Friday, November 16, 2012

A Few Words for BSY and BJP: Time to Switch from Top-Down politics to Bottom-Up politics!

It looks like that the pussy, cry-baby from Karnataka, B S Yeddyurappa, fondly known as BSY or Yeddy, is at last going to roar like a lion in the month of December. Until the roars have happened, we do not want to be sure or believe that they indeed are going to happen. However, for the sake of argument, we can tentatively assume that they might happen.

For the BJP, it will be (it has been already) a crippling blow. The only southern state where it has wrested power for itself, its supremacy might be going down the tubes! Thus both the BJP, and BSY are at a critical juncture at this moment.

For an outsider, the case of BSY is plain and simple. He has been a 'disciplined' RSS-man, he built the party from grass-roots level. He was made a victim of BJP's high-command arranged regional marriage, just as Kalyan Singh was victimized to favor Hajpeyee's sister Mayawati, with H D Kumaraswamy, himself the son of the infamous opportunist H D Devegowda.

As we have mentioned earlier, most political parties in India operate (or gravitate towards operating) like the Congress, where the "high-command" dictates the lowly soldiers. Every incompetent and sycophant (remember the poison-filled Arjun Singh?) prides himself about being a devoted-and-disciplined soldier of the party; whwrein the party is always the "high-command".

We would also like to clarify that we are not commenting about the dynastic politics in India. So long as we keep singing glories of universal suffrage democracy with the result that big money keeps playing the key-role that it has been playing, the money-keeper will always be the one running the dynasty. It is not difficult to perceive India's democracy as an hierarchy of dynasties. Also, we are not criticizing dynasties per se. Dynasties are not bad in themselves. However, nasty dynasties indeed are bad. The problem is not dynasty; but bad dynasty! However, let us skip even that for the moment.

The systemic problem in India has been that of over-centralization (this is vaguely related to being a bad dynasty!); and high-command domineering has been a prime factor both as the cause as well as the manifestation of that. However, all bad things come towards their end too; and therefore as our Central Powers are slowly crumbling, Regional Assertions (smaller dynasties with their satraps!) are slowly gaining.

And this is surely natural and hardly illegitimate. Nevertheless, there is a BIG catch: Kolkata, Bangalore, Mumbai, or Patna etc. no longer want to be centrally controlled and micro-managed from Delhi. However, they conveniently forget that equally naturally, Darjeeling, Mysore, Nagpur, or Arrah too do not want to be centrally controlled and micro-managed from Kolkata, Bangalore, Mumbai or Patna, as the case may be! This is where the DF-ery of these regional satraps lies. They oppose over-centralization by Delhi; but they want regional reins to be completely within their hands. In short they want to become local Delhies! And this will NOT work.

Thus a more comprehensive solution will be to introduce effective de-centralization, down to the smallest units. And, tentatively speaking, the guiding principles can be Voluntary-Centralization and-or Least-Centralization. And in order to implement it effectively, we will have to appreciate the idea of Bottom-Up politics. However, all of these points need to be debated comprehensively and details for optimal performance need to be worked out. So what happens to the promised few words for BSY or the BJP?

BJP will have to go Bottom Up. It was SO in the past. Despite all their follies, leaders like LKA et al did climb the ladders putatively starting from grass roots. However, after they reached the top, the game changed! They had their own blue-eyed boys, or surrogate children if you will, who were groomed for their respective thrones. And bad dynastic practices began. Remember that even during dynasties, the king had to pick the best among his children (usually sons) to be the heir-to-the-throne. The prince too often had to climb his way up; first controlling small rebellions and then winning medium sized battles and then wars and so on. This is completely unlike the present situation wherein neither Rahul Gandhi, nor Akhilesh Yadav, nor other such aspiring heirs, have any demonstrated abilities in running the show. For example, A Yadav is in fact running a pretty bad show! And yet!!

Compare this, on the other hand, with, say a Mamata Banerjee, who without any 'Godfather', without any 'family connection' worked hard from bottom-up! Needless to mention that despite all the brouhaha about his mass appeal Mohandas was a Top-Down phenomenon; while Loknayak Jaiprakash Narain, notwithstanding the early failure of the Janata Party experiment, created a Bottom-Up movement!

So BSY must be given his due, whatever that may be. Politically there may be bargaining, so the exact details of what a putative compromise would be, can scarcely be second-guessed. However, one thing is absolutely clear. Exactly like what the the Congressman from MP said: Those who sit in AC rooms have a disconnect from those in the field; the BJP (or any party for that matter) can ill afford to ignore the message from Bottom Up except at its own peril. BJP has already burnt its fingers by adopting under the guidance from high-command use-and-throw policies in the cases of Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharti. It is matter of open perception that it has hardly recovered from these blunders. Under such circumstances, if it again betrays political wisdoom, it will be finished for the foreseeable future.

For BSY, our recommendation is that he must guard against falling into the trap of being 'disciplined soldier' etc., to be merely exploited by the high-command. He must assert himself, and never allow himself to be ill treated. But that will not be enough, though much easier. In addition, he must also remember to practice accordingly towards his own 'sub-ordinates'. In abstract terms, even Narendra Modi will have to work out something similar if he wants to be capable of doing a good job of being PM, should he become one someday. He himself is risen Bottom-Up, and he will have to identify about fifty more Narendra Modis, and so on.

Most importantly BSY must position himself relatively much more pro-Hindu than the best in the BJP. BSY must strive to be, so to speak, a Kalyan Singh from the south (Not in getting exploited by high-command, but in taking a firm stand in favour of Hindu causes). Always remember, be a disciplined soldier of Sanatana Dharma, not merely your political party or its high-command.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Senile Wisdoom of the Ideologue!


Wish you all a Very Happy Diwali. And please be not surprised, there is no spelling error in the title. More about it later in the article.

Diwali festival is also a festival of fire-crackers and fire-works. However, the patrons of the festival will recall  that there exists a fire-work, often called a 'snake'. This is usually a black coloured tablet, and when ignited, starts delivering a continuously oozing black tube like structure, often accompanied with a sort of foul smell. Few adults enjoy that, though there are many among children who do, and they are well within their rights to enjoy it as children.

Recently, MG Vaidya, who we should have referred to by the term that we use often, a dumb-fuck, has betrayed his childishness on his blog (Marathi here, Hindi here). Recall that we have time and again blamed the Hindutva Brigade of being headless, and this time the old-man displayed the same shame in its full glory by sharing his senile wisdoom. The use of the word senile seems obvious going by the geriatric state of the person, however wisdoom might need a small clarification. These elderly thinkers are entrusted with the burden of showing farsightedness in the interests of the organisation. What would you call their opinion when these alleged wise give out material which will most likely spell doom for the goals? We have used our limited intelligence to coin the term 'wisdoom', to refer to such special cases of DF-ries.

In a nut-shell the developments are the following:

1. The old Jethmalani vomitted his wisdoom recently regarding the president-ship of the BJP, and who should be BJP's PM-candidate.

2. Since the person demanded resignation from Gadkari and annointment of Modi, the wise-Vaidya put the twos and twos together to claim that the needle of suspicion pointed towards Modi.

The first point, and the first half of the second point are matters of facts, or rather news items. Our focus is more on the second half of the second point: the putting together of the twos! Despite lamenting about the tendency among people to undermine bigger causes by not raising contentious issues within internal fora while choosing to stir the hornets nest by raising them at public fora, the old man betrays his wisdoom by he himself raking the matter up in a public fora, his blog!

For the sake or argument, let us assume, tentatively, that the rotten Jethmalani is a stooge of Modi and his baying for Gadkari's blood at Modi's insistence. However, what should a typical, and strategically astute response should be? Especially by those who keep crying about the absence of unity within the fold? In our opinion, their consistent response should be: It is an anti-Hindu conspiracy hatched by vested interests. However, as we have mentioned repeatedly, those whose brains have been addled by constant dose of Savarkarian-Hindutva, and those who have fallen into the trap of moral-high-ground, can scarcely understand the obvious and can hardly get their basic instincts in place. They are like the proverbial moth who instead of pissing in the fire to extinguish it, falls in love with the fire to eventually successfully immolate and destroy itself.

