on at your own peril.

BJP-bhakts and BJP-tards, as well as their seniors, RSS-bhakts and RSS-tards are advised to read further with grave caution.

2. Since the previous warning could have the potential to cheer RaGa-backside-lickers, I would sincerely caution them and adjure them to resist their impulses towards premature orgasm given their leader's a-nearly-non-existent tool which is only compounded by his having empty balls (not to mention their mustard size. A strong reason to avoid pumpkin sized ego). Though, you may have something to cheer in the end.

3. In all my humility and arrogance, I also caution the "balanced intellects" who might be weighing pros and cons and wondering why "development" has not taken off.

4. This is also NOT a Modi-baiting article, even though I have nearly concluded that he seems turning out to be qualitatively as despicable as the rot that he seeks to replace, bettering them only on flimsy quantitative terms. So, while the article might tickle the genitals of Sardesais and Dutts, it is nowhere near the orgy that they may have been waiting for. Though they might get a much bigger one if things continue, and as they seem they will continue, the same way.

An early warding off of other likely misconceptions:

A. This article is NOT about BJP's electoral performances in the recent past, nor on the alleged "high-handedness" of Shri Amit Shah. In my opinion, AS has been doing a nearly wonderful job. The odds against him have been enormous, and yet he has conducted himself very gracefully, and much more so, diligently.

B. This article is also NOT about BJP's projected electoral performance in 2019. Rather, it is about a much larger issue like, if winning in 2014 didn't make much difference, what will winning (even if it happens) in 2019 do?

Since the strongest "defense" of Modi might come from the "development" enthusiasts, I feel that this is the RIGHT time to evaluate even that. Modi government has presented three budgets, and now only two remain to be presented. 2019 budget will be election-budget, most likely a vote-on-account budget.

When in the same blog, it was written that Modi was the least anti-hindu, and least-Marxist and thus had to be supported, I was readily with that. On that count, I insist that he still remains (among the available crass) the least-anti-H and least-M. When the twitter handle used to mention that Modi was the best we had but was still not good enough, I readily seconded that. Unfortunately, the same has become much truer. The margin by which he is best is fast declining, and the margin by which he is not god enough has reached very high proportions.

I have already mentioned in my last year's assessment that Modi has drifted far from his election "courage" into the timidity of "statesmanship". Last year, I had told a few friends that after Bihar election it would become clear whether Modi was going to be a mere Hajpeyi, or worse still Hajpeyi on steroids. Now I fear that something much worse is on the way.

Again, I am NOT going to talk about Jaitley and Irani. Modi is the PM and it is he who is responsible, unless Modi is seeking a Manmohan Singh kind of argument as a way out.

Since I have mentioned "fall", three times, may be I should enumerate the three falls:


Modi's election campaign was "electric". Among other things he proclaimed things like:

On Nationalism and Security:

1. I am a nationalist. I am a hindu. So you can call me a Hindu-Nationalist.

2. Each and every Bangladeshi who is living (illegally) in India will be sent back.

On Foreign Relations:

Aankh jhukaana nahin hai, aankh dikhaana nahin hai, aankh se aankh mila ke baat karna hai.

On Economy:

1. It is not governments business to do business.

2. We are not obsequious to "foreign business", we want to promote Indian investment and entrepreneurship.

3. Black money in foreign lands will be brought back very soon.

I mean, I could go on and on and on.


The euphoria reached nearly a peak when Modi prostrated before the parliament (as if entering a temple). I hate to say this, but the downfall began from nearly that instant.

a. Modi cried, when Advani tried to be sarcastic, claiming that "jaise bhArat meri maa hai, vaise hi bhajapA bhi meri maa hai".

b. His frequent innuendos referring to himself as "chaiwala" and others as chaiwala haters.

c. His references to his mother's occupation when she brought up her children and tear-jerking statements. (The latest of them, if I remember right, was when he was with Facebook man Mark Zuckerberg. I suspect that when he was in USA with Sundar Pichai-google, and Satya Nadella-microsoft, etc. he had pulled a similar performance).

Being moved by emotions is only human, and I am not expecting Modi to be anything even remotely more than human. But if he is merely a "normal" human, let him rather be a voter, not a PM. Just as MSDhoni or so won't be playing for India if they were merely "normal" humans, ditto leading a nation. In fact MSD has won more accolades for being "cool" rather than for being "perceivably emotional".

So, either Modi betrayed himself too namby pamby and wishy washy to be a "leader", especially because he as a leader who took charge at a gravely critical juncture; or he was doing cheap histrionics to build image. The Q is whose image? I allege and suspect, to cast himself in Hajpeyi-image.

I despise Advani as he being Jinna-was-secular-lover, Sonia-appeaser, and D-4 manipulator); yet there is no gainsaying the fact that Advani was wronged. Hajpeyi got the better of him and then later dumped him. Modi has merely exacerbated the whole injustice. How? Modi has decided to cast himself in the mold of Hajpeyi.

Be that as it may. Modi continued his honeymoon with "masses" over his visits abroad, earning "rock-star" epithets by admirers. Some of his few decisions did elicit initial confidence, such as when he disbanded planning-commission etc. However, the man was exhaling too much gas.

He got his first kick in early-2015. O ye undiscerning, I am not referring to the Delhi election results, I will return to that much later. The first kick was delivered by none other than BHObama, and that too in style. Modi just played like a child in a boxing ring with an experienced opponent.

