Thursday, October 5, 2017

SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap Prayashchitta Parihar Prasannata Yojana. A suggestion.

Dear Mr Narendra Modi (and Arun Jaitley),

Your recent speech at Company Secretary Institute's golden jubilee invoked quite appropriate examples from mahAbhArata. Duryodhana's arrogant pramAda, and Shalya's duplicity (the real story is more nuanced than you presented, but still) nearly pin-pointedly underlined the subject matter.

Despite my general support for DeMonetization (and overwhelming public support as well), I still maintain that it is still too early to evaluate DeMon. And it may never indeed get evaluated, except on data-independent sound principles. Our "alleged" intellectuals are too prejudiced to make an even a trifling unbiased evaluation, leave alone an objective evaluation.

Further, its truest vindication, if ever, will emerge only based on cleansing of "black money" that is yet to take place. I presume some work is underway. But I digress.

Likewise, GST rolling out has also been (again despite the fact that I generally support it) a somewhat damp squib. Basically, I suspect that the system is too infested. Few honest-dumb-fucks, largely what-do-I-care-I-get-may-salary, and more than critical numbers of intelligent-crooks. You get the drift? Nothing short of "draining the swamp" as Donald Trump termed it (and he too is miserably failing in it), will turn the tide in any realistic and tangible terms. I have a small suggestion re' GST. Try and get the following done(I am not an expert, I am sharing with you some general impressions):

1. Along BHIM app lines, get a JavaScript based web-page which can do Form-Validation off-line. Such a page can be hosted on a static-page site with CDN (content delivery network) etc. It need not be a free accounting software. Just some thing that can check (for validity, not necessarily "correctness of data") GST forms. What I mean is, for example, that wherever date must be put, a date-type is put and (say) not some arbitrary text.

Once Form is "valid", a person can attempt to submit (for example) it to the GST site.

2. For sometime, (say a few more months till things stabilize), allow only 1-2 submissions per person per month/per-time/whatever. I mean, if I am a trader, it should not be possible for me to submit/attempt-to-submit (say) 5-6 times. This will drastically reduce the load on GST form accepting servers. (Will work somewhat like indelible ink on finger during DeMon cash exchange at Banks).

I surmise that it should be possible to put such a system in about a few weeks (like BHIM app was made in a few weeks).

But I digressed again. This post is about a suggestion to give a last chance to those who might be having "black money". This chance is NOT about any concession, nor does it help them to get back any part of it. Rather it is about something else.

Corruption in India is for many reasons, but I want to highlight two of them. First is the regular allegation that India's traders are often thieves. This has been beaten to death, and you will have to figure out a way to correct it. Second is that governments in general are SO CORRUPT that people do not want to pay tax. I mean, if I am a trader (or for that matter anyone), why should I pay tax from my hard earned money, only to get infernal statues of Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra, et al, dotting the whole landscape, making blots all over the place? You get the drift? Good.

At the same time, of course, non-payment of tax MUST involve (notwithstanding any other things) certain amount of shame or guilt. (Though I doubt if shameless Indians have any of it). However, if you are going to run behind their behind (And I assume and wish you ARE going to; you promised to make tax-thieves cry bloody tears), as a last "concession", you could think of the following honorable exit: 

1. This does not help in any way to launder "black money"; it only helps one avoid humiliation; helps one cleanse onself of guilt and shame, and helps one to rejoin mainstream honorably.

2. Please feel free to refine as per needs. I am NOT an expert (in any thing).

Continuing from your mahAbhArata analogy, I have named it: SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap, Prayashchitta, Parihar, Prasannata, Yojana. And it is like so:

3.1 A person declares his hitherto undisclosed/uncaught/untaxed/whatever money to the government.

3.1.1 Consider including foreign bank deposits, as well as bEnAmI property also in the ambit.

3.2 50% of this declared income goes straight to the govt.

This money will give you quick slush funds, and generous breathing space despite global recession, and  looming wars. I suspect we are living in war times and thus we better play safe.

3.3 Remaining 50% also to govt (but this is with a twist). You make a few (I have mentioned 3) separate funds:

3.3.1 Citizens Monitored Disaster Management Fund.

3.3.2 Indian Investment Abroad Fund (this has 2 parts). It is done in rupees, not in any other currency. So those nations need to buy stuff from India or route through India.

