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.

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

Aakar Patel is not generally known to be an insensible man. He has his flaws, but he has his good points too. He has been one of the less shrill critic of Modi, and he has often attempted to present his argument skillfully. In a recent article (titled: Beyond Narendra Modi’s oratory is a vapid message) that we will examine, he has presented his views in a fact-mixed-with-his-imagination mode. While there are certain sensible aspects in his analysis, his drift betrays pan-Indian stupidity (in our humble and arrogant opinion that is).

First we comment on his article para by para. AP's writing is in blue, and our comments in black.

Narendra Modi is a man before his time. A couple of decades along, too late for him, there will be a bigger constituency in India for the anti-Muslim demagogue.

AP's prediction. Let us hope he is wrong by miles. And that in much shorter time Hindus wake up to the existential threat of Islam and do something about it.

This may seem a counter-intuitive thing to say just when Modi has been given control of his party through popular demand. But it is true.

It better be true. As far as we understand, Modi is not pro-Hindu at all. He is merely the least anti-Hindu among the whole group most of whom are extermination-ist anti-Hindus. Those who paint him as anti-Muslim or pro-Hindu (these two do not mean the same thing) are colluding against Hindus.

Today, the group of those who idolize him is large, as we observe on social media, which the group, in fact, dominates. However it is only relatively large. The Indian voter remains confessional and sees virtue in caste. The urban Indian has never been particularly different in this sense and our matrimonial advertisements demonstrate this.

There is virtue in Varna. But that is another topic for another day. Also, this is the first hint that AP will, in the said article, has presented his rant in the garb of analysis.

A quick transition is happening as the middle class expands. Education and awareness have produced a yearning for identity that is broader than caste, and for many urban Indians, Modi has provided this. The contours of his message are simple: Indians are a great people, but our leaders are corrupt. If we have firm and decisive rule, the Hindu nation will become a world power again.

There could be quibbling over the nitty-gritty, but the drift is not way off the mark

This message is not simplistic so much as it is stupid. But it becomes darker because it is coloured with hatred.

Now AP's rant is becoming full-throttle. BTW, the same (being simplistic, stupid, dark, hate-filled) is a more accurate description of this article by AP. But let is pass for a while.

His biographer Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay says Modi is our first anti-Nehruvian leader. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, when he came to power, put forward a soft and secular face, reaching out to Muslims. Modi offers no apology for his actions or those of his murderous ministers.

Now AP begins to mixing facts and his own imagination. The fact is, Modi himself is a state-mediated tax-funded welfare supporting crypto-socialist. ABV put forward a "take my ass" soft face and faced Kandahar and Kargil. Modi has never spoken forthrightly about the Islam problem. And whether his ministers have been murderous is being evaluated by courts, not all of which are uncontaminated by Congress influence. And yet to describe Modi the way AP has described, and then slip in demonizing insinuations reeks of deeper sinister and evil designs.

This no-nonsense image is the primary reason Modi has risen and shone within his party. His eclipsing of L.K. Advani comes directly from this, and now that he sits on the margins, Advani will have the time to observe this truth.‪Advani took great pride in saying that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was a party with an ideology, which was Hindutva.

A partly factual but a tangential point. Hindutva of Advani and Modi, BJP and RSS is not enough to protect against the existential threat posed by Islam. By posing as if Hindutva is dangerous to Muslims AP is overtly or covertly colluding with anti-Hindus in planning Hindu-genocide.

Ideology insists on purity and the moderate position is always under threat from something more extreme. The leaders in all parties that claim an ideology at some point face the problem Advani does.

Until now, the drift in Indian policy has constantly been towards more Socialism (read coercive state mediated wealth redistribution involving huge misappropriation of funds aka crony capitalism), more Secularism (read trampling Hindu emotions, and anti-Hindu and non-Hindu appeasement), and so on. This blatant progress towards complete Hindu-genocide is being perceived by AP as not being fast enough. This further exposes where AP is coming from.

The cadre of the BJP adores Modi because he gives them their real ideology, what is called red meat in American politics. This is also the reason why the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), whose leadership doesn’t approve of Modi’s non-collegiate style, had to succumb to its own cadre, which loves Modi.