That kick should have awakened Modi, but I suspect he preferred sleep to wakefulness. I don't grudge him that. On any other day (in any other times) he would be beating his Jawahar/Rajiv like opponents hands down. But o man, this is the period when our country barely managed to reach ICU in May 2014. Critical care, by competent team had to ensue. And Modi, notwithstanding his whatever, seems to have thoroughly failed at handling that.


In the mean time, another Congress-like thing happened. sycophants converged onto all "creamy-posts" and un-"connected" sympathisers, "volunteers" were dumped. It is not that the unconnected sympathizers were expecting plush-posts. NO. Modi completely ignored the fact that, his campaign had drawn people from hitherto unknown sections into working for him. They did not come in droves to seek pots of honey (Though, even if they did, I do not consider it any inferior thing). Rather they came because wanted to work for their mother land. Modi was a place-holder. He still IS only a place-holder. But a place-holder who forgets that he is a place-holder often wakes up to extremely rude realities. Modi, instead of figuring out how to harness that support and enthusiasm, in the name of "systematizing" things, merely bureaucratized them with critical positions occupied by suitably "connected" individuals. Whether MyGov, whether Media, whether IT, whether dash-dash-dash, they all seem that way.


Being a politician Modi knows that politics involves ups and downs. He knows he was demonized during his Gujarat days. He knows that he won against all odds. Then why is a hedging against "downs"?

I suspect his awarding Hajpeyi a bhArat ratna was a signal to Sonia Gandhi. Assume for a moment that Sonia has compromising evidence against Hajpeyi. what would happen to Modi's image if that evidence were to come in public? Thus Modi gave a rope to Sonia.

Even a dumb-fuck will know that India's total system has been thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted by corrupt appointements, not only in high places, but all over. So what should be a remedy? The remedy should be a quick and comprehensive dismantling of it, and erection of a newer (preferably no) system. What is being attempted? A servile respect of "Nehruvian Bureaucracy". Not just that, as I mentioned, even in his personal domain of influence, Modi has bureaucratized his "system". [MyGov, Media, IT, etc. among many others]

Despite tall-talks like minimum-government maximum-governance, the focus is on enlarging government revenues and expenditures, a typical Jawaharian exercise. Modi, if you are foolish enough not to realize that all the money that you are filling in government coffers will be misused by later governments, you can never be intellectually redeemed. I suspect that you are merely paving way for an even more corrupt RahulGa government which can swindle all the money that you collect as revenue. (Sardesais and Dutts, you can hang on this straw of hope).

Your Aadhar stupidity is stupendous. Never merely imagine what good a good government can do with "money and powers". Always be cautious about what a bad government might do with the "money and powers" accorded to it by "good governments". If you can't understand this, you are too foolish to be a PM. If you understand this but do not act, you are a traitor, just as your predecessors have been.


A typical pole-vaulting "hindu"-politician uses the hindu-pole only to discard it at the right time, and crosses over and jumps onto the "secular"-mattress lying on the other side. Modi is expected to demonstrate himself to be an exception. But let us see what he has been doing, or rather not doing.

Now watch the contrast:


I am here to serve ALL 125 crore Indians. Not some over others.


Meri sarkaar gareebon ke liye samarpit hai.

Are all 125 crore people "gareeb"?


Ham kisi ki topi nahin pehnenge, par kisi ki topi uchhalane bhi nahin denge.


While hindus are being massacred by muslims in West Bengal, what does Modi do? He maintains a few minutes silence during his election speech while the ajaan (a call to kill kuffars) is being broadcast in loudspeakers to "respect" the feeling of muslims.

So let us try to get things a bit clear. Most politicians work to WIN elections and not to serve people. Anyone who wants to sell himself, as someone somewhat better, needs to do 3 things.

1. Promise ambiguously, so that people salivate about much, but try to deliver more than something that will dissatisfy the people. Mind you, here the people must also include "your core support group".

2. You may not do what you claimed, but AVOID doing contrary to what you claimed.

3. Delivering takes time, but BEGIN early.


While all kinds of people voted for Modi, and while ALL deserve good governance. But there were two large (largely intersecting as well) groups. Hindus and Middle-Class which was chagrined by a decade of Congress rule. Now let us evaluate Modi:

1. Made Hindus and Middle Class salivate, and yet has until now done precious LITTLE.

2. Tens of Hindus have been killed (by muslims), and Modi is still undecided whether he is a Hindu or a Nationalist.

Worse, instead of keeping quiet, he is giving clean-chits to "Islam" from pulpits in Saudi Arabia. Huh.

3. Nobody can deliver something before beginning to work on it. Modi seems to imagine himself to be "nobody".

The worst part is, that not only has he not begun, he shows NO SIGNS of making a beginning in any foreseeable future. If all this does not establish that Modi now is Hajpeyi-on-steroids and is betraying himself as Naeemuddinbhai Damn-Another-Ass Muhammadi, what else will? And don't irritate Hindus by blatant lies like "Terror has no religion" and "Yoga is not associated to any religion", in 2016 we must be way past such nonsense.

So let me summarize the three falls.

First began immediately after May-2014. Second happened as time progressed. Third is becoming evident, much more blatantly by the middle of the term.

I need to comment a little about election debacles. We must remain clear that Congress ruled for so long because either there was no opposition (it takes time to start an opposition, so till about 1970 none existed), or the opposition (votes were) was divided.

