On Challenges from Internal Adversaries

In our recent posts (here and here) we 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.

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.

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.

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.

Congress's Strategy Against Modi and A Possible Effective Counter Strategy

Background: 

As we have mentioned elsewhere (see here, here and here) Hindutva itself is too weak for the defense of Hinduism and Hindus qua Hindus. However, the political theater in India is so anti-Hindu that even a whiff of a hint of shred of a trace of a clue of weakening of anti-Hindu stance is portrayed as evil. Similarly, India has no right-wing either! In the name of inclusion, there is a conspiracy to violently exclude upper-caste middle-class males, while excluding the upper castes and middle classes somewhat less obviously. Through all this, the push and shove of anti-Hinduism by the anti-Hindus is barely concealed if not explicitly manifest.

Now that NaMo is the unofficially declared PM-candidate, the Congress has a problem on its hands. They and their coterie (that includes Third Front which also includes the pretending-to-be-rabid-anti-Congress parties) will work in unison against Modi. As we have mentioned, it is not because Modi represents Hindutva (which he doesn't, in fact he strives to be a Truer-Secular among the True-Seculars), not because he is anti-Muslim (which he isn't, infact he skillfully avoids mentioning the ever dangerous Islam-problem), not because he is anti-Socialism (which he isn't, he too is a BIG-government guy!), and the list is long; but because he is merely perceived (by Media Projections) to be presenting Hindutva, anti-Muslim and non-Inclusive face.

Thus, there will be this orchestra of lead-barker and the echo-barkers making the echo-chamber. Most Third-(rate)-Fronters will be the echo chamber. Typically, DogVijay et al. will lead the band. Also, Congress is on a kind of BSY-mode. That is, their top priority will be defeat of NaMo(BJP) or restricting them to below 150. Wherever BJP's loss is certain, Congress will field its candidates (to maximize its gains); wherever uncertain it might enter into alliances. However, that is not the main theme here.

A Typical Pan-Indian Voter: 

In universal suffrage democracy, perception dominates the reception. NaMo has been able to tune his perception in Gujarat, however before he works his magic across India, he may do well to appreciate that voters in a large part of India may not be as "business-like" as Gujaratis are. The middle class youth will most likely be his constituency, except for those who have fallen for the "charms" of Rahul Gandhi. It should be borne in mind that RG, while striving to appear as prince-charming, will turn out to be out and out prince-harming. Recall his wikiealks statements that he was more afraid of majority (read Hindu) terror.

Non-youth, non-middle-class voter is often swayed by "emotional" perceptions. Mass waves in favour of Rajiv Gandhi (in 1984) or M G Ramachandran (in TN), etc., exemplify the point. Sympathy factor, anti-Arrogance factor, etc., play a large role. And this is where Congress and its cronies will concentrate on.

Basics of Congress Strategy:

1.  RG will not be declared the PM candidate. He will ever be claimed as our leader. If Cong wins, RG will want to do a SG (no accountability immense power), if Cong loses, the team will be held responsible.
2. Congress will never bear any Burden-of-Proof (except when obvious as daylight). Also, they will largely rely on Shoot and Hold-ground by shifting the burden of proof. Their echo-chamber barkers will employ Shoot-and-Scoot.
3. Congress will never commit on anything except vague and undefined sweet sounding generalities. [Recall Secularism, Inclusive, etc.]. They will insinuate that Modi is anathema to these nice things and media will demand "proof" from Modi-spokespersons.
4. Congress will Challenge Modi to commit on things (critical things like Hindutva, Inclusivism, etc.). Modi's potemtial detractors within the BJP too will honestly and humbly suggest the same. Refusal to commit will be termed deception and/or cowardice, while committing will be termed as arrogance, anti-nice-things, nasty, etc.
5. SG/RG will NOT criticize Modi, rather they will pretend to be kind, well-mannered, royal charmers. Almost chiding their own team to be soft-spoken (while paying them to bark the loudest), while communicating as if the substance of the allegations by the barkers is self-evident.
6. Blatant and Shameless announcements of freebies and goodies will be the bonus for the Vote-Bank!
7. We won't be surprised if SG gets a near-death-experience or even dies.