Modi has time and again stressed and demonstrated that he is true-secular. In Gujarat about more than 30% of the people who died (oh yes, during that spontaneous reaction following the barbarous carnage of old men, women and children) were Hindus, though the events have wrongly been called anti-Muslim riots.

Also, while every non-Modi (whether from BJP, for example Shivraj Chauhan, or non-BJP, for example Nitish Secular Kumar) are credited with individual triumphs and granted immunity under the garb of collective responsibility; in the case of Modi he is blamed individually and denied credit under the umbrella term of collective responsibility.

Modi dislocates the hypocrisy of a party whose leader fired up a mob and then said he regretted its vandalism. He, on the other hand, has shown Muslims their place in Gujarat and kept them there. His legions on the Internet have one defence against the barbarism of his ministers—that the Congress also did it in 1984.

That Advani - after his brilliant insight of the majority vote bank - reduced himself to an infernal vacillator owing to his own lack of conviction and the ABV phenomenon cleverly orchestrated by the secular brigade, is a fact. Modi has been dangerously tolerant of Muslims if he has kept them in Gujarat. Islam is ever at an existential and extermination-ist conflict against non-Islam, so anything short of Separationism, is a postponed genocide of the non-Muslims.

That Congress did it in 1984 is plain history. That such things have happened many times during Congress regimes is also plain history. AP like legions of Islam apologists forget that their ilk use 1992 demolition of disputed structure as defense for 2002 Godhra incendiary act where old men, women and children were burnt alive.

AP will do well to establish his credentials as a balanced analyst if he writes a piece on history of Islam in India. For starters he can try plagiarizing from (Islam's other victims by Serge Trifkovic) rather than blabbering smatterings from books like Discovery of India.

The second thing is that Modi can communicate over the head of the media with his audience, and he can do this better than any other leader in India. This is why his power is independent of the media or the traditional party structures. He reaches out directly to his group in the eternal way of the demagogue.

Some general comment!

The Greeks had Cleon (mercilessly panned by the great playwright Aristophanes) and the Romans had Gracchus and Caesar.

Here AP betrays his Macaulayian instincts again. Quoting from Greek and Roman history is chic. Ramayana and Mahabharata are for dhoti-clad vernacular rural folks.

Like Modi, none of these strongmen appealed to the most populous segment of their society, the servants, the real landless. Their constituency was the neo-literate middle class.

Those who are interested in verifying this, please check up Greek history. We are not interested at this moment.

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.

AP's evaluation and opinion. We will have more on it later, in second part.

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's evaluation and opinion. We will have more on it later, in second part.

The interesting aspect of Modi—and this makes him honest—is that he genuinely believes the things he represents. Discussing Kashiram Rana, Surat’s six-term undefeated Lok Sabha member of Parliament (whom Modi denied a ticket in 2009) with journalist Saba Naqvi, Modi observed that Rana was different because he was non-vegetarian: “Maans khane wale logon ka vyavhar alag hota hai (meat-eating people have a different temperament).”

Without all the relevant facts of case being available, we can't say much. Mr. AP is entitled to his freedom of speech. Further, the relation between food habits and psychology has been investigated and a more nuanced treatment of the subject is beyond the scope of this article. What needs to be put in proper perspective is that what Modi allegedly said can not be classified as obviously wrong by itself.

Those who love him purely because they agree with his dislike of Muslims and his love of unity of command, should consider this aspect to him and what it means for them if he takes power.

Does Modi dislike Islam? If yes, then he seems the most knowledgeable Islam-realist non-Muslim politician we have in this country. May Ishwara make thousands like him. However, AP seems to be day-dreaming (what we would love to be true). An honest investigation into workings of Islam against non-Islamic societies is a matter that needs urgent attention.

He is aching to bring with him his social vision, which is aligned with that of the RSS, to the rest of India from Gujarat. A money-minded, intellectually barren, segregated, ghettoized, non-drinking and vegetarian utopia that some of us have fled from.

Well Mr AP, you don't seem to like non-drinking vegetarian utopia, then please consider migrating  (fleeing to use your term) to a utopia of non-drinking non-vegetarian kind which your skull-cap toting friends are preparing for you. In passing we would like to remind that often it is precisely those who zealously resist being told what is good for them are the most vociferous in telling others what is good for the others.