BJP has a different problem. Anti-BJP are easily united. The only way to break the back of this problem is, to not get bogged down by small successes of anti-BJP unity. For power-hunger will fail them. I adjure Amit Shah to plan a strategy in which the pressures/fissures among anti-BJP unifiers become exacerbated. And the main thrust should be Hindu-Unity. What BJP-RSS need to do is to leeave Hindu-reform to Hindus. They should focus on Hindu-Unity (whether reformed or unreformed). RSS-BJP often throw shit at fan by trying to do the reforms themselves. We need Hindu political and military unity. Focus on that. A carefully crafted strategy that honors truth can be made. Abler minds than those at present at the disposal of Amit Shah might need to work on them. Remember that it is fundamentally a "philosophical" fight too. Don't borrow opponent's philosophy.

However, blaming BJP-defeats on Amit-Shah's "style" is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. These are political wars and wars need generals. If you have even an iota of doubt, investigate how "democratic commies" operate. Commies push for "democracy" in rival parties, only to weaken them.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So the Q that might be asked is this: Can Modi rise? What should Amit Shah do? Before I answer this, I want to ask a rhetorical question. What will Modi achieve by rising again? If Modi can not utilize present moment, why and how will he utilize future? A person who is afraid of beginning will never reach anywhere. Except may be win a few elections.

So Mr Modi, listen carefully, you must demontsrate by making a beginning, to communicate that you are willing. Only if you are willing, what I say later will make some difference.

And what I say, is nothing new! Politicians win elections. Winning elections puts you in a "position". It does not necessarily bestow "wisdom". So it is important for the elected to draw upon wisdom of others, especially well wishers and enthusiasts. And for that you must have a simple mechanism. What is that? You can have all think tanks, Vivekananda Foundations, MyGovs, etc etc. But you need (and members of your cabinet need) personal think-tanks. Ok, think-tank is an over abused term. Basically you need people who meet, discuss, and provide you with "action plans" including "philosophy". If you get mere "crisis management" you are running a modified Congress government.

Such people, do not need money or position. They DID work for you pre-2014? Did you PAY them? NO. Are they feeling cheated because you did not pay them? NO. Then what is it that is making them feel cheated? Before you answer that question, wonder how they worked with you pre-2014? You "listened" to them with "respect". Whether you did what they asked you to do was immaterial, for that was (and IS) for YOU (one, members of your cabinet) to decide. What such "volunteers" need is the "respect" that you "listen". Irrespective of what horrible things they have to say, and then act appropriately. The first and last cut-off happens when politicians cut such channels off by appointing sycophants as "information routers". The problem Mr Modi, is that like Advani had D-4, you have (even if unknowingly) M-10. The problem is not even 4, or 10. It is that such form a cartel, especially if there is "money" and "power" to throw around. What are your M-10 doing? Bossing around just as the Advani's D-4 did.

And Mr Modi and Mr Shah, there is NO derth of people who will criticize you to make you more saleable and more secular and socialist. Have a few hundreds who tell you Hindu (and middle class) point of view. Get that? Your diabetic advisors are asking already exhausted and starving hindu, middle classes to practice "low glycemic diet". Fie upon such advisors; Horse shit be in their mouths.

So Mr Modi, do you think I am giving you NO points for Make-in-India, Start-Up-India, Stand-Up-India, Mudra, Swachh Bharat, etc? Mr Modi, remember, and you know this, for you are, err were, a proud "chaiwala". No eatery succeeds merely by the items it mentions in the menu. If the cooks, the kitchen, the raw-material, the service, is all below-par, mere menu can not redeem it. For whatever it is worth, you have printed your "menu". It should have been, it could have been, much much better. However, let that be. It could possibly be modified as time goes by. But you cannot have "good delivery" if your cooks, waiters, etc are compromised. Don't figure that out the hard way. Take may word for it.

I will give an example in passing. With your PMJanDhanYojana, you helped crores of people open new accounts. The collateral damage? Has the bank staff been increased? NO. So what happens? All customers need to suffer for hours for things that used to take minutes. Whose planning was it?  I could go on and on, but you have paid minions to do this job, make them move their fundaments. Huh.

Mr Modi, I hope you remember this, otherwise let me remind you, that your work did not end in May-2014. In fact, it began, rather it should have begun in May-2014. And you should soon wake up and realize that you have not begun yet. Nay, you have not even begun to begin. That is much below par performance by you.

Get back to your "volunteers". Unpaid, but respected, hard-bitter-critics but listened to, volunteers. If you like the sweet and suave voices of sycophants, you are betraying Hindus. And you are not merely betraying their votes, their votes have been betrayed by all until now. You are betraying their hope. That is the problem.

And since you love "phoren wisdom", listen to the song "Time" by Pink Floyd, (A friend recently recommended it to me as apt for you) and don't miss the lines "...And then some day you find, ten years have got behind you, no one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun...". Even if you manage to win 2019, in 2024 the lyrics will haunt you.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Hinduism, brAhmanism, brAhminism, paraSurAma, and rAma rAjya

I wanted to release this article on srI rAmanavamI. Apologies for the delay.

In this article, I will try to describe the words in the title. The first three are "isms",  the fourth the name of an individual, and last but not the least a term that is nearly always used to imply and mean an ideal "state".