3.3.2.1 Investment in Education and Health in poor/struggling nations (say from Africa, Latin America). Must be non-muslim nations. We ain't should fund our own destruction, okay? Such investments will lay foundation (long term relation building, send teachers and all)

3.3.2.2  Investment in Medium Term (say for 100 years). For example, in Siberian gas: extraction, fossil fuel based power generation. Russia has been our friend, and for further security it could be JV with Japan. And power transmission from there to India. We could sell power to Japan, Mangolia, Koreas, etc. Power cable will CROSS OBOR (China) so that will be added advantage. It can also connect with similar investment with Iran.

3.3.3 Investments in High Risk Technology Research. By high risk I do not mean risk to life. I mean, some mad, out of the box ideas; which if 2 in 10 work, we hit the sky, you get the drift?

4. Now people whose money gets into this (in principle you could make this open to general public also) can choose under which head the money will get used. In this aspect, it is akin to cooking-gas-subsidy voluntary surrender initiative. Clarification: They get "control" but NOT profit.(Drafting will have to take care of this aspect).  However, they can monitor if babus are working on the "investment" etc or not. On one had it needs to be ensured that owing to whatever little control they won't funnel profits to selves. On the other, since they themselves have been "thieves" in the past, they will keep a damn good tab on "cleaver by half" babus. (Need to ensure that the two thieves groups don't form a cartel).

5. You may be wondering why this 3.3.2.1 etc.? Make Jaitley also read this, at least about (say) ten times. He will get a taste of form-filling terror that he loves to inflict on people. Government forms are so full of such multi-layer convolutions.

6. The biggest advantage of this scheme is: You GET the money, without having to rely on those IT/ED/GST babus! Coz, if all goes well, people declare it on their own, and they just go and deposit it in some account, with a "preference for investments" directive. (Total half page). And they get a receipt. That's it.

7. Despite all your measures, if it still fails, your resolve, and peoples' support for making the corrupt cry bloody tears will get doubled! And tax-evaders would know it. Though, I think this scheme should be more of a positive initiative than a fear inspiring one.


All the Best.


Sunday, April 2, 2017

Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet v0.1

Preface:
 
I have been toying with the idea of writing this article for a long time. You will soon notice that it still reads at least unrefined if not utterly unfinished. But given my limited writing abilities, I realized that even an unlimited wait would not lead to any significant improvement.

Also ours is the age of growing impatience. While the latest desi Shabbas Goy Pankaj Mishra authored "Age of Anger", it is more impatience than anger. Impatience with not mere "elite" but "elite suspected of wilful treason against, and callous indifference towards suffering of, people.

I have titled this v0.1 in an arbitrary manner. It only means that it is work in progress. However the progress might happen so slowly that you might never get to read any future versions. Also, the essence of the message of this article is unlikely to undergo any significant change.


Some Background:

By population, jews are about 0.2% of world population. If we assume that they were much more numerous about 2k years ago, may be they would have been (say) 5% of world population? Anyway, that is not the main point. About 2k years ago Christian and Moslem populations of the world were 0% each.

Now consider Abrahamism (jews plus christians plus moslems), their population is about 54%. If we add "secular, atheist, etc" into this (because Secularism, Atheism, as practiced in modern times are largely Abrahamic "atheism", while secularism is indeed "Judeo-Christian western" concept. Thus, post this addition, the Abrahamic population totals about 70%.

If a similar calculation is done in terms of land area. The percentage might add up to like more than 80% of inhabitable land area under control of Abrahamics. Compare that to say less than 1% land area that Judean kings might have controlled prior to 2k years ago.

Quite a feat, no? 

Yes, yes, I know, you would say that "Science/Technology practicing persons" in the sense of "modern Sci-Tech" were nearly 0% and have become nearly 100%, so don't read too much into it. But we MUST read into it. SciTech is being used by people everyday in their daily life, and it "works". If there are problems, theories and solutions are discarded. Nay, even if a guild of some practitioners goes somewhat askance (like modern cancer-treatment, psychiatry, etc) there is often a powerful counter push. Last but not least, if Sci-Tech too becomes a "propaganda" rather than remaining something that "works", it will also decline, nay it will also have to be shown the door. The "climate science" fiasco has already shown hints of that.

On the other hand, Abrahamisms insist that notwithstanding whether they "work" or not, they must be accorded a special privilege as "religion" coz it is their "faith" which must be deemed sacred, no matter what. And if you notice carefully, the notion of "Secularism" is more concerned about forcing non-Abrahamics into accommodating Abrahamisms, than anything else.

