Thursday, October 23, 2014

A brief history of the recent past.

Since the time last year when we discontinued blogging for a while; there have been a lot of decent developments. The activity on social media against the so called pseudo-secularism rose drammatically. The use of the term "Hindu" gained at least some popularity in political discussion. Against LKAdvani's resistance Narendra Modi was made the Prime Ministerial Candidate, and he delivered, in elections, that is.

However, this is just the begining. Election rhetoric is slowly subsiding and substantive issues are slowly emerging. Narendra Modi has a tough job on his hands. While he is bogged down by the weight of "lack of development" or rather presence of inhuman poverty and suffering of a great fraction of masses; the real threats facing us are different and much more formidable.

As Hindus we face two major threats to our civilization: External and Internal. External threats include threats from countries like US, China, Pakistan, etc. and ideologies like Islam, Church etc. And internal threats emanate from a lack of political unity which in our opinion is also borne out of a lack of social cohesion or rather an absence of an understanding which results in lack of social cohesion among Hindus. We can also view these as Civilizationally Existential Threats. The adversaries want to destroy our very existence. External is seeking to destroy us; and internal is weakening us. Externals want to encourage internals into weakening us faster; and internals want us to be blind to the gravity of the externals. This vicious circle needs to be broken; and rather a virtuous cycle needs to be put in place. Maoist terror is an example of the external-internal synergy. Using legitimate grievances of the "poor" to perpetrate delegitimization of Hindus and Hinduism. Legitimate grievances exist because of a lack of understanding; and this is exploited by the external powers that be. More often than not, this happens with active collusion of the powers that be in the within.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an unwillingness among Hindus. much more so among Hindu politicians, to discuss many of these issues thread-bare. We must understand that by this we are playing into the hands of adversaries. Equally bad, if not worse, is the tendency among some, most likely equally treasonous, to use the impending crisis to push for their own self-serving "solutions" or should we say "non-solutions"(?).

We can celebrate victories in recent elections. but we need not, rather must not, rejoice prematurely. It is more like a seriously ailing patient reaching the hospital and being admitted to intensive care unit. There can be some sigh of relief but no complacence should be allowed to set in. What is now needed is competent handling of the issues. It might take about a decade or two to come out of ICU but the movement in the right direction needs to begin at once.

While Narendra Modi has taken a few decisions, but they have not been what the Congress government itself could not have taken. NaMo has yet to show that he intends to take a course different from Congress. (Yes, we do know about China-Pak stance etc.) On the other hand, his current positions on Aadhar, foreign GM crops, recent appointments to posts of economic advisor, retaining RBI governor, etc., call for circumspection.

When Congress began its Garibi Hatao campaign, few could have imagined what lay in store; and therefore now when we hear of Development we must not let our guards down. And recall this is still just economics. What measures are being taken regarding civilizational existential threats?

While not being privy to internal decision making process, we must content ourselves with commenting on what we get as information for general public, and yet it will be foolish to mire in a vain belief that something really powerful is happening beind the scenes.

Until External and Internal threats are  at the very least named accurately, we should not trust the dignosis of the maladies. We are still far from it in our public discourse.

We intend to return to a bit of blogging and intend to try and cover some of these topics.

Wish you all a very happy and prosperous Deepavali.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

On Challenges from Internal Adversaries


In our recent posts (here and herewe outlined the strategy of Congress and what BJP could do to  counter those devious designs. However, Congress or Secular parties are not the only challenge faced  by Modi. A formidable challenge is being put up by many who are in BJP itself. In order to assess the danger posed by such challenges we need to examine what Hindus suffered under Congress.


After 1857 war of independence, Congress began as an Indian movement, however now we know that it was a British design as a counter revolution. What Brahmo Samaj etc. failed to inflict onto Hinduism, Congress largely succeeded in inflicting onto Hindu-political movement. And the reason for that is not difficult to grasp. While Brahmosamaj etc., were recognized as external pressure onto Hinduism, even if plausibly towards reforms, Congress was misconstrued as an internal movement for independence.                                                            Thus Congress managed to gain access to emotional core of people which they should never have got.