Regarding the first, there will be little quibble, my interpretation of the character  of the person named in fourth might raise small eyebrows, though it will show why it needed another rAma to establish rAma rAjya.

The real (potentially) explosive part, I suspect, will be the treatment of the second and third terms. While I may appear to be slippery/slimy in wordplay, I have not found any better way (yet) to understand the conflict that is going on, and in addition a plausible remedy.

While the article is not meant to be a dissing of paraSurAma, it surely is intended to be a warning about perils of brAhminism.

So for whatever it is worth, let me begin.


The term Hinduism is closely associated with sanAtana dharma. The term Hindu was used for us by foreigners. Just as we might call all Europeans goras, or whatever, the foreigners called all of us "Hindus". Thus, in that sense, Hinduism as a term, referred to a combination of belief-system, "religion", other practices, etc. of Hindus. However, when later foreigners saw the things a bit more closely, they wanted to distinguish between "religion" of those following only "austere monks", and of those following the "ritualistic priestly class". The former was called "Shamanism" (from Shamans, referring to Buddhist monks or also possibly Jain monks), while the latter was called "Brahmanism" or the "religion of the (or administered by) Brahamanas).

In that sense, we can take Hinduism and Brahmanism as terms used by foreigners to denote us for their own usage. And as terms, they can still be used fairly neutrally. Now, we as sanAtana dharma Hindus may want to prefer the term Brahamanism over Hinduism to differentiate ourselves from Shamana-Hindus (Buddhists, Jains and such). We can exclude Sikhs also from "Brahamanism" and include them under Shamanism, though Sikh Gurus did not emphasize monkhood as was done by Buddhists and Jains.

Now, however, the most pertinent question therefore is, what is Brahmanism. It is easy to notice that it is related to the term Brahmana, and thus the subsequent question becomes, "who/what is a Brahmana?". Probing further, we find that sanAtana dharma enshrines varNAshrama as model for social life; and "Brahmana" occurs as one of the "varNa". Thus who is, or can be a brAhmana becomes an important question. Now, answering this question will involve understanding the principles or varNAshrama dharma deeply and completely.

This is beyond the scope and purport of the present article. What I want to emphasize is, let us assume that the question "who is a brAhmana" has a legitimate, correct, and benign answer. In the tradition of satyam shivam sundaram, that is an answer that is True, is Beneficial, and is Beautiful too.

It is another matter that we may, in practice as of now, be far from such a good answer. It may need a lot of debate, possibly even bloody wars, to arrive at a even reasonable understanding and mutual agreement. That is why, I skirted the issue and suggested that we assume that such an answer is possible. Please notice that if we assume that such an answer is NOT possible, we would be nearly implying that Hinduism (as it was being practiced then) was mostly full of "evil practices" and "foreign invasion" was a boon which came to liberate the oppressed majority. Also, I emphasize that I, in no way, surmise that what was being practiced was "best" or even "desirable", for we did lose wars. So we did do a few, if  not many, things wrongly. Yet, I would also emphasize that, if only, we had corrected ourselves in time, we would not have lost the crucial wars. Please note that winning or losing war is not being considered the central issue here. What I am emphasizing is that a significantly negative connotation regarding what existed exits because wars were lost and the winners wrote as they deemed fit.

Thus even for a semblance of fairness, we must surely consider it to be possible that it WAS possible not to lose those wars.

Here I slip in my crucial bit. Assume that we did not lose those wars. May be we would still be having our share of problems, including social and cultural problems, and our current generation of strategists would be mentating on possible and likely solutions thereof. But there will be a BIG difference. We would NOT mind practicing the continuation (however much modified by the thinkers, leaders, and other such luminaries of the intervening period) of Brahmanism. Or let us from here on use the phonetically lucid brAhmanism.

Will such a brAhmanism be totally different from (say) Secular-Humanism? I emphatically surmise YES. Will such a brAhmanism be "casteist"? I strongly believe NO. Will it be totally non-discriminatory (with discrimination defined by Marxists, Femisnists, and Critical Theorists, etc)? I don't care, but I hope NOT. For, in my humble and arrogant opinion, fair discrimination is the salt of Civilization. And a contrived totally non-discriminatory society is UNFAIR to all its members except a few who profit from parading such non-discrimination.

So let us summarize here: Hinduism (a la brAhmanism) is/are term(s) to denote us, though initially used by foreigners. If we believe (as I do) that it was possible for us then not to lose those wars and survive (in a much larger sense than we are surviving now), then we would still be practcing brAhmanism, something which is true, benign and beautiful; though we may not know (as of now) how to detail it.

So the question also arises, if brAhmanism was so, why did Shamanism arise or happen? A simple and direct answer would be that since brAhmanism would have accorded a whole lot of freedoms (including the freedom to disagree), Shamanisms happened because they were possible! However, I would also like to present a somewhat different answer, as yet hypothetical, though to me which seems more plausible.

In one of the previous paragraphs I mentioned that fair-discrimination is the salt of Civilization. Herein enters the danger. In any society there are always sinister groups who would like to misuse or distort mechanisms/protocols used to administer fair-discrimination to the advantage (or better still monopolize) for their own group. Such subversion are possible, are happening all the time, including the present times, and thus could easily have happened. What is the nature of such sinister groups? Where do they come from? How do they form? How do they hide? How do they thrive? These are questions to be answered by abler minds. I posit that such are possible, ubiquitous, and could easily have happened in the past.