With this in the background let us project what a typical scenario will be,

A Typical Congress-Attack Scenario: 

DogVijay throws the challenge: Gujarat has not developed and whatever development has happened is non-inclusive. After all what else can you expect from a man who is a product of Fascist Hate-Ideology. Channel after Channel will run endless debates on this "allegation".

Typical BJP-Response:

The BJP-team, including ear-to-ear grinning Piyush Goyal (and mind you he is one of the better ones) will be tying himself into knots "disproving" the "allegation". Nirmala Sitaraman will be mocking herself by striving to appear stern and logical. Meenakshi Lekhi will be gaspingly laughing while venting out at the jokers like Kumar Ketkars and Sanjay Jhas. The less said about the likes of Ravi Shankar Prasad, the better. Sushil Modi will be "advising" Narendra Modi to become inclusive and wear the "cap", and consider "apologizing" for 2002. Lesser members of the BJP-team will be struggling against the disdain and contempt that Manish Tiwaris, etc., heap on them.

Devang Nanavati may be OK, but he is wasting his energies if he takes flippant allegations seriously. The very "struggling" against such an "allegation" gives a small amount of credence to the charge. If the "defense" is successful, it is merely a relief, otherwise it is Barkha Dutts and Sagarika Ghoshs smirking with patronizing disdain.

Also, please note that Congress will employ only "stupid" and/or "conceited" people to "debate" BJP-team members. It is either Ketkar, Jha or Renuka, and at the very best it will be a Satyavrat Chaturvedi. And they will keep playing "disdain", "shifting goal post", "putting the burden of proof on the opponent", "everybody knows", and such balderdash.

Recall that DogVijay had asked: "If L K Advani is Bheeshma, who are Shakuni and Duryodhana?". It should also be kept in mind that most "debates" are biased "against" Hindus by the supposedly "neutral moderators". In light of these, what Should Be the Basics of Strategy by NaMo-Team?

An Outline of Basic Strategy:

1. Debate:

Fight fire with bigger fire. Fight "mocking" with "contemptuous ridicule" etc. Defeat the bast*rds in their own turf. This is not going to be easy, but surely NOT as difficult as it might appear. There is sufficient time and a few days and weeks of home-work will do wonders. Also bear in mind that Congress will be doing its home-work. The team needs to have many groups. 

• Group 1: Devang Nanavatis and Piyush Goyal types who will do serious data-backed debates ONLY after frivolous debaters have been decimated.
• Group 2: Meenalshi Lekhi, Nirmala Sitaraman and Ravi Shankar Prasad types who will conduct serious general debates ONLY after frivolous oponents have been decimated.
• Group 3 and Group 4: These groups are presently non-existent. These groups need to be groomed (This is the home-work that is needed) who handle Jhas (the way Subramanian Swamy handled him) and Arnab Goswamis (the way Prof. R Vaidyanathan handled him). The members of these groups must either be trained by the likes of Swamy and Vaidya. Jhas and Goswamis must be heaped with much more scorn than they heap. Remember the American Saying: If somebody gives you a bucket of shit, you must give back two buckets of shit to him.
• Group 5: Unofficially affiliated debaters (like say Swapan Dasgupta etc.). Swapan Dasgupta is often too neutral, too subtle and too sophisticated. There is a need for debaters (on NaMo team) who are as stupid as Sanjay Jha, as contemptuous as Kumar Ketkar/Mani S Aiyer, as conceited as Renuka Chaudhary, as "suave-appearing" as Satyavrat Chaturvedi, and as ferocious as a Lion. It is only with this counter fire that non-serious frivolous fruit-fly opponents will have to be swatted. Don't employ eagles to catch flies!