So, from this perspective, it seems interesting to investigate what Abrahamisms are all about and how and why they have had such massive percentage gains.

It is in order to study this, I have chosen the personalities of Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet.
 
My Usual Routine:


However, let me begin with my usual disclaimers and caveats.

Group-0

You might be wondering, what on earth has made me write this article. And that if i am writing this will I be heaping loads of well researched insults on these "prophets". Well, I am sorry to disappoint you.

However, this in no way must be taken even as a remotest hint of advice that we can drop our guard against the  abominable ideologies run after the names of these persons. Though in this article I am not touching upon the abomination aspect at all.

Just as a woman must be cautious regarding approaching men, for on one hand it indeed is plausible that they will eventually fall in love, marry and live happily ever after, it is not ruled out that the man will turn out to be a serial rapist, would rape her, impregnate her, and move on! In our case, we know for sure that notwithstanding whatever fair understanding we might accord these "religions", they have been rabid plunderers, and the only reason they havnen't moved on yet is because they feel their plundering is not yet finished.

Group-1

I am not writing this as a student of comparative religion or philosophy as that stupid ass Zakair Naik might claim for himself.

I am not a "scholar" either.

I began with an initial appreciation of the fact that Islam itself is a problem not what the apologists term as radical Islam, Islamofascism and such balderdash.

I could understand that notwithstanding its white-washed face, underneath Christianity also lay horrible past and even at present an ever continuing basket of subterfuge and stratagems.

I realized that the usual critics and exposers of Chrislamism always fell short of taking things to their logical end.

Thus I naturally ended up noticing that there were fundamental problems with Judaism (the parent of Islam and X) itself, and that things should not be brushed under the carpet for deference to terms like "Israel is our natural ally" and such levity.

Since these ideologies run in the name of these personalities, I wanted to understand them. Not from the point of view of admiring them, insulting them, or even evaluating them "objectively", but from the perspective, that If we give them generous benefits of doubt, can we find some take-home useful essence? Something? I have tried to find mine, though this need not be the all.

This article is some kind of summary of what I understand of the trio. While I must unabashedly declare that I am (in my writings) trying to be pro-Hindu, or at least trying not to be anti-Hindu, this article is more from a somewhat neutral perspective. At least, I am not writing this to grind any axe (though that can be, should be, and surely be a legitimate purpose in itself, just that I am not doing it in this article) against the trio.

Group-2

While there are numerous studies investigating and doubting the historicity of Moses, Jesus and Mahomet (and they are legitimate too), I am not undertaking any such revision here. As a non (jew, christian, moslem) I realise that the effect these "persons/prophets" have on us, especially on our survival, it is better to consider them "real threats" even if they are "fictional persons". Though, however, in this I am not critiquing their persona either.


However, I am not going to pull any punches, when I comment on the "followers" of these prophets. I am gut-sick and bone-tired of incorrigible fools shouting "Manuwadi brAhmaNical Patriarchy". I am not stupid enough to wish that someday they will also accord some semblance of benefits of doubts to each among Manu, brAhmaNas, and Patriarchs. This in no way means that legitimate, or even "hate-filled" criticism of these should be forbidden. Just that, I am not going to consider the sensitivities of anti-M-b-P in this article.

I have chosen Moses in a somewhat arbitrary manner, though he is important for the "ten commandments" which supposedly (notice the term supposedly) form Judeo-Christian Civilization. The choice of Jesus and Mahomet must be obvious.

So I am writing this assuming Moses, Jesus, Mahomet did exist; they were real people, they were good people, and they tried to identify cause of suffering, and proposed corrective measures. Likewise, further, they possibly loved the whole world too, identified some problems in their context, and likely tried to provide some timeless solutions to ever-standing problems.

And then I will present my thoughts on why certain other things happen despite their teachings.


Moses:

Jews believe that they were (are) Yahwe's chosen people, who once thrived and prospered; but did something wrong, fell from the grace and were exiled. A savior (Moses) was born, who led them to their freedom/salvation.

However, he did not merely save them. He went further. He told them that the cause of their fall from grace was some kind of immorality, and that they had to regain their morals, and that they must rebuild their lives on Ethics (given by ten comamndments).