One more thing we can guess (or otherwise hypothesize) is that since the sought after advantages would be "material" (whether in terms of privileges or property), their group adhesion would also have a largely material basis. Endogamy, strategic inter-marriage with other groups, genetic infiltration of elites of other groups to subvert rival groups, etc. would seem likely common techniques. I also hypothesize that since brAhmana, in some sense did refer to certain type of elites (by merit), there unfortunately arose the fake-elite brAhmin (by subversion). Sometimes meritorious brAhmana fell for greed and possibly colluded with brAhmin (though in the strictest sense they ceased to be brAhmana as soon as they fell for greed). But we must remember that social life depends upon many approximations. Just as it is not possible to easily determine whether a player really played badly as mistake, or a  bad day, or whether he played badly as part of match-fixing, it is often not possible to determine whether it was a mistake by a brAhmana or whether he had already changed into a brAhmin.

I must clarify here that I am using the terms brAhmana and brAhmin in an arbitrary manner. Both the terms are commonly used as synonymous, so in that sense I AM introducing an artifical difference. But my point is, this difference is essential to understanding how a potentially good thing can turn into a bad thing. And that two very similar looking things can be largely, nay, overwhelmingly different.

I need to mention that in the preceding two paragraphs I have already defined what I mean by brAhmin (and by extention brAhminism). Just as brAhmin is a fake-brAhmana; brAhminism is a fake-civilization perpetrated by brAhmins. Fake-civilization? What would that mean?

I am not arrogant enough to claim that I can define here in a few words, what civilization is. This is despite the fact that I wrote that fair-discrimination is the salt of a Civilization. However, if we agree that a Civilization (at the very least) provides "quality of life" and "sustenance" to its members; a fake-civilization provides a fake-quality of life and that too such a thing is short-lived. This point must seem fairly obvious to most people, as in modern times we seem to be enjoying "fake" things while we (even if unknowingly) perceive impending doom.

And thus, if I am allowed to make a somewhat sweeping generalization, there is this eternal war between brAhmanism and brAhminism. I surmise that it is not unlikely that Shamanism arose as a reaction to some perceived brAhminism, though it reduced itself to its own version of brAhminism. A cursory look at both Buddhism and Jainism (at present) will betray this reality. And it is not surprising that notwithstanding the fact that both Buddha and Teerthankaras emphasized pursuit of liberation, the modern Buddhist and Jain monks often thrive only in "brAhmanism hatred", even though they call it "brAhmin hatred".


So in all this, where does paraSurAma come in? First of all I need to put a few things straight. paraSurAma is considered an avatAra of Ishwara, and I accept that. Unlike many other "isms" including "Secular-Humanism", my brAhmanism gives me right to critique (even if unfairly) even an incarnation of God. In that sense there is something truly great about the "religion" in which paraSurAma is called an avatAra.

My understanding of paraSurAma is quite limited. And interestingly it is limited by the behavior and performance of paraSurAma admirers, a whole lot of who are (understandably) brAhmins. A part of my understanding is supported by writings of shrI pundita rAmakinkara upAdhyAya. A friend of a friend of mine introduced me to his writings, and I found them awesome. shrI RU was awarded Padma award sometime when Hajpeyi was PM. Though, from what I have read of RU, he was a greater human being than mere Padma something. But that is another matter. Pt RU was a brAhmana, and if we are not sure, we can also call him a brAhmin. Though his life (I am told) was far from being brAhminical. Be that as it may, if whatever I am writing about paraSurAma, contains small morsels of truth, I owe it largely to Pt RU. The errors and omission are largely mine. 

A detailed treatment of paraSurAma and rAma rAjya is beyond the scope of this article, and possibly also beyond the scope of its author. Nonetheless, let me present a few salient points.

paraSurAma (his name was also rAma), was the son of sage jamadagni. A king kArtvIrya arjuna killed jamadagni to take away a celestial cow that the sage was granted. paraSurAma was on a pilgrimage then. On his return when he discovered the story, he was filled with rage, and he decided to punish all kshatriyas. He DID have a point, that kshatriyas then (who were duty bound to fight for dharma) did not object to or resist or fight kArtavIrya arjuna. And thus goes the story that paraSurAma killed kshtriyas (male kshatriyas) from all over the world twenty one times.

While Indian admirers of Abrahamic logicians might be wondering why he needed to ethnically cleanse 21 times, whether once was not enough? The simple answer is paraSurama did not kill infants or women (so pregnant women survived and gave birth to children which included male children).

Why paraSurAma stopped his war etc is an interesting anecdote in itself, so please do look up relevant books.

So in crude terms paraSurAma was one of the old "genociders". He punished the whole "races" for the crime(s) of one (or a few). And thus (as Pt RU would often say), while there was already a rAma (who indeed could have defeated and killed rAvaNa; just for reference, kArtvIrya arjuna had defeated rAvaNa easily), rAvaNa also thrived, and it required another rAma (dAsarathi rAma) to be born to euthanize rAvaNa. Not just that, rAma had to "fight" with paraSurAma before he fought rAvaNa. And while paraSurAma was so enraged by kArtvIrya arjuna killing his father, he was almost unconcerned while rAvaNa destroyed yajnas and killed many brAhmanas. In short, paraSurAma had soft corner for rAvaNa (depite rAvaNa being bad, for he was son of a brAhmana, sage pulastya). 