Just out of curiosity we perused through articles by Vaidya here, here and here. We chose these articles purely by their seemingly impressive titles. And lo and behold, the highest point among all these three articles was a passing criticism of 'Mohandasian-Socialism' in this article. The rest of the article spaces are full of the abominable True-Secularism, the senile Savarkarian-Hindutva, the peevish The-Congress-Initiated-Ayodhya-Crisis, and such sour balderdash.

A complete Freedom of Expression of opinion is absolutely fine, even if it means having to endure the feculent outpourings of a Jethmalani, or even a Karnad. However, when it comes as a pearl of wisdom from an ideologue like M.G. Vaidya, who is an ex-spokesperson of his esteemed organization, it does betray a deeper malady.

As we have often pointed out, be it Jaswant-Advani's Jinnah moments, Bangaru-Laxman's telelka moment, Gadkari's we-have-moved-from-Ram-Temple-to-Ram-Rajya moments, the infantile cunning of these Hindutva type is so puerile that it often makes even dyspeptic rattle snakes like Manish Tewari seem as composed and profound in comparison! The senile ideologues, as well as, this tottering ideology needs a comprehensive overhaul. Understand that Savarkarian-Hindutva is not enough. The inferiority-complex-ridden performance akin to a B-team of Congress is shameful. The platitudes of Hajpeyee-ian Statesmanship are annoying. 

Return to Vivekananda and even beyond. Go to the very roots. Go forth to the Rishis-propounded Sanatana Dharma. Otherwise, you will keep blabbering your senile wisdoom. O Hindus, ...

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Women, Prostitution, Rape, and Exemplary Punishment



This post was prepared during Navaratri. We apologize for this delay in posting it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consensual Sex and Prostitution have always been very contentious issues. However, those who think it is easy to take a decision will do well to recall that in medieval Europe sex was allowed only for procreation. Recreational sex itself was a taboo.

In this post, we do not propose to answer the deeper moral issues of whether recreational sex, consensual sex, and prostitution are sin or not. We rather assume that notwithstanding our stands, instances of these things will happen, and we need to have a somewhat more balanced view on the matter.

While we are not official spokesperson for Sanatana Dharma. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that prostitution existed, and there were many instances of prostitutes who later spiritually evolved into saints or devotees. It is quite possible that prostitution was never a recommended profession in the sense that possibly no parents wanted their children to pursue careers in commercial sex-work. However, prostitutes were not, let us put it that way, subject to witch-hunt, much less stoned to death! At least in pre-Islamic India. The stories of Pingala in ShrimadBhagavatam and that of Amrapali during Buddha's life are well known. Similarly prevalence of texts like KamaSutra indicates that sex was not a taboo subject.

We are not Feminists of any sort, and we surely are not gender-feminists, the likes of those who are criticized by the equity-feminist author Christina Hoff Sommers. Feminism is a complex issue and we would rather not get into that here. Also, we are gender-realists in the sense that we do acknowledge that gender matters in many ways. At the same time we also emphasize that jiva (loosely called the soul) has no gender, it is a spark of life, and in that sense, a woman's life can not be less important than a man's life. If at all, it can only be somewhat more important, which possibly explains the prevalence of chivalry across many, if not most, cultural lines.

We also appreciate that once any empowerment happens, it can also be misused, in exactly the same manner in which a Dalit man can accuse an upper caste man of using a 'casteist slur' and make the life of the upper-caste man immensely difficult.

With such background, we make a few points:

1. Prostitution must be Legal: If a woman, for whatever reasons, desires to trade her body, this right can not be denied to her.

2. Freedom to Disassociate must be Legal: Freedom not to associate with meat eaters, gamblers, prostitutes, is also a fundamental freedom. If there exists freedom to do certain things, there must be equally freedoms not to associate with persons indulging in these things.

Thus, Separate regions, even cities, can be set-up where such things can be done. While those, who for whatever reasons, want to live, want to bring up their children, etc., in a 'protected surrounding' must be allowed to set-up such surroundings.

3. All Rapes must de dealt as Very Serious Crimes: A prostitute conducts some business; the right of a seller to refuse to sell to a buyer, like the right of a buyer to refuse to buy from a seller, is a fundamental right. Thus, Rape, on a prostitute is as severe a crime as rape on other women. If at all, what constitutes rape may be defined somewhat differently (if at all) by legal experts incorporating opinions from women (including prostitutes).

We have mentioned earlier that Rape on a woman (as seen by her) is worse than a murder. Thus, rape must be seen almost as bad as murder. 

4. Exemplary Punishment must be accorded: And rape must be dealt with extremely severe punishment, including death penalty, decapitation etc. (see for example here, and here)

5. The issue of 'public' places, like train-stations, bus-stations, etc., is somewhat more complicated. Our guess is that once there are places where prostitution, gambling, etc. can be freely conducted, the tendency among people to attempt such transactions in 'public places' will greatly reduce. The general principle mentioned in point-2 would possibly suffice to handle most issues.

There would be a great many practical difficulties in implementing any of the above. As always: We also submit that these are by no means The Last Word on these matters. However, we do emphasize that serious debates and discussions on these matters must begin as early as possible.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Narendra Modi remark, The Leftist Counter Attack, and a Confused (Savarkarian) Hindutva


When we say that the (Savarkarian) Hindutva brigade is empty between the ears (though not filled with poisonous fecal matter like many of their adversaries), often the point does not drive home. When we say that platitudes of Mohandasian-Socialism and Integral-Humanism will not suffice when there is failure in countering leftist propaganda on specific issues, often we are viewed as given to excessive nitpicking. Not that we consider nitpicking to be wrong; but what does one make of a group which considers any analysis, more detailed than platitudes, nitpicking?

The recent exchange between Narendra Modi and Shashi Tharoor makes for a handy illustration.


Narendra Modi spoke (as given here):

In a veiled attack on union minister Shashi Tharoor, Modi said, "Have you heard of a Rs. 50-crore girlfriend? An MP was in the dock recently over Rs. 50 crore lying in a woman's account. In Parliament, the MP denied knowing the woman, but a month later, he was distributing cards all over Delhi announcing his marriage with her."


“There was a Congress leader who was a minister in Parliament. He was accused of amassing wealth from cricket. He had said in Parliament that he is not connected to the Rs 50 crore that is in the lady’s name,” said Modi. “Have you ever heard of Rs 50 crore girlfriend?” he asked, during a rally in Himachal Pradesh.

In reply,  Shashi Tharoor tweeted:

@narendramodi My wife is worth a lot more than your imaginary 50 crores. She is priceless. But you need2be able2love some1 2understand that.

And later said (as given here)

Speaking to reporters after he tweeted, Tharoor said, "He (Modi) was silly to make that remark.. so I replied saying my wife is priceless.. and I added that he needs to love someone to understand that.. now we have to see if he is capable of understanding that.."

Let us take a look at the statement by Narendra Modi. It makes a few assertions:

1. It was alleged that a sum of INR 50 crore was found in a lady's (Sunanda Pushkar?) bank account.

2. The Congress Leader (Shashi Tharoor?) denied having any connections with the lady.

3. A short while later, ST and SP got married.

4. A hint is made that since INR 50 crore were given to a lady, the lady may have been a girl-friend.


We have imprinted question marks to emphasize that Modi did not take any names! For the moment, let us accept that we understand who the hinted persons were. However, then the question is: Are any among the above assertions non-factual? Are these assertions libelous? ST is at liberty to file a libel suit against Modi. However, will his case have any merit if the facts aren't wrong, especially since ST is a public figure?

Now, let us look at ST's retort. It too contains a few assertions:

1. Modi was silly to make that remark.

2. So, I replied, my wife is priceless.

3. Modi needs to be able to love someone to understand that.

The first assertion is an opinion, which ST is entitled to have. Just like others are entitled to the opinion that ST is one of the androgynous, gayish, boor, who used divorces as stepping stones to newer women. The second assertion is an expression of his personal emotion. Every man, even a Shashi Tharoor, is surely entitled to feel that his wife is priceless. We congratulate Sunanda Pushkar, and wish the couple well. The third assertion too is a kind of emotional reality. The only glitch being that it insinuates that Modi is incapable of understanding love. Now, this indeed is libelous! Especially, since it is difficult to prove one way or the other. Only legal experts can have definitive say on the matter. 