Mohandas, the greatest Congressman, posed as Sanatani-Hindu, and skillfully slipped in his perverted ideas of no-self-defense in the guise of non-violence, etc. He was one of the most useful tools in the hands of British. While it typically took take enormous efforts to begin an agitation, this fake Mahatma could at any time switch it off at once by his emotional black-mail of fast-unto-deaths. In this way, the British had a tight control on when and how to switch any agitation off.

Thus, it was in British interests to equip Mohandas with substantial traction within Hindu society and therefore they gave him lot of respect and propagandized it through British controlled media. It is worthwhile to recall that while Mohandas was touted as a spiritual genius who gave the world new insights, those who eulogized him (for example the British) never used those high principles themselves. Mohandas's letters to various political leaders during the second world war, even if they gave the false impression of containing great spiritual wisdom, are easily seen to be either frauds or puerile.

Congress was useful to the British as all young people who were interested in joining the freedom-struggle would be attracted to Congress and it made the job of British intelligence to track their movements easy. No wonder that those who disagreed with Mohandas left Congress, or were forced to leave, or were betrayed by Congress. For Congress was a tool for subverting Indians (read Hindus). Thus, while British encouraged Congress (despite pretending to be opposed to it), they also encouraged Muslim Leagues of various hues and kinds.

A few points emerge out of the above: Typically,

1. An adversary who has infilterated your ranks is much more dangerous than external adversary who is recognized as an adversary.

Example: Congress, Mohandas, Jawahar inflicted immense damage. Congress by derailing the freedom in freedom-movement; Mohandas by derailing armed struggle; Jawahar by 

2. Such internal adversaries would push for high-moral-standards (which actually are dharmabhasa and rarely are dharma), which are intended to weaken your own resolve.

Example: Congress, Mohandas, Jawahar, etc.

3. These internal adversaries would get very high respect from the external adversaries as epitomes of great virtues. Despite such high-respect the real adversaries never practice the virtues which they eulogize.

Example: Atal Behari Hajpeyi, Brajesh Mishra, etc.

4. Despite all this, if success ensues owing to great sacrifices made by grass-roots workers, the success is attributed to the philosophy and policies of these internal adversaries. Also, despite repeated failures, there will be constant propaganda to strengthen the hands of such subverters.

Example: Mohandas (Partition), Jawahar (1991-"Bankruptcy" of India), Hajpeyi (Kargil).

Example: Mohandas (non-violence), Jawahar (post 1962 debacle), Hajpeyi (consensus builder)

5. These internal adversaries are extremely cruel on anyone who exhibits even a hint of dissent within the fold, while they are very kind with real adversaries (dharmabhasa again).

Example: (What Mohandas did to Bose, what Jawahar did to Many, what Hajpeyi to Govindacharya, etc.)

It would be good to remember here that we do not advocate an openness which is a vulgar washing-dirty-linen-in-public. However, a culture of frank evaluation of ideas, including publicly expressed disagreements, need not be taken as that serious a threat so long as professional co-operation despite differences is practiced. Serious differences leading to a simple disassociation too is admissible. What is important is to accept responsibility. Any large group that practices power without accountability will bear fruits of Mohandas, Jawahar types.

Now we provide a few examples:

1. Mohandas and Jawahar are foregone conclusions. A partition with unprecedented blood-bath, and a policy vision which led us to the 1991 cul de sac, should be sufficient for anyone to sit up and question. However despite these huge costs their policies are being paraded as self-evident truths.

2. Hajpeyi was foisted upon Advani. And then Advani himself discarded his earlier avatar to recast himself as the new Hajpeyi. A Govindacharya who was hounded for his remark on Hajpeyi, has turned around and now attempting to Hajpeyise BJP.

We emphasize that we are not necessarily endorsing any one who was opposed to Mohandas, Jawahar, etc. Many of the opponents themselves suffered from perilous myopia or wanton blindness that those who they were opposing suffered from.