2. Perception:

When "debates" are "lost", the Jha types will come back with their allegation of "Arrogance". The strategy should be to be appearing very "humble" and heap silent and confident contempt on the Jha types. Congress brings Ketkar and Jha types for a reason. If they "win" an argument it is "victory"; and when they "lose" they "win sympathy". Now it is easy to understand why Congress always sends its "juiciest fruits" as "debaters".

3. Direct Appeal to People:

Instead of "proving" like Piyush Goyal often does that "People will vote for us". It is much more effective to be "humble" and state: We will strive for and hope to get the mandate of the people. To "you the debaters" as the voters we appeal to vote for us, to you as "dishonest debaters", whose dishonesty is a foregone conclusion, we give a damn. [Or something with even more finnesse]. It is important to understand that "proving" "people will vote for us" does NOT win elections, rather "making people vote for us" wins elections.

4. Clarity of Purpose:

The goal is to establish superiority of "ideas" and WIN election, and not merely win "debates" etc. Attack whatever Congress believes to be its strongest points "Secularism" and "Inclusivism" as ideas which are propagated to undermine Hindus. As mentioned before, Congress tries to (and when the opponents are confused also succeeds in) portraying its position as a "default" winner. This has to be reversed.

5. An illustration:

Besides appropriately dealing with DogVijay-kind sly-attacks with equally vicious attacks on Congress personalities (SG et al); most importantly, it should be emphatically stated that Congress was, has been, and is, a Foreign-Agent working against Hindus, and SG reaching the helm is just an explicit instance of the long line of Congress-pedigree, which has consistently held anti-Hindu designs. Thus all those who collaborate with Congress are overtly and covertly teaming against Hindus. When BJP is asked what it has done about Muslims, Congress must be asked what it has done about Hindus, and so on.

Congress jokers will usually try to get away (with "moderator's" assistance) by parroting "Everybody knows" answers. It is here that they must be pinned down to furnish explicit examples and be forced to bear the burden of proof with no luxury of a shifting-goal-post. The moderators must be snubbed, especially if they attempt their "smart-ass" acts.

Most BJP-"empty-between-the-ears"-intellectuals lose out because they possess, at the deepest recesses of their hearts, a "respect" for Mohandas and Jawahar; and "Secularism" and "Socialism". Geriatric "stalwarts" like Hajpeyi and Advani (along with their coterie) exemplify this folly. It might be more effective to have a rather "deeper respect" for "True-Hinduism" rather than "True-Secularism" and "True-Socialism".

1. If Hedgewar and Golwalkars can be "accused" of "divisive" ideologies; Mohandas, Jawahar are "guilty" of (Hindu)-genocidal ideologies.
2. If Karnataka legislators were watching porn when assembly was in session, Jawahar was wooing Edwina while people were dying during partition.
3. If Narendra Modi was "Nero" while Gujarat was burning; Rajiv Gandhi was fanning the fire which burned the Sikhs all over India.
4. If Advani led the Ram-Temple movement, it was Mohandas who led the "Badshah-Ram" Muslim-appeasement movement.

Many more one liners such as these will have to collected and practiced with.

Caveat: 

The above is only a suggested sketch of a plausible strategy. More capable minds will have to mentate to come up with a more comprehensive and robust strategy. This is the "home-work" that needs to be done by them. They have the capability, but they need to put their act together and perspire. Intellectual lethargy won't do them any good.

Warning:

If BJP-"ideologues" fail in this duty they will not merely lose the election, they will also betray Hindus and lose their faith. Remember that in 2019, there will surely be a Hindu-political party which will win elections and rule India. It is for BJP to decide if it wants to lay an appropriate foundation and become that party, or whether it wants to be assigned to the dust-bin of history as Congress-B.

We invite readers' comments as well as discussion among readers.