My View:

Jews pride in being "the chosen people" often forgetting that the term "chosen" can (and should) also mean that they must be measured against "higher standards" (compared to the unchosen ones). Further, pre-Moses fall and exile must ever remind them that they too are fallible, and that their suffering is not always merely because others hate and/or victimize them. They may be inflicting their own downfall on themselves by compromising on their own "Ethics".

It is for them to judge themselves if they are living by even lower standards. The rest of the world could be having a different opinion to theirs.


Jesus:

Jesus of Nazarene was born (immaculate conception) to (virgin) Mary and Joseph and grew up to be a fine gentleman.

Jesus's teachings were "revolutionary" for his times. Replacing the typical Judaic prescription of "Jealous and harsh-judge" G-d (jews prefer to spell G-d I am told), the G-d of the "jewish scriptures", he presented a loving and compassionate "Father" in his "gospels" to people.


My View:

Jesus has been the most respected among these three, especially even by the non-Abrahamics.

I won't mock "immaculate conception" for I believe that such a thing could be at the very least plausible. In the case of Jesus, whether it did happen or not could be debated though. I emphasize that I have nothing against those who question immaculate conception on the basis of "science" or whatever. A simple and pure hatred of Christianity can also be a legitimate basis for questioning IC (just as Judeo-Christian-Muslims do to Hindus in particular and pagans in general). Just that I am not doing it in this article.

My small point is, we can focus on what Jesus did and said (even if it only a myth, we in this article take it to be real as explained before) rather than how he was born (though Christians consider the process of birth as one of the most crucial "proof" of his divinity). Also, since "immaculate conception" can not be proven to be impossible (however unlikely "laws of biology" might render it) we might as well, for the sake of nicety (at the very least) take it as plausible.

I did not mention the splitting of Red Sea by Moses earlier, but regarding that also, I would in this piece take a similar stand. What matters is that Moses saved his people, and actual splitting or not of the sea is not critical to that aspect. Or even the fact whether they were exiled to Egypt, or a town in (present) Yemen, then also known as Misr.

Coming back to the point that Jesus, seems the most respected among these three especially by Abrahamics. So much so, that (for example) Vivekananda likened Jesus to Siddharth-Gautam Buddha. But while Jesus and his early followers may have suffered, later Christians perpetrated horrible atrocities on "sinners". In fact one needs to merely look at what Portugese (Catholic) X-ians did to Syrian Christians in Goa, and the Shia-Sunni conflict among muslims will appear to be a child's play. And then imagine the plight of "heathens and pagans".

Now, re' Jesus, it seems that Rabbis and priests were exploiting the masses in the name of "G-d" and wielding the "fear of God's punishment". Jesus allayed such fears and declared that God was (like a) Father and loved people. This must have been a great relief to toiling populace of his times who might have been reeling under exploitation by the then "clergy". And there is also the aspect that Jesus, in fact, came to save people from Rabbinical (and other priestly classes) horrors.

In terms of the content of his message, we might even conjecture that Jesus's message was towards "realization" rather than "textual authority" (take a look at what he replied to a questioner who asked whether one could divorce one's wife by writing a certificate since Moses allowed so).

Notwithstanding any or all of this, Jesus has been used as a mere shield by Christans/Church to inflict untold miseries upon non-Christians.

Jesus' teachings, termed gospels, themselves underwent a lot of supposed "cleaning" (or should we say doctoring?). Various "gospels" were removed and only a select few were incorporated in the "authentic" King James version. As far as I understand, the very chasm between Eastern and Western Europe seems as much based upon differing Church scripture, as much on race. Eastern Church retained certain "gospels" which were removed by the Catholic Church. Also, never forget that while Bolshevism was against Russian Church (Eastern Orthodox), the saviors from Russian empire were propped by Pope, Catholic/Western Church (Recall Lech Walesa of Poland) etc.

Further, Jesus's life/teachings were sandwitched between Old Testamant (jewsih bible) and some early Church writings. It looks as if Jesus' influence was reduced to mere someone who died for the sins of others, whereas the main teachings were to be obtained from Old Testament and Church writings.

In that sense, Christianity (and much more so the Church) as we know now, may have much less to do with Jesus (and his teachings), and more to do with those who "control" Christianity/Church and their lust/greed for power and money.



Mahomet:

Mahomet's case seems the weakest. For in his own life, he committed awful plunder and subjected people (read his enemies) to mind numbing brutalities.

His canon message was that Allah is the only God, and Mahomet is Allah's final prophet.