To be fair, after the rAma-rAma samvada (dialogue between dAsarathi rAma and paraSu rAma), paraSurAma is supposed to have realized that the purpose of his own avatAra was over, and he transferred all his powers/weapons to dAsarathi rAma, and retired for a meditative and austere life. paraSurAma is a chiranjIvi (will live until the dissolution) and so is alive even today. Though, please don't ask me how you could meet him, for I don't know. But I do believe that it MUST be possible.

To return to the main theme, to the paraSurAma-admiring-brAhmins, paraSurAma is brAhmin avatAra for brAhmins. And thus if brAhmins unite, they can still exterminate the whole creation. While other avatAras are for "all". In such interesting attitudes one can see how seeds of "brAhminisms" operate.Such brAhmins often overlook that kshatriya devotee ambarIsha did not want to punish all brAhmanas for transgressions by sage durvAsa. Or that brAhmin (paraSu) rAma was unable to establish rAma rAjya, etc.

The main point is NOT about paraSurAma, or superiority/inferiority of one or many "castes" over the others. The point is brAhmin attitudes (which result in brAhminism) are antithetical to Civilization, which in our case, we can term as "brAhmanism".


Now look at the present situation, and as it has been since quite some time. How meritorious people have been rising against all odds, often to be subverted by scheming adversaries.

Imagine (and analyze) how invaders would have tried to destroy our Civilizational merit-system and replaced it with their doctored, subverted (and self destructing) fake-merit-system.

Notice, how in most walks of life, (in very highly paying, highly powerful, highly long-term influencing walks like "films, music, entertainment", "politics", and "think-tank/academics") strategic intermarriages between people happen (the alleged incestuous clubs are indeed so). How, upright people are shunted and destroyed, and how compromising people thrive and rise. And mind you, if you incorporate "illegitimate" offspring, the picture will corroborate even more!

And just as paraSurAma was; even now, a lot of brAhmanas have soft corner for brAhmins because they have some blood-based kinship. A brAhmana, when he sides with a brAhmin, is actually destroying brAhmanism, and erecting brAhminsm.

Look at how JNU-kinds are always fighting against "brAhmanism", and if you notice closely, the intellectual power comes from, guess who, brAhmins!

Notice your neighbours Sharmas, Dubeys, or Vaidyanathans, who consider muslims as their allies in their "power struggle" against "savage" OBC's. Observe your neighbor OBC's who consider "muslims" as their allies in their "War" against "brAhmanism".

And most of all, look how all the anti-Hindu forces, especially those which are supported by foreign-funds and abetted by sold-out traitors are fanning these fissures. And also don't forget to notice how many of these are "brAhmins".

Look how anyone who has any merit, is being incentivized to become a brAhmin, while if even a brAhmin wakes up to the horror and wants a course correction is shunted out mercilessly.

Look how "discrimination" is a bugaboo; and how our ancient Civilization is portrayed as "anti-women", "anti-Dalit", anti-what-not.

Look at how those who have converted to Islam and Christianity, continue to have "Hindu names" and pontificate on "evils of Hindu society".

Look at the "caste" of Yechuries, and Karats, and see what kind of brAhmin is lurking behind their anti-brAhmanism. Look at brAhmin Trupti Desais, Medha Patkars, etc., and wonder why they are doing what they are doing.

Look how "Hindutva Right Wing" is Israel-Nationalist instead of being Hindu-Civilizationist. Look at those who are becoming "self appointed" voices of Hindus, and how they want to (re)define Hinduism.
Look at BJP-brAhmins who are always ashamed of "beastly Hindu traditions", and look at Congi-brAhmins who are professing for minority rights, so that minorities can practice their traditions.

Look at those brAhmins who are inciting Hardik Patels against brAhamanical tyranny. Look at those brAhmins who are telling OBC's that they have practiced "untouchability" against "dalits" for "thousands of years".

Look at history debates, where when it is a matter of fixing era of Hindu scriptures, they are dated (at best) 500 AD, etc; but when it comes to denouncing the Hindus for "atrocities on Dalits" the same "scriptures" imply that the atrocities were formulated and were practiced for (tens of) thousands of years.

In short, notice and understand how brAhmanism is being subverted by brAhminism. Notice how foot-soldiers are expected to behave like duty-loving (duty not for "reward" of heaven, but for the sake of "truth") brAhmanas, while their leaders behave like brAhmins, always cornering the best for their own. How leader after leader rises selling himself as a "brAhmana" (check Naeemuddinbhai Damn-Another-Ass Mohammadi, aka NaMo), and then quickly changes chameleon-like into a brAhmin.


The fight against brAhminism too is fraught with deception. There are those who fight against brAhminism because they want to be included in the brAhminism circle. Laloo Prasads, Nitish Kumars are examples.

The real fight against brAhmins and brAhminism can only be fought by brAhmanism-followers (who to say the least love duty for the sake of truth as a way of life), and that is why it is so important for anyone who wants to be a real warrior to understand and practice brAhmanism.

Unfortunately, more often than not, and especially in horrid times like present, brAhmanas seem divided by petty egoes, while brAhmins thrive with a no-holds-barred unity for self perpetuation.

In my opinion, in the present situation, brAhmanas need to unite and rise against brAhmins, so that brAhminism can be dethroned and brAhmanism can be enthroned. And mind you, I am not indulging in mere play of words. Think about it.