However, what is amply clear in this is that ST has not denied any of the charges made by Modi. He merely had made emotional counter-charges! Modi's later assertion that ST was removed from his ministership due to the allegations and the matter is still unresolved, and yet ST has been made a minister again is surely germane to the political debate on Corruption.

Nevertheless, notice how the hullabaloo has skirted the primary issue (Corruption by Congress) and  is, harping on the 'social inappropriateness' of the observation. Recall that, until now, without any proof, rather despite the SIT report to the contrary, Narendra Modi is called by various names including mass-murderer, and so on. Does any one ever question the inappropriateness of the usage of such epithets?

In the Leftist, gender-Feminist paradigm, a man can be carelessly called a mass-murderer and it is OK; but if a woman is referred to, notwithstanding the factual nature of the content, by any term which these anti-Males deem derogatory, it is the misogynist expression of the everlasting-hateful-patriarchy against the eternal-victim the women.

Also rife are the insinuations that such despicable misogyny is inseparable part of Hindutva! Do these people ever tell you what Muhammad did according to Islam's own historians?

However, what is the Hindutva-brigade doing? They are busy doing everything besides plain, simple, and direct confrontation! This is what is so irritating about them. Not that Modi is extremely wise; but if the Hindutva brigade can not be half-as-smart as Modi, why does it indulge in Advani-like tomfoolery?

It is never a problem if a woman (and we are not insinuating anything here) is a prostitute. In our tradition, the prostitute, Pingala attained as high a state of devotion as any spiritual realization that other great men may have attained. We, Hindus, must never fall into the trap of Semitic Morality, where a sex-worker is looked down upon, or is condemned to death by stoning. And, we must also expose these Leftists who subscribe to the same semitic morality when they think that calling a sex worker a prostitute is insulting to the woman! It is those, who are screwing our motherland by misappropriating lakhs of crores of tax-payers money, that are an insult to human kind. It is those, who think that a prostitute woman is unworthy of respect, that are an insult to human kind.  Hindutva brigade will be much wiser in exposing such abominations including the Tharoor types, as well as the Leftist gender-feminist types.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

On Pitfalls on the way to Hindu-Awakening

Recently we had commented on an interview of Shri Pratap Simha. We had mentioned how the present times are such that even a mild suggestion questioning the prevailing set-up draws hostile reaction. We had opined that journalists like Shri Simha should rather be even more aggressive. It was, therefore, a pleasant surprise that an article appeared on Mohandas, exposing his "True Legacy". We are in no mood to congratulate Sandeep for he has been too kind on Mohandas! However, our constant refrain that the current establishment is so anti-pathetic to questioning of Mohandas was manifest in the comments section of the said article.

We would like to remind our readers that a few years ago a video-clip was forced to be withdrawn from a web-site; a clip in which a man, dressed as Mohandas, did a pole-dance. The Government of India considered it as an 'insult to a national icon' in its explanation to why they pressed for the removal of the clip. Needless to mention that Government of India never found Mother-F*cker-Hussain's paintings "vulgarising" Hindu-icons as "insulting". However, this is not the occasion to expose the hypocrisy or the double standards practiced by Secularism. That has been done time and again, and by much more competent authors.

We have a different point to make here.

We understand the importance of scholarship and research during various investigations, including journalistic ones. However, we must also guard against falling into the trap of Moral-High-Ground. This is a trap where all responsibilities, in this case the burden of scholarship and research, fall only on Hindus while the adversaries rely largely on propaganda.

As we mentioned in our previous post, if after 1400 years of "performance" of Islam, and after millions of deaths during partition, if we need "scholarship" and "research" to start discussing Islam or Mohandas; may scholarship and research be damned! We also need to focus on people who instinctively and spontaneously perceive that the best thing that could have happened for Hindus was if politicians like Mohandas and Jawahar had not been there at all. However, as history is replete with examples of treason, including the likes of Jayachand (who betrayed Prithviraj Chauhan), recent history contains Mohandas and Jawahar.

We leave a more nuanced examination of the Mohandas kinds for others. Here, we would like to emphasize that it is crucial to understand that post 1857-sepoy-mutiny the British foisted Congress as an axis of counter-revolution against Indian freedom-struggle. Thus while Congress provided a fake-leadership to "independence-struggle", most of its leaders were sold out on the world-view which suited their British masters. Therefore, most of those, who were supposedly providing "intellectual leadership" were consistently making similar mistakes.

While in the "spiritual" (in reality fake-spiritual) domain Brahmo-Samaj and Arya Samaj were consumed with a zeal to convert Hinduism into a Monotheistic (also Formless-God) philosophy and idol-worship-free religion; in the political domain fake-saints like Mohandas attempted to foist their own perverted views of "truth" and "non-violence" on the Hindus. [Recall that despite all of his 'sleazy-truthfulness' Mohandas never spoke the Truth about Islam!] We need to understand that it was crucial for the British to constantly reinforce the "image of a saint" for Mohandas; for without such an image, Mohandas would not have had the "appeal" and "legitimacy" which was so badly necessary to pull the con-job off! In this sense, while the rest of the "freedom-fighters" of the Congress-type were stupid enough at best and evil enough at worst, Mohandas took the cake!

Even in these very days, the anti-Hindu revolution is continuing. While during "freedom-struggle" Hindus were supposed to be non-violent; after independece Hindus are supposed to be unconditionally and perpetually "magnanimous" as "the majority".

Similar games are played when "Hindus" (read the alleged upper-caste-Hindus) are supposed to be paying for the redemption of "Dalit Christians" (or Muslims and so on) even after "Churchianity" and "Islam" are supposed to have "redeemed and liberated" them!

While Muslims, Churchians, etc. are free to organise themselves as groups, any such attempts by Hindus are termed "Communal", as if being "Communal" is a bad thing in itself, at least for the Hindus. Thus, as we said in our earlier article, it is important for Hindus to state simply and spontaneously that they are Hindus and they have a natural affinity and concern for Hindus and Hinduism. We remind our readers that we are speaking here about that Sanatana Dharma which is more ancient than time and yet is eternally alive. And we are not talking about Savarkarian Hindutva, which at best is a starting approximation, but which at worst becomes suicidally dangerous, in its insistence on accepting Owaisi-like Muslims as Hindus!

It is urgent that we bring up discussions on factual topics such as "Islam is a Problem", "Secularism is a Problem", "Socialism is a Problem" on the table; rather than beating our chests and wasting our scarce resources in our attempts to demonstrate that we are "not communal", we are "truly-secular", and that we "care for the poor".

Thus, our request to Shri Sandeep is that while he is at liberty to invest his time in doing research and "exposing" the likes of Mohandas; he should guard against the trap of burden of "research and scholarship". While his interlocutors may have been honest intellectuals; more often than not they are attempting subversion.

Do we imply that research and scholarship on Mohandas must be forbidden? Not at all. Except that "Research and Scholarship" on Mohandas must not be a precondition for criticising Mohandas, if such preconditions are absent while praising Mohandas.

What-Mohandas-was is not that important for us, even if it is important for "researchers". But the fact that perverted versions of "Truth" and "Non-violence", foisted on us, the Hindus, in the "alleged name of Mohandas", have been and are a disaster for us, is manifestly obvious. Take notice, how the Kejriwalian "anti-Corruption" movement is harping on "Secularism" and "Socialism". It is important for Hindus to perceive this fact at once and change their attitudes towards "established ideas". 

We have nothing against admirers of Edwina, or admirers of Sleazy stories of celebacy, who as private individuals spend their own money in building memoirs, busts or statues of Jawahar and Mohandas. However, if agents of Mohandas and Jawahar use tax-payers' money for telling citizens the "greatness" of these two, the burden of research, scholarship, and proof must be on them.