My View:

We can still salvage some honor for him by assuming that may be his life story has been distorted and manipulated. May be he (like Jesus) saw the exploitation by "religious authorities" and wanted to end it once and for all. He probably noticed that common people who are not endowed with much intellectual power were being fooled over and over again by complexities perpetrated by the intelligent and cunning using "religion". He tried to plug the hole by emphasizing that there was only one God Allah, who was merciful and kind, you needed no intermediaries to pray to him, and you must consider this to be the final message.

So the question arises, that if Moses wanted his people to be moral, Jesus taught God loved all, and Mahomet abolished middlemen between men and Allah, why did such blood bath ensue the spread of their ideologies? A Jiddu Krishnamurti will dismissively say that all ideologies are utterly idiotic and violent. But that is simplistic generalization, and I suspect it to be even a deceptive generalization, for it merely provides a stick to beat up "all religions". Further, while I disagree, I surely accept that what JidduK said does indeed apply to those who consider what JIdduK said as new "ideology". But I digress.

A Remark:

It is important to say all this, for there are many well meaning Hindus (pagans) who get sentimental emotional about any criticism of Moses/Jesus/Mahomet.

This is highly common among especially "alleged educated hindu women". With due apologies to Rani Lakshmibai and Goddess Durga, I must mention that modern woman, much more so modern feminist woman often displays such utter lack of any political sagacity that one wonders whether they are even equipped to make any worthwhile political decisions. But yes, if we can have Rahul Gandhis, why not others. But understand, that while RG is, in most likelihood, treasonous (don't go by his foolishness/innocence charms that he is charading); many of these educated women seem non-treasonous in intent, so one wonders what makes them so vulnerable to such deep foolishnesses. But I digress again.

An Analysis: 

So, what was the cause that messages by these seemingly well meaning wise people led to endless wars? The answer seems to lie in the peculiar tendency prevalent among all the three. It is the wont of all Abrahamisms that, no sooner has a message been given, the "text keepers" enter the scene. The "authenticity of text" is quickly made to base upon "true copy of original" rather than any reasonable sense of the "realizability" of the message. Further, the "authentic message" always includes a call to "tell the whole world" (read conquer, convert or kill the rest). And then begins, first the evangelical imperialism, and then the eternal cleansing of the "impure" by the "pure".

Please contrast this "obsession" with "authentic text", with (say) a Socratic (pagan) teaching, other versions here and here.:

". . . Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded. . . ."

I have deliberately chosen as "western" and "phoren" quote. This is because I think usually normal Hindus instinctively understand this and need no "quotes". However the "educated" will be convinced only by "phoren" wisdom. Thus.

Further more, there is an even more sinister "unity" among these three. Recall that the ten commandments contain commands to prohibit theft, adultery, killing etc etc. However, notice that none of the "followers" among these are ever bothered by blatant flouting of these dictats by their peoples. Their focus is centered upon one and their only obssessive dictat: Thou shalt not worship God in any image. I used to wonder why this was so. I suspect that this is because this is the easiest stick that can be used to beat pagans with, and also gives heavy leeway to ignore on the one hand all other goodnesses that might be prevalent among the supposed adversaries, and on the other hand excuse all perfidies that the Abrahamics commit on the "unbeliever". This also provides them with the Marxist-like obsession with "destroying the old to build the new". Bertrand Russel likely had this mind also when he called Communism a Christian heresy. These days, Christains likewise call Communism "Islam without Allah". A better way to understand might be to see Marxism as "Judeo-Atheism".

The important point to understand is that, owing to this obsession with "God without image", "authentic text", "only one true God", "evangelical zeal", and carte blanche against "pagans/heathens/idolators", Judaism and its children remain an existential treat to any semblance of "religious freedom". The freedom they allow seems to be the freedom that Henry Ford once said re' his mass-produced cars: "You can get any color so long as it is black".

Now, I would also like to give some examples of fundamental structural differences between Abrahamics and non-A, in particular Hindus:

Hindus also believe that ultimately there is one Ishwara. [The word God of Abrahamics is quite different from Hindu word Ishwara, though just for once we can let it pass here to simplify the example]. But a typical Hindu construct is: If there is one Ishwara then all these multiplicities of gods must somehow be related to Ishwara (Unification)

In contrast, the typical Abrahamic construct is: If there is one God, then "only one" among these many gods must be true and the rest must be false, and therefore must be eliminated. (Exclusion and Extermination).