It is also important to note that while there is incessant talk of ideologies, what we perceive are endless glorification of personalities. Despite failure of their ideologies, we still push for critical-evaluation-free idolozing of the personalities who pushed for those ideas, and now want newer generation of leaders to adopt the same poisonous ideas. And, that dear friends, IS the way of subversion. This is the devious design to ensure so that no matter who wins the same shame and sham ideas rule the roost.

The worst is that such subversions finally precipitate in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Recall how a very good opportunity for total population exchange was lost due to Mohandas-Jawaharian partition. Recall how the momentum built by Advani during early 1990's was lost into Hajpeyian consensus-building during late 1990's.

For a long time Hindus have been subverted and deceived by "well meaning" insiders. If we might paraphrase an old quote: The subversion towards defeat is often presented in the guise of good intentions. And it is the "guise" that we need to assiduously guard against. Otherwise, despite quibbling over "fiscal responsibility" we will be sliding into Coercive Wealth Redistribution, despite parroting opposition to "Muslim-appeasement" we will be sliding into Surrendering-to-Islam and Surrendering to Semitic-designs.

Be on vigil against Internal Adversaries.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Islam and Marxism are the Demon-Duo


Recently, Hindus have been receiving blows after blows. Not that Hindus have not received blows in the past. The situation degraded further when Mohandas tried to foist on Hindus, and unfortunately succeeded to a great extent, blow-reception as something akin to a spiritual virtue. 

Once in a while there are signs of a gentle awakening. For example, recall the aftermath of the gruesome Delhi-Rape-Incident in Dec. 2012. In general, TV and Social Media reflected a sort of unwillingness on part of a large number of Indians of taking these blows lying down. Slutwalkers came out protesting often displaying placards containing words `When we say no, we mean it'.

Similar hints emerged during the response to the open challenge thrown by Owaisi to Hindus.

And now there is this Shakeel Ahmed tweet.

Of course the Secular-Hindu will quickly point out that rape is a secular crime whereas actions of Owaisi and Shakeel are reactions to communal provocation. So let us ignore the secular crimes for a moment. What was Mumbai 26/11 then? Was it a secular crime or communal crime? A ha, seculars will point out that it is cross-border crime by non-state-actors owing to communalism. They will never tell you that the state in that non-state-actors itself emerged owing to Islam. 

While not wanting to surrender to blows is a good sign, but the response to it, if deeply immersed in dumb-fuckery, will make matters worse. Hindus have been grappling with two grave difficulties for quite some time. First, they take a long time to react, and secondly while taking action they tend to fall into another trap and make stupid decisions. Also, note that most such dumb-fuckery is indulged in under grand delusions of moral certitude. Especially when prescriptions for civilizational suicide are delivered as injuctions of morality, we must at once realize that it must be the moral-high-ground-trap disguised as ethical wisdom.

Prithviraj Chauhan forgiving that blighted invader Gori, etc., are incidents that often make even intellectually inadequate among the Hindus, leave alone better ones, to ponder over the difference between what is and what might have been.

Also notice the background thread in the response to the secular and communal crimes, the monism behind this apparent  duality

Secular Crime: The gruesome and barbaric violation of the young delhi paramedic student by six men,

Communal Crimes: Owaisi's violent challenge, Shakeel Ahmed's "reaction" tweet.


While there were widespread and near unanimous expressions of disbelief, shock, anger, followed by protests in the case of former, the reaction to the latter are much lower in intensity (isn't that Very Very surprising?!). Venting emotions in one thing and taking measured steps based on deeper understanding of the malaise another. It is in the latter domain that Hindus are already being deceived into flirting with disastrous ideas.