We again request authors like Shri Pratap Simha and Shri Sandeep that they should avoid moral-high-ground traps as much as possible, never mind the "research and scholarship" controversies! In our opinion, their energies are much more useful in their ongoing efforts in awakening and uniting the Hindus as Hindus. And they indeed will be in future as well.

Friday, September 28, 2012

The Right to Worship Idols. Lessons in History Again


For inveterate Dumb-fucks, 1400 years of getting screwed seems insufficient. A partition, merely a few decades ago, costing lakhs of lives, seems unimportant. The destruction and desecration of thousands of temples remains ignored and forgotten. For such bloody fools, Assam, Mumbai and now Ghaziabad are repeat Lessons in History.

So long as we keep believing that Islam is a great religion (of peace) and a few misguided mullahs have hijacked this beautiful faith, we are preparing our own funeral pyre, nay much worse, we are preparing the rape and enslavement of our children and grand children.  The latest in the sequence of arrogance is the challenge posted by one among the many of the rotten seminal descendents of the psychopathic paedophile Arab falsely claimed to be a messenger of righteousness. 

The supposed 'challenge' is to 'prove' that Ganesha is Bhagwan before the challenger would accept 'prasad'. For once, this guy needs to be told and told hard that Bhagwan Ganesha and his devotees care not a hoot whether this scum-bag partakes of the prasad or not. Further, notwithstanding whether proof for various things can be given or not, there is more than sufficient evidence to show that the annointed child-rapist messenger was as psycopathic, if not more, as his god who sanctioned all the perfidies committed by the monster. 

There is an urgent need to become aware of the dangers posed by anti-idolatry briagde of semitic theology and clergy. We must insist that the Right to Worship Idols is a fundamental right, and anyone who dislikes the sight of idolatry can shut his eyes or better still go and boil his head.

Fools like Chhi Chhi Ravishankar give credence to the imbecilic idolatry-haters by sermonizing that idol-worhip is merely for the beginners. Mr. Ravishankar, whatever be your worth, if you believe that idol-worhip is only for the beginners then please rest assured that you have not even begun! Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the past as well as of the present (when he signed an MOU with a rabbi) fall into the same bull-crap trap.

We won't try and explain idol-worhip by using examples from the inspiring lives and teachings of the numerous saints and sages who practiced it. Nor will we emphasize that we recall that Bhagwan Rama and Bhagawati Parvati worshiped Shiva through his idol, the Shiva-Linga. These, surely are inspiring and heart warming things. However, for now, we wish to state something somewhat different: Sanatana Dharma includes the freedom to be an idolator, and let there be no confusion, anyone who suggests any restriction on that freedom, is an anti-Hindu, and must be dealt with squarely as that.

Are we, therefore, suggesting that idol-worshipping must be mandatory? Not at all. But we are surely insisting that idol-worhip can not be forbidden. Are we, therefore, suggesting that idol-worship can not be mocked? No. But we also insist that freedom to mock idolatry must be accompanied by the freedom to mock idolatry-mockers! Anyone who threatens or challenges idol-worship must be threatened and challened in return with many times the energy of the initiator.

We must assert the Right to Worship Idols and we must squarely meet any onslaught on that right.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Three Poles in Election-2014: All need Similar Strategies! What should Hindus do?

The forthcoming general elections are becoming seemingly more and more redundant. It should come as no surprise to many that it is so. What seems most obvious is that if the elections are going to be triangular contests, in all probability there will be a hung parliament, and hung parliaments usually result in a hung government!

The three poles in the forthcoming elections are  A - The Third Front (and their sympathizers), B - The BJP and C - The Congress. Whether some members of A are acting as if they are constituents of C-led UPA or B-led NDA is just an eye-wash. The moment there is a hung parliament, there will be a rush amongt UPA minus Congress, as well as, NDA minus BJP to rush towards A. Only if A appears doomed from day one will it stop them. However one important fact is that even if A does not appear to be doomed on day one, it will inevitably be doomed.

In all likelihood, any A -government will not last more than 2-3 years, and more over, in the succeeding mid-term elections it is C - the Congress which will make the maximum gains, unless ... Unless, the BJP is astute enough to do what is clearly needed.

The 'common' Strategy:

The next elections are going to be fought on the staple diet of 'Corruption' with 'Secularism' as the tastemaker. Each of the three (A,B, and C) want to portray the remaining two as two sides of the same coin. However, there is a big catch here. B and C consider only each other as main enemy. The people, until now, expect A and B as a large group (Opposition which must be united!), and A and C can conveniently paint B as anti-secular or communal. Thus the theme of the message from each would be:

A - Congress is Corrupt and BJP is Communal, and both are anti-weaker-sections, etc. The comments by Mayawati exemplify this.

C - BJP is Communal, A are OK but can not run the government and have had "partnership" with communal-BJP in the past. The way Congress spokespersons heap contempt on BJP and massage the third (rate) front bear testimony to it.

We will discuss B's options in a moment.

What is obvious is that the above themes work well for A and C. A - The Third (rate) Front knows that they are in a win-win situation. Either they form a government with a PM from their ranks, or they support a government with a PM from B or C. In either case, they get minsterial berths and loads of cash! C is too happy to support A because it knows that either it can dictate terms to A otherwise once A falters they (C) will return to power. Please note that B is unable to dictate or manipulate when it supports A. Mayawati (UP) and Nitish Kumar (Bihar) are standing examples!



Thus B - The BJP, have to make a distinct choice from the following options:

Option-1 : They project themselves as the leader of NDA and attempt to win as a group. In this option they will be hamstrung by the requirement to be 'truly secular'. However much they may harp on true-secular Savarkarian cultural nationalism of 'Hindutva', this approach, in our opinion, will not take off, and the worst part is, even if it takes off, it will be self-damaging in the long run (i.e. next 3-4 elections).

Option-2: They project themselves as the party with 'only viable alternative ideas' and go for winning on their own. In this, they will be free to speak their agenda, plain and simple. Their job will be to communicate to the voter what their vision is. Corruption-free governance should be the unsaid given to be reinforced by performances.

Now the only way they can genuinely claim to be different is if they question and reject Secularism and Socialism etc. As long as the BJP is consumed with the desire for projecting itself as "truly secular" it is doing a disservice to itself. Further, it is doing a much greater disservice to those Hindus who the BJP imagines are in its kitty but who are much distressed by the absence of any tangible alternative. The popularity of Modi as PM and growing unpopularity of Nitish as Secular is a testimony to the same. Nitish promises Secular Development which will result in Developed (Rich) Islamic State; and Modi, at least, seems to be open to offering least (among the current candidates) resistance to a glimpse of Sanatana Bharat.

On the other hand, notice how Congress humiliated its own PM P V Narasimha Rao because he was perceived as lesser anti-Hindu compared to what the Congress would have wanted. With Congress having blood of lakhs of Hindus during partition and Mulayam Singh having blood of Hindus in 1990, it is they who must be untouchable political parties! With a mentor like Kanshiram it is Mayawati whose party must be untouchable.

The BJP must shun begging to be included by these 'untouchables' in their group, rather they must boldly condemn these parties and educate the masses about what these parties stand for! 

In our opinion, any party that presents itself as opposed to Secularism and Socialism (with substantive arguments) will be the alternative that the large majority is looking for, and that is what the nation needs for its own welfare. If the BJP prefers the first option (option-1) then the Hindus must and will reject it. The Hindus must build for themselves a party which will boldly represent them. Thus, if the BJP seeks to gain Hindu support, it must choose the second option (option-2). With second option it must go for an all out win, failing which it must allow the Congress and the Third Front to collude. It must reject A and C as secular and socialist. It is only then that the new vision of non-secular non-socialist option will emerge. The A and C combo may flutter and stutter for a while, but it is bound to fail in the end. If not in the immediate next election, within 3-4 elections, the BJP (or a Hindu Alliance) will be able to form a government on its own, with a mandate for carte blanche!