Swami Chandrashekhar Bharati, who was shankarAchArya of sRingEri math, in some place contrasted these aspects like so: Ishwara alone IS (no matter what name(s) you give Ishwara} versus There is only one (true) God (ours!). I have hardly seen anything that summarizes this fundamental aspect (Unification vs Exclusion) so well.

Another crucial difference seems to be:

The Abrahamic teacher would insist: Have "faith in the book", and this faith will lead you to rewards (usually only) in afterlife.

In contrast, Hindu guru would say: Do this sAdhana (Eg. Chant/Do-japa-of this name (say rAma, etc). There can be many other ways too, I have used this as a simple illustrative example) and you CAN realize "rAma, etc., and the whole truth" in this very life itself.

So does it mean that Hindus don't believe in afterlife? Not at all so. Hindus do believe in afterlife, rebirth, and the whole shebang. Afterlife, etc., mean that you can not get away with pApa (commiting sins) and "Law (of karma)" will catch up with you; also that your sAdhanA (even if you do not succeed in this life) would not go waste, and that you will begin from where you left off.

So, for example, Abrahamics would mention that the proof that Moses existed is that "the book" says he parted the Red Sea. If you say you doubt its veracity, you are an abominating unbeliever who must be eliminiated by torture. While a Hindu guru would say that the proof that rAma (and like wise others) "existed" is that you can chant his name and can realize in this very life itself.

Of course, mere pragmatism is not the test of "truth". But then what IS the test of "truth"? I need to digress here a little. After Hume's empiricism, and logical positivism of the Vienna circle, philosophy of Science (or of scientific truth) was taken to be Popperian proposal of "Falsificationism". That is, (scientific) conjectures must be subject to testing. Kuhn critiqued Popper, and proposed "Paradigms and their shifts". The current status seems to be (approximately) Feyerabend's Epistemic Relativism. Feyerabend proposes "Truth" as what "works". Of course, we need not take Feyerabend, or any other as the "only final" authority. But I would surely like to mention that Adi Shankara too declared re' knowledge: "sAvidyA yA vimuktayE" meaning (approx) "truth (or knowledge) is that which liberates you".

At the very least, the SciTech paradigm of "experiment and filter out what does not work" and "sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti" seem closer than "Faith in Only true book and reap reward in (only) afterlife" paradigm. In fact, often the insistence on (only) "afterlife" betrays Abrahamic infiltration. That is one reason why I call Indian brAhminism as Judeo-brAhminism. We might also call it Abrahminism! This stands in stark contrast with the message of brAhmaNas (the spontaneously ethical) about sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti (loosely translated as spiritual practices and relization of truth). I would also like to mention that I am NOT using Hindu-system's proximity to SciTech paradigm as proof of correctness of Hinduism. Rather, it only strengthens the case for SciTech paradigm as it can draw strength from its similarity to time-tested praxis of Hinduism. Emphasizing the aspect of truth as something which is ancient as well as enduring.


I must mention here that I have been told by many that Jesus's teachings were along the lines of sAdhanA and realization (in this life itself, a la Kingdom of Heaven within you, etc); but that such aspects have been subverted by the Church lest their hold (social, political, wealth control) on population should be compromised. I don't know enough to comment on its veracity. I think it surely is plausible, even if not highly probable. However, I would insist that no such consideration should lull Hindus into underestimating the existential threat(s) posed by Church and Christianity. It is just that we could remain intelletcually open to the possibility that in future some Jesusism might emerge which honors such aspects of Jesus, and gets rid of the threats-to-Hindus part.


(Might add some more)

Monday, February 6, 2017

An Open Letter. To: Donald Trump (contains To: Miyan N Sharief)

Dear Mr Trump,

A recent incident in Pakistan provided me with an opportunity to write to you a letter that might give you insights which might prove crucial. And a letter to MNSharief provides a nice foundation to convey what I wanted to convey to you. So let me begin by embedding the text meant for MNS.


Dear Ms MN Sharief,

This letter is meant for your Abboo, Mr MNSharief. However, since he is not on twitter, I am addressing it to you, with the intent that the content will reach Mr MNS.

The news re' saving an ancient temple in Pakistan has been a minuscule hint of a very small breath of fresh air, but of course it could be a huge part of mega Taqqiyya. All said and done, do you realize that all you Pakistanis were similar (pagan) majorities who were raped and plundered to make you become an Islamic "majority"?