Message from Karnataka Voters

A lot has been said after the results to elections held in Karnataka have been declared. Our prediction in the previous post was awfully wrong. Though JD(S) did get the second spot, albeit shared with BJP.

KJP lost the elections very badly, but achieved its goal (of decimating the BJP) quite effectively. BJP has to merely console itself that KJP fared so badly.

Vote-share analysts are saying that if BJP, KJP and BRC had remained united, they would have fared much better, though they still would have lost.

A hand-waving approximation would be that those loyal to Congress remained loyal to Congress, ditto JD(S), while erstwhile BJP loyalists were either confused or dejected or both.

So the real message of the voters from Karnataka is: We remained loyal to our respective parties, if you confused us you lost because of our confusion. Of course we did not mean that not even a single voter changed his voting loyalty, what we meant is that on an average the voter did not change his loyalty.

A very detailed analysis of elections and voter psychology is beyond our pay cheque, nonetheless the outcome makes one point very very clear: Those who sing glories of "wisdom" of the Indian voters and those who celebrate the "collective wisdom of democracy" are either too naive or too treasonous.

For, despite Giga-scams happening under Congress government at the centre, if the loyal voter still votes for Congress, then it shows that voting has become an act of faith and loyalty, and not reason and careful observation. Now, we are NOT against people having faith, it is just that we would like someone else's faith decide for us, and vice versa.

Also, if voter behaviour is going to be largely determined by loyalty, then non-Congress parties will be fooling themselves if they imagine that the next general elections will be a cake walk for the anti-Congress.

 

The Karnataka Conundrum

NaMo came and NaMo spoke, but whether BJP conquers or not will be evident only after counting after May 5, 2013 elections. Everyone is tight-lipped about the outcome of the assembly elections in Karnataka. The Congress is (possibly rightly) feeling confident, while the BJP is (certainly well deservedly) feeling down and almost out.

In 2008, the BJP came to power on its own riding on the sympathy wave for its star, B S Yeddiurappa. In the past four five years a lot of water has flown through the river Kaveri. A detailed and complicated analysis of what happened to BJP in Karnataka in the past years is not the purpose of this article. Therefore, as lay persons, let us look at the situation in a somewhat simplified manner. What we are presenting here is a mix of facts and fiction, information and imagination.

In 2004 the BJP (NDA) was over confident of winning; but it lost. In 2009, it was confident and it lost again. Just prior to 2009, the BJP had won, quite comfortably and quite convincingly, in Gujarat (2007) and Karnataka (2008) assembly polls. And both states did farely well for the BJP in parliamentary elections too. However, if the 2004 defeat was shattering, the 2009 defeat left the central BJP leadership flustered and frustrated. And, thereafter the central leadership, almost went after "state leaderships" with a mad vengeance. While a Kalyan-Singh was done on Uma Bharti post 2004; the same was done on BSY in Karnataka post 2009. Well, not immediately though.

To cut a long story short, the internal conflict in the BJP is, as the grapevine has it, about the rivalry between B S Yeddiurappa (now in KJP) and H N Ananth Kumar. It is not that without this rivalry the BJP would surely have won Karnataka-2013; but it is quite possibly so that with this rivalry the BJP is sure to lose Karnataka; notwithstanding Modi's token campaign. While it is true that Modi has many fans, but whether they will turn into votes for the BJP in Karnataka assembly polls is still far from certain. They will surely turn into votes for Modi in the parliamentary elections, if Modi is declared the PM candidate.

Presently there are four major players in Karnataka. Alphabetically: (1) BJP (2) Congress (3) JD(S) and (4) KJP. Our conjecture is that had the BJP not split, the contest would have been between the BJP and JD(S). This is because the Congress' reputation is quite low, thanks to scam filled UPA past. In a recent "survey" the CSDS predicted that the Cong will win 100+ seats on its own. That seems far fetched to us. Had Congress not been as tainted with corruption as it is as of now (though it is largely the work of the UPA at the center), it could have made huge gains (possibly as predicted by the CSDS). However that, most likely, will not be the case. The CSDS survey appears to be a "sponsored survey".