Hindus or their aspiring representatives will do well to understand very clearly  the unholy alliance between the anti-Hindus C and A. The burden of proof to demonstrate that they are not anti-Hindu must be on C and A. The BJP, until now, has been taking upon itself the burden to demonstrate that it is not anti-Muslim, and thereby tying itself into knots. If BJP chooses to pursue such suicidal directions, it is high time that Hindus built an alternative for themselves.

Finally, one must always bear in mind, winning elections can only be a means, the end is to rebuild Sanatana Bharat. 

Friday, September 14, 2012

Is this Center-Right, or is it Far Left?

The more we look at the self-proclaimed 'right-wing' in India, whether in politics, media, or intellectuals; the more we are reminded of the (possibly anonymous) quote: The Left has nothing Right, and the Right has nothing Left!

The interview of Pratap Simha on Niti Central is very touching. It reads like the story of a man braving against seemingly all odds. Our piece here is not his criticism, but that of the bias of the prevailing mindset and the times that we live in.

We are copy-pasting the original (given here) below, and we have highlighted the points (like this) that we would examine:


The Bangalore Crime Branch (BCB) on August 30 arrested 11 members allegedly affiliated to Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. This pre-emptive strike by the police has averted a major terror strike, which these men are accused of having plotted. Part of this plot reportedly included assassinating prominent businessmen, politicians, and two journalists working in the Kannada language media. One of these is the renowned Kannada journalist and Kannada Prabha columnist Pratap Simha.

Sandeep B brings you an exclusive interview with Pratap Simha who shares his experiences of being the target of the alleged terror plot against him.

Sandeep B:  Thanks Pratap for agreeing to do this interview. First, the obvious question: How do you feel, being a target of a failed terror attack?

Pratap Simha :  I’m really not anxious but you can say I’m disturbed because I have a 7-month old child and a disabled wife… not that I’m scared… I’ll get to that later. It was different when I was a bachelor. You see, people behind such attacks won’t achieve anything by killing one or two writers. If they do, hundreds of other writers will crop up. These people need to change their mindset.

SB: Did you suspect something like this or did the police alert you? When did you come to know of this threat first?

PS: Let me give you some background. In 2007, I wrote a column titled √§varige sigabahudu kanyearu 70 namage maatra aapattu (They might get 70 virgins but we only get danger). This piece created a huge storm. My point is, this is not the first time I’ve faced threats. I continue to receive hundreds of hate mails and protests. Even my last Saturday’s column elicited a hate message which I deleted. I have never cared for these things. Another example: in 2003, I wrote an article condemning protests by Jaffer Sharief and Deve Gowda who took out a huge procession in Bangalore condemning the US attack on Saddam. I faced a lot of heat for this piece too. See, I don’t like living in fear.

Anyway, to answer your question, I was alerted yesterday morning by my editor about this threat to my life. So far, all these attacks and threats were at a very small level. But I must admit, I hadn’t imagined they would escalate to terrorist-levels.

SB: The media reports that 11 people were arrested, almost all of whom were from Karnataka. What do you think of this development given that Karnataka has largely been a peaceful state since independence?

PS: What we are now seeing is a worrying brand of entirely home-grown terrorism operating on remote control from Saudi, Middle East. Of those who were arrested, one was a local “boss” hailing from UP. Another north Indian was operating from Saudi, giving plans and instructions.

By and large, Islamic radicalism of the Wahhabi brand is rapidly increasing in the state. In coastal Karnataka, the kind of radicalism we’re seeing now was completely absent even 15 years ago. In South Canara one was used to seeing these grand churches but now we can see imposing mosques with huge and high walls, almost like fortresses. Local Muslims back then used to mix freely with people of other faiths but now there is a marked distance.


Anyway, the spread of Wahhabism is worrying because it preaches that a Muslim’s primary allegiance is to Islam and not to the nation. These preachers target impressionable teenagers and youths whose minds are not yet mature, who are hot-blooded and receptive to brainwashing. All those arrested today are aged between 20-30. These youths are so indoctrinated that they have no thought about things like their own future, the implications of their acts on their families. They care nothing about even basic things like hurting others’ feelings. It’s a very disturbing trend. This phenomenon is not restricted to India but elsewhere in the world where Islamic radicalism is on the rise. Also, this mindset is dangerous in any community. This development does not bode well for Karnataka.

SB: Media has reported that these terrorists targeted you and Vishweshwar Bhat specifically because they were found to possess photos of you and Mr. Bhat with Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Your views?

PS: The police raid revealed that these guys had downloaded all my pieces that took a pro-nationalistic stand as well as those that were critical of Islamic terrorism. They had also downloaded photos of Mr. Modi with me and Mr. Bhat.

Now, Muslims are obviously angry with Modi for right or wrong reasons. Hindus equally have reasons to admire Modi. For the record, I admire Modi because he has provided credible leadership, effective governance and delivered on all his development promises in Gujarat. I’ve written a book on him. The secular media and Muslim outfits which have attacked Modi for 10 years — why should they be angry with Modi’s supporters and try to silence their voices?

See, I’ve never supported the killing of Muslims or Hindus or any other community. These people targeted me because they thought I am close to Modi. When I wrote that book, allegations were made that I had taken Rs. 2 Crore from Modi to write it!


SB: In some circles, you’re known as a firebrand “Hindutva” journalist who hates Muslims. Is that why you were targeted now?

PS: Yes. Because in the last 13-14 years in my journalism career, I have seen nobody supporting Hindu and nationalist causes as candidly as I have. That’s why I have been branded anti-Muslim whereas I am not against any religion. My inspiration is Swami Vivekananda. Remember his quote about taking all the mud from the bottom of the ocean? He too wasn’t against either Christianity or Islam. He just pointed out the damage they had caused. I’m doing the same. I have never ever condemned the practices, traditions and customs of Muslims. I have also condemned Hindu misdeeds, and have even criticised Swamis. I have deep respect for Hindu traditions. How does that make me anti-Muslim?

SB: How has your family taken this?

PS: They’re disturbed but they don’t show it. I don’t want to reveal personal details but my wife lost her leg in an accident some time ago but she fought back. If something happens to me tomorrow, I know she’ll be strong and survive my absence. This gives me enormous strength.

SB: Will you continue writing in the same vein or will you tone down and/or change your stance?

PS: In 2007, about 30 people had come to my office to attack me when I wrote that 72 virgins article. If I had to change my writing, I would have done so back then. No question of changing now or in the future because it means abandoning my convictions. There is no life for me if I give up my convictions.

SB: Among those arrested today were a DRDO employee and a journalist with an English daily. These are people in responsible positions. One of them is a person working in a sensitive organisation like the DRDO. Your take?

PS: You’re right, it is worrisome. But it’s nothing new. Lots of brainwashed fundamentalists hold white collar jobs. There’s that Yahoo techie, affiliated to Indian Mujahideen who sent out threatening emails, a Bangladeshi (?) woman who was caught smuggling sensitive information from ISRO in the 90s, an intern who was caught smuggling secret information from HAL, etc. Indians looked at Muslims with suspicion post-partition because their demands led to the creation of Pakistan. Now, when these incidents keep happening repeatedly, such suspicion is reinforced.

See, it is okay if ordinary people don’t give much weight to things like nationalism, etc. But people working in places like DRDO, army, etc. If they are brainwashed against the nation, it is a cause for anxiety.

SB: How do you rate the effectiveness of our police and intelligence?

PS:  This threat to me and Mr. Bhat was first detected by the Hyderabad police who tipped off Bangalore police. The BCB have done commendable work. They are efficient despite severe constraints. But they would do even better if their political masters allowed them.

SB: Anything else you’d like to share with us?

PS: I must express my heartfelt gratitude to the government which responded instantly by giving me 24/7 security.

All I want to say is that people who are born and brought up in this nation, which has given them food, clothing, and shelter and citizen rights and jobs. To these people, I appeal: please do not bomb this nation from within. It will serve no purpose.


Let us closely look at the highlighted content one by one, our comments are interspersed in normal color:


PS: What we are now seeing is a worrying brand of entirely home-grown terrorism operating on remote control from Saudi, Middle East. Of those who were arrested, one was a local “boss” hailing from UP. Another north Indian was operating from Saudi, giving plans and instructions.