Response to Secular Crimes:

While we have written earlier on issues related to crime on women (see here, here, here and here), we would emphasize that, in our view, the whole law-enforcement system suffers from a deep malaise. We consider even the existing Constitution to be majorly flawed. This makes for a case for major overhaul of our system including  re-design. In our opinion, we have been lenient in our justice system for very long, and abetted by corruption the conviction process in our criminal justice system is so porous that a large fraction of even serious criminals quite easily leak out. From Tandoor Sharma to Gopal Kanda, Salman Khan to Shahrukh Khan, there have been quite a few instances of people with connections treating the law quite disdainfully


However, the JanLokPal-enthusiast types think that fast track courts and death-penalty are the solution and a quick amending of the law is the way. Imagine a country where the laws and their enforcement is so feeble that those accused of heinous crime are elected law makers, and such has been the case for decades! Now, without having informed debates regarding the issues, a problem that has persisted for decades is being attempted to be solved by a law for which even the Justice Verma comission gave a duration of about a (few weeks?) for people to submit their suggestions.

In the meantime, TV debates were, and have been, rife with demonization of the men and establishing women as victim of patriarchal system.

Response to Communal Crimes:

Similarly in Owaisi case, the attempt is to charge the Islamic Jihadi under hate speech crime and there are calls to ban such horrendous people like Togadia et al. Strikes a chord? You are right.

While the rape incident is being used to slyly push Marxist notions like `Feminism' into the discourse, the Owaisi incident is being used to similarly push for Hate-Speech law which is another Marxist strategem.

In our opinion, the rape incident should wake us up into seriously questioning the design and functioning of our system; while the Owaisi and Shakeel tweet incidents should be seen as the danger of Islam, an existential threat to Hindus being covered up by Marxist burqas like Secularism etc.

Hindus must also know that the problems of Marxism and Islam can not be won by debate. Not because Marxism and Islam can not be shown to be pernicious ideas and fatal threats; but it is because Marxism and Islam never believe in debates themselves. For them debates are a convenient tool so long as their opponents can be defeated; failing which they resort to what they think they are good at, armed conflict. The language, the platform, the discourse, etc., are all subverted by them for victory by subterfuge; but when that fails they resort to coercion. Deception and then Extermination are the basic tools used by Islam and Marxism.

Please recall that those wanting to gag Owaisi are the same (Girish) Karnadians (who are worse than Katjuians) who would fight for artistic freedom of M**her F**ker Hussain. The answer to Owaisi's speech are not hate speech laws, designed to surreptitiously stifle Truth. The answer to Owaisi's speech involve many steps, beginning with a few realizations:

(1) Realizing that Islam is and has always been a Problem,

(2) Realising that if we want to survive as Hindus, we need to understand that Islam treats us as enemy and is at war with us, and we need to protect ourselves from Islam.

(3) Realizing that to spread the word of this danger we DO NEED `freedom of speech' and NOT 'hate-speech laws' which will stifle it.

(4) Realizing that debate will most likley NOT work and Mohandasian non-violence, in real terms, proscribing self-defence, were devious designs towards Hindu-civilizational genocide. 

(5) Realizing that we will not win if we play by Their rules and terms; Thus to win, we must fight on our own terms.

(6) Realizing that Marxism and Islam are allies, and that Maosists and Jihadis are working in tandem.

Further, realizing that there is a problem and identifying the problem are NOT enough. We must also think about "How to solve" them.

First and foremost:

(1) Hindus must be prepared for armed conflict. Bullies respect ONLY strength.

(2) Hindus must have no obligation to reform and/or accommodate Islam. Hindus have very limited range of options from softer options like Separationism to harder options like (here, here, and here). Separationism will entail population relocation (more details need to be debated and worked out). Harder options might precipitate in, or result out of, Civil Strife. 

All the debates must be approached from such a perspective. All allegations of Islamophobia (by Muslims) and Feudalism (Marxists) must be shown for what they are, total frauds committed to deceive the gullible. The Islam problem will never end, not even after the formation of a Global Caliphate, for after that there will be internecine strife among the Muslims for victory of truer Islam over false Islams. The Marxist problem too will never end, not even after the Socialist-Utopia has been "achieved", as the debacle in erstwhile Soviet Union has shown. Also, we must be clear that Hindus have no obligation to protect Muslims from Islam and other Muslims, ditto Marxism and its Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A large scale educational and awareness programs must be launched to disseminate the truth and other relevant information regarding Islam.