For whatever it is worth, our wild guess is 224 seats will be divided thus: One party getting about 80-100; One party getting about 60-80; One party getting about 35-45; the fourth getting about 20-30; and Others getting the rest. Or a somewhat more abstract description would be that the parties will get seats like 1/3+, 1/4+, 1/4-, and 1/4-- (as fraction of 224). Our surmise is that parties will get seats in the following order: KJP: 80-100 (1/3+); JD(S): 60-80 (1/4+); Cong: 35-45 (1/4- or even lesser); BJP: 20-30 (1/4-- or even lesser). 

BSY is no saint, but he has quite likely been wronged by the 'central leadership'. HNA is no devil, but he has quite likely played the 'central leadership'. The present situation is such that KJP does not mind losing so long as BJP loses badly and vice versa. It is possible that both lose, but it is highly unlikely that both will gain. This is a battle of survival for both BSY and HNA, or rather an arms wrestling contest between them. While BSY is largely relying on his own resources, HNA is relying on the already established BJP cadre. And yet, the hearts of the cadre themselves are being torn! While the 'workers' want to work for 'high ideals', the leaders seem to work for their egos!

The strategy behind pitching Modi against BSY is that at least one of them will lose and that reduces one rising-politician-from-state who might become a rival of the 'central command'. This is Congress culture! Modi in his speech was focussed in criticizing Congress while he made oblique comparisons between BSY, and Shankar Singh Vaghela and Keshubhai Patel of Gujarat. If this is a strategy to divide anti-BJP votes, then it seems to be a stupid strategy, at least in Karnataka. On the other hand if BSY declares that his party will support NaMo for PM, then he can minimize the adverse impact of Modi's campaign for BJP on the prospects of KJP. If KJP declares its support for NaMo for PM, it will be the first party (even before BJP) to do so!

However, NaMo has played into the hands of the 'central command' by agreeing to campaign in Karnataka. If politics is about justice, then it must as much be about justice within the party too. And the worst part is, if Karnataka does not end up being Gujarat, then it will end up becoming Uttar Pradesh!

Last but not least: While one of the greatest threat to Hindus comes from secularism, there is a mad rush among parties to be secular (read Islam appeasers). Ditto Socialism. 

The IQ Revolution that the Hindus Need

Election fever is rising. NaMo vs RaGa music records are being played endlessly. Thus we see both these leaders, as personalities, indulging in rhetoric of melodrama and blood-pumping. In this brouhaha the stakes are being reduced to 'Development' vs 'Inclusion'.

However, some of the most important common sensical questions are being avoided. It seems as if there is a lack of IQ (Cognitive Intelligence) and lack the courage to ask the IQ (Islam Question).

First: Lacking Cognititve Sense:

The Moron-ish Media keeps asking: "Where are the Big Ideas?". Don't they remember what the big ideas of Jawahar led to by 1991? Why doesn't Moron Media tell how they will evaluate Big Ideas? Then, what indeed are the big ideas that are being paraded? For NaMo it is "Development" and RaGa it is "Inclusiveness".

However, there lies the grave danger and a great problem. What is the problem? The cognitive problem is that the complex nature of the situation is being reduced to a sort of Marxist Economic Constructs.

Will somebody ask NM: What his 'plan B' is (other than Confidence) if `Development' pushes us to a Social Disaster?

Will somebody ask RG: What his 'plan B' is (other than Jawaharian platitudes) if `Inclusiveness' pushes us to Economic Disaster?