This wrongly gives the impression as if just until some time ago, the situation was not that worrisome. Hindus have borne the brunt of Islamic invaders for 1400 years. All those who got converted, even though under duress, became as much ferocious against Hindus if not more. It is exemplified by the old proverb "New convert eats more beef."


By and large, Islamic radicalism of the Wahhabi brand is rapidly increasing in the state. In coastal Karnataka, the kind of radicalism we’re seeing now was completely absent even 15 years ago. In South Canara one was used to seeing these grand churches but now we can see imposing mosques with huge and high walls, almost like fortresses. Local Muslims back then used to mix freely with people of other faiths but now there is a marked distance.


Anyway, the spread of Wahhabism is worrying because it preaches that a Muslim’s primary allegiance is to Islam and not to the nation. These preachers target impressionable teenagers and youths whose minds are not yet mature, who are hot-blooded and receptive to brainwashing. All those arrested today are aged between 20-30. These youths are so indoctrinated that they have no thought about things like their own future, the implications of their acts on their families. They care nothing about even basic things like hurting others’ feelings. It’s a very disturbing trend. This phenomenon is not restricted to India but elsewhere in the world where Islamic radicalism is on the rise. Also, this mindset is dangerous in any community. This development does not bode well for Karnataka.
[highlight]

This shows as if there are other peaceful versions of Islam beside Wahhabism which are very nice. Only the ignoramuses will subscribe to such an understanding. Anyone who has heard Wafa Sultan, or read Robert Spencer etc., would at once realize that all this talk of "moderate versions of Islam" is either false or, worse still, a part of Taqiyya, the doctrine of dissimulation and stealth.

Similar is the foolishness of usage of terms like Islamic radicalization. Islam itself is radical, no further radicalization is needed. The Muslims who are good, are good because they are practising Taqiyya, or they are 'least Muslims'! Recall what Srdja Trifkovic said of Muslims: "The best Muslims are usually the Least Muslims", in his article, Islam's Other Victims: India. They are good not because of Islam, but in spite of Islam. For a primer on Jihad, we advise you to check here.

Especially, the Hindus from the South are much more prone to this dumb-fuckery of imagining that Muslims in South India are "different" from the rest of the Muslims and are not prone to committing Jihad. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please recall that the failed Jihadi, Kafeel Ahmed also had Bangalore connection! Tipu Sultan himself did much harm to Hindus and their temples. Moplah revolt is not even a century old! Worst of all, the tenedency to refuse to understand the centrality of Jihad in Islam is not merely suicidal foolishness, it is evil, for it will lull the rest also into believing in the existence of the non-existent "moderate Islam"!.

See, I’ve never supported the killing of Muslims or Hindus or any other community. These people targeted me because they thought I am close to Modi. When I wrote that book, allegations were made that I had taken Rs. 2 Crore from Modi to write it!

Contrast the apologetic style of "fire brand Hindutva" author Pratap Simha, and the "follower of religion of peace" and "secular" Owaisi!

SB: In some circles, you’re known as a firebrand “Hindutva” journalist who hates Muslims. Is that why you were targeted now?
PS: Yes. Because in the last 13-14 years in my journalism career, I have seen nobody supporting Hindu and nationalist causes as candidly as I have. That’s why I have been branded anti-Muslim whereas I am not against any religion. My inspiration is Swami Vivekananda. Remember his quote about taking all the mud from the bottom of the ocean? He too wasn’t against either Christianity or Islam. He just pointed out the damage they had caused. I’m doing the same. I have never ever condemned the practices, traditions and customs of Muslims. I have also condemned Hindu misdeeds, and have even criticised Swamis. I have deep respect for Hindu traditions. How does that make me anti-Muslim?

Notice again the bleeding heart true-secularism: I am not against any religion. Take a break man: It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you!

More over, immediately after clarifying that he is not anti-Muslim nor anti-Christian, he digs himself further into "true-secularism" by saying how much he respects practices, traditions and customs of Muslims, by revealing how he has criticized Hindu misdeeds and on and on and on!

Is being 'plainly and simply pro-Hindu' that bloody wrong that Hindus find being plainly and simply pro-Hindu that damn difficult? And notice how even such frail hearted semi-apologetic are termed "firebrand Hindutva" writers.

So our message to Shri Pratap Simha is: 

Sir, you have nothing to explain! It is the people who plotted to destroy you who owe explanations. Further, it is their ideology that we as Hindus need to understand clearly. Rid yourself of 'true-secularism'. Remember what Vivekananda once said: Truth does not pay homage to any society. Society has to pay homage to Truth or it shall die.  

We must at once recognise that we can not afford to ignore the mundane truth and reality of Islam - Not the radical Islam, not Wahhabi Islam, not Islamofascism and such intellectual nonsense - but Islam itself. 

In the words of Tayyip Erdogan, PM of Turkey: The term "moderate Islam" is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is Islam.  

And it is this Islam which has been - in the past for 1400 years - and continues to this day to be clear and present danger. As an author, it is your responsibility to awaken the people to this danger. All the best.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Rajdeep Sardesai writes to Raj Marathi-Manoos Thackeray. We reply!


Recently, Rajdeep Sardesai has written an open letter to Raj Thackeray, chiding him for being parochial. Here, we try to present a counter-view. This piece is not intended to be comprehensive. We have interspersed our comments, in red while the original is in blue.


Dear Raj,

This is the second open letter I am writing to you since, as was the case four years ago, you refuse to do interviews in any language other than Marathi. We have a popular Marathi channel whose ratings soar every time you speak to us. You are a box office hit in Marathi. But Mumbai is no longer a Maharashtrian city. It hasn't been one for well over a century. By contrast, the percentage of non-Maharashtrians, and especially Hindi speakers, has gone up steadily even though the rate of increase has declined in the last decade. A substantial number of the migrants are from UP and Bihar. They are, it seems, the 'new enemy'.


Is it necessary that Mumbai must continue towards non-Maharashtrian citydom? If we use Rajdeep's line of thinking, we can ask: India has been corrupt for past 65 years, why should we want to change it? Rajdeep might answer that Corruption is "wrong" then he is introducing an Ethical point. Thus before clarifying his ethical position it is futile to make such arguments. Now will Rajdeep clarify his Ethical position on 'migration'?

For example: Is forced integration, where a resident population is compelled to accommodate migrants, a desirable thing?

Four years ago, I had pitched for a course correction after north Indian taxi-drivers in Mumbai were assaulted. MNS workers even hurled bottles at the house of the ultimate national icon, Amitabh Bachchan, suggesting that he was partial to his home state of Uttar Pradesh. At the time, it seemed an act of temporary madness, part of a larger battle you were waging with your cousin Udhav for control of the Shiv Sena.


If Rajdeep is upset that MNS workers took law into their own hands, then he must cultivate the habit of writing open letters a dozen a month if not a week. One does not even have to be a politician for that. Most 'rich' and the 'connected' people behave as if they are above law, and they get away with it!

If Rajdeep is upset owing to some 'deeper' reasons, then he has not mentioned them. Without going into why 'assaults' took place, it is futile to pass judgments. Rajdeep has forgotten that for past many decades, Indian law-enforcement has had such a poor track record that in most matters people hardly expect that justice will be done. 

Further, such pathetic law-enforcement performance has been the primary reason why there is so much 'Corruption' that Rajdeep harps on in his TV shows. For the higher-ups know that they can get away with anything!

Four years later, I thought you had outgrown the politics of hate and violence. Two weeks ago when you delivered a passionate speech in support of the policemen who were attacked during the Azad Maidan violence in the backdrop of the Assam riots, I could see a political rationale for the demagoguery and your 'rose diplomacy' with the constabulary. There was genuine sympathy in Mumbai for the beat constables who had been targeted by a mob of criminals from the minority community. While the state government pussyfooted over the issue of arresting the ringleaders, you took up a cause that seemed to resonate with a number of people who were tired of the politics of "appeasement".

We hope that Rajdeep will ask the same question of Representatives of Islam and their handmaidens in the Congress and the Left; and even the true-secular among the BJP. Does Rajdeep believe that Islam is a religion of peace, spreading love and non-violence?