And you know the basic problem? Let us be frank, okay?

With all your might and religious zeal, after thousands of years and hundreds of millions of deaths, when you become a perfect moslem in your own eyes, you would still only be a second rate Iranian moslem. I know you know, and you know that all know this. But the worst is not yet said.

With all their might and religious zeal, after thousand years and millions dead, when Iranian moslems have become near perfect moslem in their own eyes, they still have managed to become only second rate Arab moslems. So you know? You will manage, if ever, to become only third rate Arab moslem. And surprisingly, the worst has not been said yet.

With all their might and religious zeal, after countless holy wars, millions of deaths, and many millions of murder, the Arab moslems have not yet become even second rate jews. Likewise, Iranians have not become even third rate jews, and you can never even dream of becoming even a fourth rate jew. And even more surprisingly the worst is not yet said.

You know, I know you know, everyone knows, and you know everyone knows, and I know you know everyone knows that there can not be any second rate jews. You either are a jew, or you are a goy, expendable, dispensable.

So I ask you this question - and you too should ask this during interrogation of Hafiz Sayeed and friends - is it worth dying in hundreds and thousands, and killing in hundreds of thousands and millions, to become only a second rate Iranian, a third rate Arab, or a fourth rate jew, err fourth rate non-jew?

Why not try returning to your own civilizational roots? You don't need to hate Iranians, or Arabs, or jews, thought you can pity Iranians and Arabs, and hope that they see this light soon and return to their own civilizational roots respectively. 

You know, when you are in your own roots, or return to your own roots, even if you are held despicable, you have the right to remake it your own and become first rate, nay even surpass the first rate, pagans (even if you despise becoming Hindu again)?

Think about it. Ms Maryam Nawaz Sharief, you are a woman, imagine children born out of rape considering their mother's rapist as their hero and mother as adulteress. Does it make any sense to you?

Be a proud yourself than being a n-th rate someone else. Best wishes for speedy recovery.



Now back to you, Mr Trump:

I am sure you found the first few paragraphs in the letter to MNS highly enlightening and insightful. But did it strike a jarring note towards the end? Why? Why did it? Is it that you are proud of Judeo-Christian Civilization?

Consider this: Do you know what was the cause of White-Euro "rise"? And what has been the cause of its "fall"?

Aren't you told that you were all barbarians who got enlightenment after Judeo-Xianity, which helped you discover Science and invent Technology? But have you ever wondered, if JC was the cause? Why is it portrayed as the cause? Because discoveries/inventions happened after Europe became Christian, I beg your pardon, Judeo-Christian? But consider this, Europe "discovered/invented" SciTech after they colonized India/China etc. So if you apply post-hoc-ergo- procter-hoc (After this, therefore because of this) which you applied re' X-ianity, then what happens? Do you get the drift of my message?

And hasn't your fall been owing to White-guilt re' White-imperialism and White-racism? Now consider this: You are taught to think in terms of Judeo-Christian pride and White-guilt. Why not try interchanging? Why not White-pride but Judeo-Christian-guilt? Even now, when your executive order to keep some immigrants away is being criticized, isn't "violation of Christian values" mentioned as one major point? 

When Caeser conquered Egypt did he destroy Egypt? Then why did Judeo-Christian Europeans destroy the civilizations of the "conquered"? Was it because of their "whiteness" or was it because of their "Judeo-Christianity"? And it was all commensurate with "Christian values" then, no? Don't you see a contradiction? Or possibly even a deception?

I wont give you any answers, but I am sure if you ask yourself these questions, the very asking will produce some insights.

However, in light of what I asked Mr MNS, let me ask you likewise: Do you still want to be wannabe second/third-rate jew, err non-jew? Being expended over wars, and what not? Are you still ashamed of "Nazism"? Would you still be ashamed if it was "Judeo-Nazism"?

Your pal Steve Bannon is right about immoral capitalism and immoral socialism, it is just that he is not right about the cause and solution. See these as Judeo-Capitalism and judeo-Socialism and you might understand.

Keep SciTech, but use White-pagan past to make America great again. If you really want to feel guilty, feel guilty about what Europeans did as Judeo-Christians during their evangelo-imperial conquests? By the way, was it White-Euro-imperialism, or Judeo-Christian-imperialism perpetrated by befooled Europeans?

All the best. Leave "the only true" and provide welcome to "pagan truths".


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.


Conclusions:

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.