And the biggest irony is that even in purely 'material' sense these ideas have been failing, for example:

On the one hand, Inclusiveness, Minorityism, Affirmative Action have made the "victims" even Bigger "victims". This means that the sense of entitlement for freebies has taken gigantic proportions. Rice at Two rupee a kg, free electricity, free house (slum dwellers' relocation), 100 day an year guaranteed employment (read guaranteed money). Thus, this increasing  indulgence towards wealth redistribution is a sure recipe for an Economic Disaster.

On the other hand, 'Development' has made cities even more crowded than they ever were. Thus you will have no water even if you are willing to pay. No road space to drive even when you own car, no electricity even though you own an air conditioner, three commuting hours to be added to nine working hours, an impending housing bubble in India(?), and what not. 

And the worst is yet to be mentioned! And that is, while not delivering on "such convenience issues" , the whole paradigm is not just oblivious, rather it is deliberately silent about one of the the real threats that is facing us. The threat of unethical wealth redistribution of Socialism, the threat of unethical Social (and possibly Environmental) Disaster of Development, and a near total ignorance of the threats of Islam.

Which brings us to the question of Courage. Is it that these politicians lack the minimal intelligence needed to perceive the threat of Jihad which is inextricably linked to Islam? Or the threat of Mao-violence which is inextricably linked to Marxist Ideology? It seems unlikely. The cleverness with which the politicians pull off the tricks of demagoguery betrays that they lack courage and not perception.

For example, notice that while there are increased threats and incidents of  Maoist and Jihadi terror, all purportedly against 'injustice' resulting from lack of 'development' and lack of 'inclusion', the fundamental cause seems to be insufficient appeasement and successful bullying by the nuisance makers. Not just that, the most obvious causes of them (especially in the case of Jihadi terror) namely Socialism and Islam are not being mentioned at all. More over, any efforts to mention them (especially the latter) are being high-handedly dealt with and are being mercilessly demonised, if not silenced.

Thus while every plausible stratagem is being used, for example, to demonize 'patriarchy' and push Marxist Feminism, whenever crimes against women take place; even a hint of the suggestion that Islam is intimately related to Jihadi terror, is considered 'Hate Speech' to be silenced by the abuse of Article-66-A. 

Hindus need to become acutely aware of these ploys. Hindus need to inculcate an awareness of being Hindus. Hindus need to unite as Hindus qua Hindus.

While crimes against women have to be dealt with very sternly (see for example here, here, here and here), we must strongly resist the push of cultural Marxism of Political Correctness (Feminism and the like). Similarly, devious designs of Islam to bring the whole world (and thus Bharat too) under its Sharia must be resisted with equal if not much greater force.

The strategy of the politicians of pushing superficial choices to obfuscate real issues must be assiduously thwarted. Hindus need to remain adroitly aware and must use all their intelligence to force right ideas into the discourse.

Ban Halal not Gulal

Last Deepavali we got to know of a new development. In posh schools run by minority communities the students (many if not most of who are Hindus) were being discouraged if not dissuaded from bursting fire-crackers as part of Deepavali celebrations. That these crackers pollute the air was given as the reason. We asked a few students if any alternative ways of celebrating the festival were suggested, we got no answers. We smelled a rat. Though, after a while, we forgot about it. This Holi, the media was abuzz with how huge quantities of water is wasted in celebrating Holi. And it was at once confirmed that the smelling rat was that of anti-Hinduism.

It is very very important to realize that we need to develop a We-are-Hindus-and-we-love-Hindus consciousness. We also need to develop an attitude of asserting our rights, and our liberties. In stead, all the so called extreme right wing Hindutva groups bleat like sheep.

It was not in the least surprising that the self-annointed Hindutva groups were thumping chest about how IPL (the cricket tournament) would result in a waste of much more water. While environmental and resource conservation concerns are legitimate, it is very annoying to see the pseudo-Hindus run for cover and take apologetic and defensive positions. There was none who had the audacity to say: Ban Halal not Gulal.

Dabbled in Twitter; Back to Blogger!