Indian Mujahideen is a continuation of Islamic aggression that has been the history of Islam for centuries. As Maoism is a continuation of the revolution of the proletariat that has been the history of Marxism for decades.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Congress's Strategy Against Modi and A Possible Effective Counter Strategy - (Contd.)


The game is hotting up. The battle lines are already drawn or are being drawn. Modi has set the cat among the pigeons, and is daring to take the fight to the opponent's territory. In our view, these are good developments. Also, now is the time for strategizing for the immediate future while remaining consistent with the long term goals. 

After the puppy and burqa remarks, friends and well-wishers of Modi and BJP are suggesting that Modi is unnecessarily stirring the hornet's nest by raising the pitch on exposing Secularism in stead of focusing on Development and Freedom from Corruption. Modi will do well to recall the quote (attributed to the French General Claude Louis Hector De Villars, Voltaire, Proverb): God save me from my friends. I can protect myself from my enemies. Anyone who has known people who have friends like Sudheendra Kulkarni and Brajesh Mishra would know the import of this quote very deeply.

In all this hullabaloo and din, there is another grave danger. The minions of Congress will repeatedly challenge with a view to draw Modi and BJP out, the media will portray a picture that Modi and BJP will be winning, but that will be with a devious design to make Modi over-confident and unguarded. This is where Modi and BJP would do well to learn from P V Narasimha Rao. He spoke very little, but he made his enemies cry tears of blood.

The very fact that the Media and the Congress are desperate to draw Modi into a fight betrays their shaken confidence and lurking fear. Fan the fires that shake their confidence and enhance their fears. Note that however much the Jhas and the Ketkars shout, Modi's enemies know that they can not make people doubt that Modi will indeed deliver Development and Freedom from Corruption. Thus they want to try the deceptive insinuation, and that is, by portraying Modi as Dangerous.

Those who live by and thrive in corruption will surely find Modi dangerous. They will be with Congress and the crypto-Congress (the Third-rate front). Modi's enemies will try to increase the number of people who should find Modi dangerous. Recall DogVijay's statement where he warned that riots might be engineered. This is despite the fact that the bloodiest riots have taken place under non-BJP governments. BJP will do well to emphasize that Modi is indeed very dangerous, especially those whose interests are entrenched in corruption and appeasement politics.

Also, Modi and BJP will do well to remember the following: Anti-Hindus will most likely vote against you, therefore the need is to consolidate the Anti-anti-Hindus and the Neutrals. The strategy of Modi's enemies is to scare the neutrals. Therefore Modi should aim at gaining the support of the neutrals, but without losing on his Anti-anti-Hindus support base.

For example, Modi must remember that he could be having a large hidden-following among Congress vote-bank, and that is Muslim-women. There must be significant number of Muslim women who want to free themselves from the tyranny of Islam, and the shackles of creeping Sharia. If Modi can tap into this resource, he can gain fifty percent of Muslim votes easily. Recall that in the Shah Bano case Congress appeased Muslim-Men at the expense of Muslim-Women.

This is where Subramanian Swamy can play a pivotal role. He can convincingly put forth the message that Secularism which is  under putative threat from the bogeyman of Hindu-Communalism, is in reality a ploy to mask the clear and present threat of Islam. The thing is, except rabid anti-Hindus, all reasonable people would naturally find Islam with its Creeping Sharia a much bigger and perceptible danger than the presently non-existent but actually benign and desirable Hindu-Communalism. Similarly, as Congress portrays anyone not opposed to Modi as communal, BJP will do well to portray all those who oppose Modi as favoring Congress and therefore as being pro-corruption and pro-appeasement.

The key is to speak and to remain silent on your own terms and to use your own terms of reference. Language is the key. Speak your own tongue.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

On Aakar-Patel-on-Modi: Part - II

In this part we present a somewhat detailed analysis of some parts of the article by Aakar Patel that we considered in our previous post. We continue with the convention of putting the commented in blue, and the comments in black.

AP in his article presents a view that Muslims are a threatened community in India and much more so under Modi; and that Indians (read Hindus) are casteist even in this century.