We also hope that Rajdeep wrote open letters to Maharashtra CM, Maharashtra Congress President, Manmohan Sigh and Sonia Gandhi as to why such 'pussyfooting' has been an indulgent norm with Congress and its governments.

Also, our question is, what is Rajdeep's moral stand on politics of 'appeasement', and what is his track record in questioning the politics of appeasement of Islam in India?

But within days of striking a popular chord over the Azad Maidan violence, you have returned to a familiar refrain by calling Biharis ínflitrators and threatening to drive them out of the city. You may well claim that your outburst is a fallout of the controversy over the arrest of a teenage Muslim from Bihar's Sitamarhi district for the desecration of the Amar Jawan Jyothi. But if there is any issue over the mode of his arrest, then it should be sorted between the Mumbai and Bihar police, but to deliberately politicise the arrest is to do exactly what you are accusing the Cong-NCP government in Maharashtra of: make the police hostage to vote bank politics.

Again, without going into the details of the case, Rajdeep is being prejudiced. Rajdeep, must first realize, and we are saying this to him because he seems to be the least unreasonable amongst the comity of journalists, and this is an opportunity for him to exhibit that his 'journalism' is not a facade.

Also, we always wonder why Indian people, more so journalists, and surprisingly even politicians, constantly accuse their opponents of 'doing politics' or 'politicising the issue'. After all, why are politicians there, if not to do politics and to politicise the issue whenever possible. Rajdeep must wonder what his reaction would be if his competing media people accused him of 'journalising the issue'!

The other related aspect is that of vote-bank politics. As we mentioned here, with a free entry to voting-rights, and with elected members having the power to enact legislation providing differential advantages to different sections, vote-bank politics is inevitable.

The accusations of 'politicising the issue' and/or of 'vote-bank politics' are usually a ploy to trick the opponent into the slippery slopes of moral high-ground.

Such techniques preclude whatever negligible remaining possibility exists for a dispassionate debate to decide issues, reducing them to a simple mud slinging contest.

There must be zero tolerance for those responsible for the Azad maidan violence. No community has the right to use a sense of 'victim-hood' to take the law into their hands. Nor should the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar protect any criminal by asserting federal powers. But to stereotype every Bihari as a consequence as an infiltrator is to do irreparable damage to the idea of Mumbai, and, indeed India.

The slogan of 'zero tolerance' has become a farce. Also, if Nitish is so concerned about the welfare of Biharis, he must focus on the atrocities that his own government and its machinery inflicts on Biharis. By siding with alleged anti-national person of Bihar, under the pretext of bureaucratic procedures, it is Nitish who is being deceptive.

But returning to Rajdeep: Will Rajdeep present what his idea of Mumbai and of India is? Does Rajdeep too, like the empty-suit Katju, believe that Mumbai is a city of immigrants, and India a nation of immigrants? Also, does he insist that people have no freedom to disagree with him on his ideas of Mumbai and India?
Mumbai, like many great cities across the world, was built by waves of migrations. What would Mumbai have been in the 19th century without Parsee and Gujarati entrepreneurship and in the 20th century without Sindhi and Punjabi business acumen? In the last 30 years, migrants from UP and Bihar have provided a large pool of labour, skilled and unskilled, to service Mumbai's commercial engine. How many Maharashtrians will readily work as security guards on double shifts, often without minimum wages? Economic needs often drive demographic shifts: assimilation, not aggression is the way to deal with it.

Whether Mumbai was built by immigrants or not is not relevant here. The question is what you find as desirable, and do others have a right to disagree with your desires or not.

We also hope that you are not advocating immigration so that Mumbai can afford security guards below minimum wages. If you turn your argument on its head, disallowing immigration will do a great justice regarding the wages of security guards!

The irony is that there is a political vacuum in Mumbai waiting to be captured by a far-sighted leadership. The ruling Congress-NCP alliance has proved to be dysfunctional: its local leadership has been exposed for its links with real estate sharks and for doing little to stop the criminalisation of Mumbai's political ethos. The Shiv Sena which won the city municipal elections in February is barely held together by a tiger in the winter of his life. Your cousin Udhav appears to lack the charisma or the political instincts of Balasaheb.

How about a bigger vacuum at the Center?

There is space today then for a political grouping that can promote cultural pride while respecting Mumbai's inherent cosmopolitanism. When you set up the MNS a few years ago, I thought you were aiming to break with the past: to represent a new, self-confident Maharashtrian identity that would co-exist with growing economic competition. Unfortunately, you have chosen to revive an ugly parochialism which is premised on insecurity and anger towards the "other".

Now Rajdeep is opening himself a bit and revealing some thing about himself. We would like to know, what he defines as a combination of 'cultural pride and inherent cosmopolitanism'? We ask this in the same humble spirit that he asks others.

I guess you believe that only competitive regional chauvinism with the Shiv Sena will get you votes and strengthen your claims to being the true successor to Balasaheb. But the politics of 'sons of the soil' is now subject to the law of diminishing returns. Identity politics may get you support from the committed, political machismo may draw applause from the youth, hate speech will attract controversy and eyeballs but if you wish to be a true leader of Mumbai, you must build a cross-class, cross-community appeal that goes beyond shrill and divisive rhetoric.

If the politics of 'son of the soil' is subject to the law of diminishing returns, what is Rajdeep's view on Bangladeshi immigration? Does he advocate an open borders policy?

Maybe you are a prisoner of your legacy: having consciously tried to model yourself on Balasaheb, it is perhaps too late to break away from the past. Maybe you don't wish to offer a real alternative. Maybe, Mumbai is destined to be caught in the cross-fire of the militant Senas. Which is a pity for a city in desperate need of urban renewal and, above all else, good governance.

Post-script: I have many Bihari friends today, including my driver, an honest God-fearing man from Darbhanga who is driven by a singular desire to ensure his children get the best possible education. He asked me the other day why Raj Thackeray disliked Biharis so much. As a proud Maharashtrian and Indian, frankly, I had no answer.

As a proud Maharashtrian, you should have surely asked the honest '(possibly) Allah-fearing, non-Muslim-hating man' that if he realized that Bihar was not good enough for his children and himself, why he wanted Maharashtra to become like Bihar, instead of wanting Bihar to become like Maharashtra? And yes, if Rajdeep's driver is not Allah-fearing, then Rajdeep must be accused of practising discrimination against Dalit and poor Muslims.

Analogously Rajdeep must also ask a similar question to Paki and Bangladeshi immigrants: If they are running away from the holy land of Islam, then why do they not run away from Islam itself? Why do they want India to go the Pak and Bangla way?

And we are sure, that Rajdeep has no courage to speak out legitimate answers to these questions as well.

- Rajdeep Sardesai


There is an urgent need to guard against Marxist eulogy of  multi-culturalism, pro-immigrationism and such hogwash. While Rajdeep advises Raj to make cross-class, cross-cultural bridges; it is Marxists like Rajdeep who destroy peace and harmony by emphasizing the 'victimhood' of the lower-classes and of the immigrants.

It is Marxism which has as its ethics 'eternal victim-hood' of the  proletariat, and its yearning for the revolutionary uprising to bring about a 'just' society, which has had the worst violent streak.

Rajdeep and media-morons of his ilk are the worst perpetrators of the Jawaharian meme of anti-Hinduism.

While Raj Marathi-Manoos Thackeray deserves to be severely chastised for his  Savarkarisn 'Secular-Marathitva'; Rajdeep's Marxist criticism holds no water.

 

Friday, September 7, 2012

Mohandasian-Jawaharian Hypocrisy: 1962 vs 2002 is a prime example!


Politics, which is a damn serious matter, is seeing more and more degradation in India. So much so, that most of the politicians have reduced it to sheer hypocrisy or a black farce. Here we present a comparison between Jawahar-1962 and Modi-2002. The stark reality stares at our face. Hindus really need to girdle up their loins.