We have been away from blogging for a while, and quite infrequent from blogging for a longer while. In the mean time we dabbled in Twitter. Now we propose to strike a better balance (so, much less tweeting!). We invite reader's views on what would be a good balance.

An Open Letter To The President of India

In one of our previous posts (see here) we proposed a declaration by Hindus, as it were. In this post we write an open letter to the president of India. This too may be considered a draft version. Those who are better versed in legal terms and are conversant with writing using legal language might do a better job and improve this draft.

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

Dear Mr. President,

We are a group of frustrated human beings seeking cheap publicity.

Before you and/or those who are in agreement and/or in collusion with you allege about us that these guys are frustrated humans who are seeking cheap publicity, we emphasize that notwithstanding the state of our being, nor the nature of our motivation, we must require no one's permission to be in a functional mode of Responsible Liberty.

However, we find that the state of which you are the President and the Constitution of which you are the Custodian seem to implicitly claim that they have the moral authority to constrain our freedoms beyond any explicitly mutually agreed notions or natural notions of Responsible Liberty.

Any document, however well conceived and however well intended, does not obtain any legitimacy to exercise any control over the conduct of peoples' lives merely because the document contains phrases like "we the people" and "give ourselves this constitution", interspersed with phrases indicating however high sounding goals.

There is no gainsaying the fact that in that moment of history when "those people gave themselves" the constitution, going by the then existing poor literacy rate, except for a minuscule fraction of the then population, few could have ascertained if they got what they sought, or whether they even sought whatever they got.

Also, be that as it may, the we-the-people then had no right to pledge any commitment on behalf of us, the we-the-people now.

Any document, the contents of which are not, in some sense, self evident, objectively demonstrable, subjectively verifiable, or voluntarily explicitly consented can not be binding except through the exercise of unethical coercion.

Given the fact that the freedom to disagree to give consent to the document is absent, it is inconceivable to regard the said coercion as anything other than enforcing slavery, and the adjectival term constitutional does not grant any legitimacy to the imposition of Constitutional Slavery.

While we, as a group, do have at the very least, nebulous views on what we would prefer to term a Meta-Constitution, and Proto-State, we are free from the folly of intending to coerce our views on the unwilling. Further, notwithstanding the nebulous nature of our views, we are open to the method of debate, voluntary and free exchange of ideas and opinions, and most importantly the freedom to disagree as well as the freedom to disassociate.

However, your state and its Constitution remain culpable of the charge: Why such presumptuousness - enforcing constitutional slavery - should not be considered as an act of aggression against the people.

The onus of proof is on you.

In particular, you need to establish that the constitution (the intended content of the constitution) is, in some reasonable sense, one or many of 

(a) Self-Evident,

(b) Objectively Demonstrable,

(c) Subjectively Verifiable,

(d) Voluntarily Explicitly Consented.

Failing which, you need to explain why enforcing constitutional slavery not be considered an act of aggression.

Let the People be the Court, the Lawyers, as well as the Judge: as individuals or groups for themselves.

Sincerely,

Some among the We-the-people now.

A Recommended Strategy for KJP (BSY)

This time BSY drew sufficient courage and separated himself from the BJP. While he is seeking the support of all, his detractors are calling him a leader of merely Lingayats. His detractors forget that it this mere leader  who won Karnataka for the BJP.

Be that as it may, for our analysis, let us suppose that there indeed are vote-banks. Thus the BJP must be at the very least afraid of losing the lingayat votes, while the possible outcome of such a swing in votes can be a matter of long and winding debate.

The two parties that are openly drooling are the JD(S) and the Congress. For even if they gain no additional seats - something that is very unlikely - they do gain in the sense that any loss to the BJP is a gain for them, viz. JD(S) and Cong. Therefore, these two will push the wedge (of BSY into BJP) even more.

Optimists in the BJP would like to believe that BSY is another Keshubhai Patel, who will lose and marginally dent BJP's victory. JD(S) and Cong wish that BSY is another Kalyan Singh whose exit will wreak havoc and decimate the BJP for long. Such prospects have made Mayawati join the beeline of droolers.