Disclaimer: The ideas presented in the article are still in crude form, and they might require a lot of polishing. However, if I have been able to communicate even a hint of the basic underlying message, I would consider myself sufficiently rewarded.

May Hindu-Civilization thrive and prosper again over extended akhand bhArata, as sanAtana bhArata.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Savarkar's and Golwalkar's Descriptions/Views regarding the map-problem. Part-II

In this article I will try to present Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's (VDS for short)  and Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar's (MSG for short) views about the map-problem. Please note that for seculars both VDS and MSG are same. However, more often than not even the non-seculars treat VDS and MSG as same. There are commonalities between them, as  well as differences between them. I will try to present my perspective on them.


I digress a bit here. There are wrirings on the web, for example Ajit Vadakayil etc., who allege that VDS was Chitapavan jew who strived to sabotage India's freedom struggle. Similar allegations are made by others about MSG and his relation to Nazism etc.

1. Often even those who criticize VDS, hold GDS (Ganesh, elder brother of VDS) in high esteem, as a true patriot (which he was). Now if VDS was a Chitpawan, GDS too was. Thus being Chitpawan (whatever that means) can not be the issue. We must go by what one/they did.

2. There is a lot of hullabaloo about VDS apologizing to the British crown. Presently, I entertain the following. We must recall that most wars (especially by Abrahamics) usually end up as victory of deception (by Abrahamics) over honor (of non-Abrahamics). So it is important not to fall into the "honor trap".  May be as Chitpawan Jew VDS knew how Abrahamics subverted Hindus by making use of such "high morals" of Hindus. And he didn't want to fall into that trap. Why be honest with someone who is dishonest and out to deceive you? I think VDS followed this principle. Elder brother Ganesh never apologized, and he bravely suffered many inhuman tortures. However, that need not make us look at VDS as "inferior". May be the two brothers held different views on how to fight.

3. The most serious allegation is that VDS gave away secrets of "freedom fighters" to the British. While this is damn serious, I am not aware of any concrete evidence which establishes this. I am open to correction.

So I would say that we can suspend making judgement about the persona of VDS till further evidence, however his theories and propositions are for us to see and evaluate independent of what he was.

4. There may be, and are, many valid arguments against MSG (likewise Subhas Bose etc too), but not having non-laudatory views about Nazism is not one of them. It is like, there are many valid arguments against BRAmbedkar, but his being against Islam is not one of them. Coming back, British were much more evil. They used brave Indian soldiers as cannon fodder and yet paid no homage to them. Hindus must realize that both the world wars were significantly won by their soldiers.

5. MSG was supposedly soft regarding Mahomet and Islam. That, for me, is a more valid point against him. I write about this issue later in this article, when I mention racial aspects.

With this caveat, let me begin,

In the first half of the twentieth century, (especially during first world war) monarchies and kingdoms fell apart and in their place there was rise of nation-states. And the question of what constitutes a nation in the nation-state became important. That the state must provide security, criminal justice, etc were a given, but what more, or what less should the state provide also entered the discourse.

Two sets of answers emerged. For nation, ideas of Racial nation and Propositional nation were presented; while for State ideas of Dictatorial and Democratic states came about. 

Notice that we are ignoring the economic aspect here. Except that we wish to emphasize that democracies are inherently socialistic in their economic models. It less often leads to welfare, rather it more often leads to cronyism.

Racial nation model is that a nation is a group of closely related people by blood (therefore language, culture etc). Propositional nation model proposes some ideas of justice and then how to go about ensuring justice. The Marxist model presented a call for International unity against injustice. Injustice was defined to be class-exploitation by haves of have-nots.

This too is a long story and well beyond the scope of this article. For us, it suffices to say that, India did not fit in into any of these categories. It was not a monolithic race (I do not know what modern genetic studies say, I am not an expert), nor had people formulated any single proposition that could be used as unifying theme. At the same time, deep down all Indians (read Hindus) felt that they were one, and they were inspired by Vivekananda's speeches which forcefully brought out aspects which provided at least some glimpses of the timeless unity that we have had.

In this backdrop, VDS attempted his formulation for India. I think that VDS was not only quite intelligent, he also had (to begin with) a lot of compassion for the Indian muslims, who he saw as brothers of Hindus who had converted for some reason or ther other, and in most likelihood under duress. He built his theory of Hindutva, and in it we can see his compassion for "racial Indian people". Thus his hindutva can be seen as racially compassionate proposition. Most probably he was also aware of the pitfalls of internationalisms, so he put forth his perspective which focussed on a territorially bounded region.

As part of building further background, let us consider SriRamakrisha-Vivekananda and Ramdas-Shivaji pairs. SRK was abstract and storehouse of spiritual energy and Vivekananda was concrete and a pragmatic appliance which could manifest the energy drawn from his guru. A similar model can be used to understand Ramdas and Shivaji. In my opnion, VDS wanted to start a movement which will be even more concrete (sociopolitically and socioeconomically) version of the relatively abstract ideas that were proposed by Vivekananda. In this sense, we can also view Vivekananda-VDS as Ramdas-Shivaji pair. (Please note that these analogies are approximate).