1962:

1. There were ample indications that China was preparing for war: Jawahar did Precious Nothing. This was not intelligence failure, this was Jawahar's-intelligence (if at all it existed) Failure! As we shall see, Jawahar was not unintelligent, rather he was a crook (against Hindus).

Further, he provoked China with his Dalai-Lama act, not because he loved the Dalai-Lama, rather because he was consumed with lust for international (read white-western) acclaim, a disease which has chronically afflicted Congress Leaders.

We remark that in our opinion, P V Narasimha Rao was an exception, though from Congress, and Atal Behari Vajpeyee was NOT an exception despite not being from Congress. In present times MMS epitomizes the afflicted!

2002:

1. There was planning by the Jihadis, but there was no actionable prior intelligence that the Godhra burning will take place. Thus, there could not have been a preparedness which comes as a result of prior knowledge. One might call it intelligence failure, but it surely was not Chief Minister's Failure!

We also mention that the three neighboring States, then ruled by Congress, refused security-forces assistance.

1962:

The preparations were so utterly atrocious that Indian soldiers lacked such basic things as shoes and warm clothing! More over, even though the Chinese were violating the border in swarms, the soldiers were ordered to 'hold fire'. India had superiority in Air-Force, but Air-Force was not used, courtesy Jawahar! 

As a result India lost the war very badly.

2002:

Godhra Burning happened, an act which was horrible beyond imagination, but something that is common-place for Islam against non-Muslims! When there was a spontaneous reaction and subsequently riots took place, Hindus were mercilessly massacred by the Police. Out of the total, about 1000, killed, more than 250, about 25% were Hindus. In other words as many Hindus as one third of as many Muslims were killed, (Since governments always exaggerate Muslim deaths and hide Hindu deaths, the figure can be much worse) and yet it was called an Anti-Muslim Pogrom!

1962:

Jawahar shamelessly stuck to his post claiming that not even a blade of grass grew in the lost territory. His sycophants kept shouting that Jawahar's hands must be strengthened. And they conned the Indian public into sympathizing with Jawahar.

2002:

Narendra Modi resigned and elections were held. Narendra Modi won the elections convincingly.

For how long will the debates be on vacuous issues? Recall that Indira Gandhi, on one occasion, blamed the CIA (or Foreign Hand) for the failure of Monsoon!

If the Congress can get away with the lie: Mohandas won independence for India and that too through Mohandasian non-violent means,

If the Left can get away with the lie: Lenin and Mao brought in peaceful revolution to liberate the poor,

If Muslims and Seculars want to get away with the Mother of All Lies: Islam is a Religion of Peace,

Then, what is wrong (Even if, merely for the sake of argument if we assume that it is a lie) if Modi gets away with the alleged 'lie': NaMo brought development to Gujarat!

The issue is not lies, the issue is that politics in India is never based on ideas which have to be made to work. A vague, romantic, and hypothetical idealized view (in one word Foolish) is endlessly repeated. Most parties, especially the Congress and the Third (rate) front have an extremely myopic vision: their focus is on winning elections, by hook or by crook.

Despite our intense displeasure with the fact that Sonia (essentially a foreigner) is the Super-PM of India, we can not ignore the stark reality of our politics and politicians. And the dark reality is: If Sonia G dies, the Congress will pretend sadness but will be internally happy, for it might yield potential electoral gains! Inhuman, you may say, but that is the unfortunate truth. Unbounded selfishness!

With such selfishness, which prevailed all over, is Mohandasian-Jawaharian hypocrisy any surprise? Thus it will be better that we quickly recognize that our Society and Constitution are failing. We are not inching, we are galloping towards anarchy and civil-war. Hindus need to wake up, and organize themselves for their survival.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

India: A Democracy On the Verge of Failure?

For past 65 years Indian politicians, intellectuals, media persons, elites have been chanting the Democracy-mantra. Being accused of being un-democratic has been perceived as being worse than being called a rapist or philanderer, which incidentally many among the most respected in the present times are. The present write-up is intended more as thought-provoking rather than as a final word!

Let us take a look at the facts:

At the Center, Congress has been a Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Various factions emerged from it, bit the dust, and only the dynasty remains.

In states: In Tamizhnadu, MGR and now Jayalalita - AIADMK, similarly Karunanidhi - DMK. Bihar: Lalu Yadav - RJD, and RamVilasPaswan - LokJanshakti Party. Orissa: Navin Patnaik - BJD. Maharashtra: Bal Thackeray - ShivSena, Raj Thackeray - MNSena. Karnataka: Devegowda - JD(S). Jammu and Kashmir: Farookh Abdulla/Omar Abdulla - National Conference, and Mehbooba Mufti - PDP. UP: Mulayam Singh - SP Andhra Pradesh: N Chandrababu Naidu - TDP, YSR Congress - Jagan Reddy.

Political parties which have been accused of dynastic rule have been healthy and have survived longer! The only major parties than can claim non-dynastic status are the BJP and the commie brigade. The Congress which is dynatic at center, at states it has been more like competing dynasties within the Congress, though the dynasty component is not that apparent now.

The other notable thing is that in parties who claim to be 'democratic' there is what can be alleged as 'factional politics'. Thus Congress is always rife with factionalism in states. The BJP is rife with the same ay both the Center and the states. The CPI(M), the CPI are all similarly rife with factionalism. It appears that 'dynastic rule' unites and the 'democracy' leads to 'factionalism'. Also, this factionalism seems to end as soon as a dynastic leader or 'alleged dictator' emerges. For example: Modi in Gujarat, Nitish in Bihar, etc.

Why is it that the situation is as it is? Of course, the most often used explanation is that we have all these problems because we do not have a healthy democracy. But a counter question that can be posed is: Why can we not have a healthy democracy? If in 65 years we have not been able to make it a healthy democracy why are we persisting with trying to make ourselves democratic?

Coming to issues and policies, one can notice how 'factionalism' is being fuelled by Social Justice: Eternal and ever increasing demand and supply of reservation and quotas. It started with SC/ST for an initial period of ten years, and is continuing ad nauseum. Not just that, it grew to accommodate OBC, and now there is demand for Women and Monirity reservation Bills. Further, now there is an effort to amend the Constitution to implement reservation in promotions as well! Moreover, notice how states keep demanding 'special packages' and how Presidential elections are decided by promises of Special Package.


So we need to ask some relevant questions: Why is it that what works for political parties is considered bad for the nation? Also, if 'factionalism' within parties is considered bad, how can fomenting factionalism by granting reservations be good for the nation?

The answer is, universal-adult-franchise-democracy is fatally flawed. If a nation is governed using such a system, either the government or the nation or both are bound to fail! In 'our' democracy, while earning the right to rule requires winning elections, the right to vote comes for free (requires merely ageing!). It is not difficult to see that an aspiring 'representative of the 'people' would like to keep his constituency as much prone to manipulation by himself as possible. Also, various groups will quickly form 'vote-banks' to extract their 'pound of flesh'. This combination inevitably results in the formation of 'extractive elites' whose sole purpose is to cling to power and immense wealth, by hook or by crook! The concept of 'extractive elites' is also discussed in the book: Why Nations Fail. The flaws of Democracy are discussed in the book: Democracy: The God that Failed.

For long we have been foolishly patting ourselves on the back, priding ourselves in our vibrant democracy. What we have managed to do is to make for ourselves a system which every five years (or often oftener) conducts elections, congratulating itself in a self-aggrandizing manner for choreographing this 'dance of democracy'.  The fact that Indira Gandhi lost elections after emergency debacle is no sign of the success of Indian democracy. But the fact that merely 65 years after a bloody partition there are political parties who are promising reservations on the basis of minority-religions is a sure sign of impending failure.

We closed our eyes till 1991, for 44 years, until we were rudely woken up from Socialism by the shock of impending economic doom, but it has not taken us even 20 years to fall asleep again! Regarding civilizational survival, if we continue to remain asleep, the warnings by Rajiv Malhotra might well turn out to be a mere trailer of the things to come.

Whether democracy, no matter which form, is doomed or not is a matter of debate. However, the fact that democracy as being practiced in India is on the verge of failure, is surely emerging. A lot needs to done, but more than that a lot needs to be thought!