The man himself, that is BSY, must be wanting to become a Modi of Karnataka. Someone who wins on `Hindutva' and then `Development' planks.

In our opinion, BSY's wanting to become Modi is legitimate, however for BSY it is neither necessary nor desirable. We would rather want BSY to try and do even better. Most importantly we would like BSY to do better by being different from all of them. Thus KJP could focus on the following things:

1. KJP must ignore all allegations of being potentially dynastic, and unashamedly state that they are not averse to being dynastic. After all Congress, JD(S), RJD, and all have been shamefully dynastic.

With this point, he hits JD(S), Cong., and BSP ,etc., all in one stroke.

2. BSY must not be afraid of being called a dictator. However, the key is to have new ideas and the courage to accept responsibilities. This include the glories of successes and the blames of failures.

With the above point he becomes structurally similar to Modi. This may be difficult for BSY who has generally appeared to be a cry-baby, but it would be better if BSY proved this image to be wrong. But then what can BSY do to become clean like Modi?

3. BSY must blow the whistle on all, JD(S), Cong., BJP, himself, all. The key is all. Including, the truth regarding Santosh Hegde as well as H R Bharadwaj being the agents of anti-Hindu forces. Once the dirtiness of all is in public view, BSY can claim the mantle of being a genuine crusader against corruption. In this way he could also pave the way for something like this.

What about development? BSY can easily emphasize that he could play the Gujarat model of growth. If Shivraj Chauhan and Raman Singh can do development, BSY too can.

However,  there is one point, where BSY can do better than Modi. This is the crucial point which needs even more courage than doing point 3, which involves only being a small-time whistle-blower.

4. BSY must question the Universal True Secular Development model. This UTSD model delivers development to all, including Muslims, therefore including Islam and its inevitable corollary Jihad. No secularists whether pseudo or true are questioning Secularism itself. And all of them are deafeningly silent about the threat of Islam. BSY must initiate this debate on the Islam Question.

The above can have two possible consequences. One is that he might lose even the lingayat votes and become an eternal nobody. Second is that he will gain both ligayat and hindu votes. This will make him bigger than Modi.

Why should BSY take the risk of the former possibility? Let us analyze that in some detail. 

(a) BSY built RSS and BJP in Karnataka from the ground up. We are sure that he had some love for the Hindus which made him do so. Now that very Hindu society is under threat, in spite of BJP and RSS, for they have sold themselves onto true-secularism.  

(b) BSY has already made some money and he has already been a chief-minister. Now by winning elections he does no better than merely regaining the same. However, this win is not certain.

(c) With a safe secular strategy, even if he wins, he will at best become another Shivraj Chauhan or Raman Singh. However, if he loses, he descends into ignominy, though he may have the satisfaction of revenge if he can cause the downfall of BJP in Karnataka. More over, afterwards even if returns to BJP he will become a toothless tiger. The black mark of being back-stabber to the parent organization would persist as well.

(d) On the other hand, taking the risk if BSY wins, he becomes a hero, a new initiator, someone who even eclipses Modi. Alternatively, even if he loses, he starts a new chapter in Indian politics.

In our opinion, the number of Hindus who are strongly disenchanted with the true-secularism of BJP will vote for him in droves. The grassroots workers in BJP and RSS will love BSY and subvert the true-secular forces. Most importantly, BSY who possibly loves RSS would initiate a service for Hindus for which even the grassroots RSS-BJP will remain eternally emotionally loyal to him.

(e) Thus taking this risky path BSY will be able to surpass both Kalyan Singh and Modi; the former in his commitment to Hindus, and the latter is his commitment to cleaning up corruption.

It must be clear that what we have proposed is something that every politician who loves Hindus and Hinduism must do. In our opinion, it is a risk that BSY must find worthwhile.