However, VDS was not merely intelligent and compassionate, he was also a very pragmatic man. Thus VDS at once set out to tackle real on the ground problems. Casteism, untouchability, inter-caste marriages etc. were questions that he wrote boldly about.  Similarly he forthrightly wrote about whether Hindus should get English education, whether they should join armed forces, whether they should acquire and use modern technology, etc. He promoted whatever he thought would strengthen political strength and unity, and he opposed whatever he thought would enervate political unity and strength. He was one of the first who thought that ghar-wapasi could be and should be attempted, and was also the first to realize that ghar-wapasi was not enough and might not succeed either. One may disagree with the solutions he provided, but one can not deny that VDS DID attempt solving problems (in a political way) which most were unwilling to attempt.
Coming to MSG, on most racial compassion and territorial inspiration issues, MSG was similar to VDS. MSG was focused on answering the question: what kind of nation India is? While VDS focused on winning political freedom from foreign rule. Thus MSG and VDS differed regarding what actions were to be undertaken. As persons, MSG was supposedly very spiritual, and VDS was an atheist.  MSG favored "spiritual" Hindutva over VDS's "political" Hindutva. This also led to disagreements and divergent actions.

Thus, while VDS started Hindu-Mahasabha, a political party; MSG's RSS turned out to be closer to Ramkrishna Mission of Vivekananda. While MSG thought (Correct me if I am wrong) Islam could be accommodated within "spiritual" Hindutva, VDS quickly (and rightly) realized that Islam (and therefore, in general muslims) were adversaries of Hindus. While VDS dabbled in ghar-wapasi and quickly nearly abandoned it, RSS is still almost obsessed with it. 

Later, therefore, VDS became quite bitter about RSS. He thought of it as a wasteful enterprise which was destined to fail. Now I don't fully agree with VDS, but I sympathize with VDS more than I do with MSG. One could conjecture that MSG thought much longer term, etc., but these are endless debates. Our dharma, sanAtana dharma is surely not about sacrificing long-term for the short-term or vice versa. Rather, it is about striking the right balance. It could even be that different individuals can strike different balances. VDS was vindicated when RSS realized that it had to enter active politics, even if by proxy, through Bharatiya Jan Sangh (now BJP).

I guess that RSS is closer to being racialist. I do not consider race realism as wrong per se. However, we must not ignore the following: people who are highly religious will sacrifice race for religion, and vice versa. Indians (if they are a race) are highly religious (you can see Indian muslims, christians being more religious muslims and christians than many other races). So Indian non-Hindus are easily excitable on religious grounds, even against their own racial brothers (Hindus).

Further, I think we need not consider MSG and VDS as contradictory, we can use their understandings as complementary. For example, if we ignore Gandhi's suicidal rather Hindu genocidal non-violence, his "solution" (in terms of Swadeshi/Khadi) was an economic-solution for the war against British imperialism. 

Just as an aside, imagine what would have happened if we had combined VDS-political-pragmatism and Gandhi-economics in terms of Khadi-guns and Khadi-grenades against the British.

Now, I am in a position to present VDS and MSG views on the map-problem. I understand that this will ruffle a lot of feathers. So I must mention as I mentioned in my previous article, while it is caricatural  but intended to bring out essential and differentiating features. Also, that I am no scholar (nor do I intend to become one) and open to correction. 

 VDS description/view:
Past: It was a glorious period, and was also mostly highly advanced in terms of knowledge of the material world. They had most ingredients of "modern science" too.

Hindus lost because, inter alia, they neglected political pragmatism, and pursued impractical idealism,  VDS initially thought that racial solidarity and cultural pride would overcome malignant natures of Islam and Chriastianity, but later realized otherwise, and understood them as adversaries.

Present: Major corrections are needed. Political pragmatism is foremost among them. Cultural pride must be accompanied by concrete practical actions.

Desired Future: A culturally vibrant India which has regained its glorious past, along with modern science, technology, development,  equality, and most important of all, political pragmatism.


MSG description/view:

Past: It was a glorious period, and was also mostly highly advanced in terms of knowledge of the material world. They had most ingredients of "modern science" too.

Hindus lost because, inter alia, they swerved from their spiritual ideals and therefore lost moral courage.

Islamic/Christian invaders were bad and they strove to destroy Hindu Civilization. But that was because they were Arabs and Europeans, and materialistic. Hinduism has spiritual wherewithal to absorb the essence of Islam and Chriastianity which are good. When that happens, Indian muslims, and Indian christians will be assimilated in the pan-Hindutva vision.

Present: Major corrections are needed, but the corrections are in spiritual and cultural plane. If we replenish spiritual pursuit then the resultant cultural rejuvenation will resuscicate our spiritual nation.

Desired Future: We will regain most of the Past along with modern science, technology, development, and equality. And it will be long lasting for it will be based on and accompanied by a spiritual awakening.

More intelligent people must consider combining: Political pragmatism and love for Hindus of VDS, de-globalization (inspired, say by, Gandhi, but without necessarily rejecting modern technology) as part of economic war against globalism, extending Ambedkar's understanding of Islam to all Abrahamisms (including Judaism), MSG's love for "spiritual" unity of Hindu-Civilization.

In order to save ourselves as Hindus of Akhand Bharat. We need not sacrifice Akhand-Bharat for International-Hinduism, nor do we need to sacrifice Hinduism for Indian-subcontinental-unity. I will write on this some other time, but I prefer a Hindu Civilizational Territory over Extended Akhand Bharat.