For the Indian secular (pseudo as well as true), it is treason rather than reason that is the intellectual seminal drive. While the pseudos say we strive to work for the Muslims [recall the sick sikh PM declaring that minorities (read Muslims) must have the first privilege over national resources], the trues harp that they do not strive to work against the Muslims. What stands out is that the Muslim dominates the narrative. 

With about a 1000 years of history of killing Hindus if Muslims are classified as threatened rather than a threatening community, few inversions of historical narrative can worst such treachery. And intellectuals such as AP are the perpetrators are that Hindu-genocidal narrative.

Their Hindu-hatred becomes even more manifest by their incessant and jarring pontifications on casteism while with large accommodating hearts they condone genital mutilation (often including that of female child as well), death for apostasy, and such customs practiced in Islam. And we emphasize that these are not practiced in the name of Islam, as the bleeding hearts would have you believe, by their insinuations, that these are practices of some fringe elements which bring disrepute to the glorious religion of peace Islam. This is exactly what they do by terms like Islamo-fascism, Islamism etc. The truth of the matter is that all of these and many more such practices are the true-Islam.

Once we realize where AP is coming from, we can understand his analysis  in a proper perspective.

For those able to look beyond his superb oratory and humour, the vapidity of Modi’s message is striking. It has not been noticed or remarked upon, but Modi has never been to college (his degree is from a correspondence course). His simple views spring from this lack of knowledge.

His writing is all in Gujarati and—I can claim to know something about this—it is mediocre. He’s not well-read, has little idea about the world or its history. It will be embarrassing, if he becomes prime minister, to have him in the same meeting as US President Barack Obama.


AP mentions that Modi has no stimulating or challenging message. Apparently, Modi never went to college, and Modi lacks knowledge. Further, that Modi is mediocre, not well read, has little idea of the world and its history, and will cut an embarrassing figure in a meeting with Barrack Obama.

Modi may not have gone to college, may not be well read, may be a mediocre writer (in Gujarati) and be ignorant of world and its history.

The important question is, does it matter? Let us see. Most of the problems in India have emerged owing to a rampant lack of application of certain basic and simple ideas. For example, one may not need to be a medical genius to suggest a group of obese people that they must eat nutritious food, cut on calories and exercise, to slowly regain fitness and health. A medical genius who advises community liposuction is very likely to be an agent of the expensive health-care industry.

Modi has been emphasizing common-sense simple solutions for most problems. They might be wrong however we do not that in advance. What we do know however is that the solutions enforced and implemented by the putative  well-read, history-knowing, excellence-incarnate, Modi-embarrassing B. Hussein O. have brought US economy to the brink of a bigger disaster. The stimulus package turned out to be contraband steroids whose adverse side effects might show up any moment indications of which are on the rise.

Further, the ox-bridge educated Jawahar's prescriptions - A Jawahar who was "well-read", "wrote-well" (that is wrote for frogs in the well), knew "history" so well that he wrote some of his "inventions" as "discovery of India" - had brought India to an economic disaster in 1991-1992 when the same simple and common-sense solutions that are being termed as ideas from the simpleminded were undertaken and which worked

However, we must clearly understand that those steeped in inferiority complex fear confidence. No, we didn't mean confident others, they fear confidence itself so much that they never want to try. Forget Macaulay, forget Secularism, forget such more complex ideas, if you observe many of these writers, it is evident that they suffer from (and want to infect others with) very serious inferiority complex. What can be done to a man who is afraid of courage?

While it might be true that Modi has a somewhat simplistic approach towards many problems, the rest (and that includes most international leaders of past many decades including Gorbachev, Clinton et al.) have cliched solutions to the same problems. They present their worn out solutions in fine clothing of impeccable English and that titillates the hearts of our inferiority-complex ridden elites.

We must always remember that inferiority can be overcome, but inferiority complex is the mother of many problems. Mr. Aakar Patel, it could be that Modi is inferior and that you have superior knowledge. But you seem to suffer from inferiority complex. Your whitewashing of Islam and Hindu-hatred probably spring from this complex. And that is the most charitable view we can take presently.