Savarkar's and Golwalkar's Descriptions/Views regarding the map-problem. Part-II

In this article I will try to present Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's (VDS for short)  and Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar's (MSG for short) views about the map-problem. Please note that for seculars both VDS and MSG are same. However, more often than not even the non-seculars treat VDS and MSG as same. There are commonalities between them, as  well as differences between them. I will try to present my perspective on them.

Caveat:

I digress a bit here. There are wrirings on the web, for example Ajit Vadakayil etc., who allege that VDS was Chitapavan jew who strived to sabotage India's freedom struggle. Similar allegations are made by others about MSG and his relation to Nazism etc.

1. Often even those who criticize VDS, hold GDS (Ganesh, elder brother of VDS) in high esteem, as a true patriot (which he was). Now if VDS was a Chitpawan, GDS too was. Thus being Chitpawan (whatever that means) can not be the issue. We must go by what one/they did.

2. There is a lot of hullabaloo about VDS apologizing to the British crown. Presently, I entertain the following. We must recall that most wars (especially by Abrahamics) usually end up as victory of deception (by Abrahamics) over honor (of non-Abrahamics). So it is important not to fall into the "honor trap".  May be as Chitpawan Jew VDS knew how Abrahamics subverted Hindus by making use of such "high morals" of Hindus. And he didn't want to fall into that trap. Why be honest with someone who is dishonest and out to deceive you? I think VDS followed this principle. Elder brother Ganesh never apologized, and he bravely suffered many inhuman tortures. However, that need not make us look at VDS as "inferior". May be the two brothers held different views on how to fight.

3. The most serious allegation is that VDS gave away secrets of "freedom fighters" to the British. While this is damn serious, I am not aware of any concrete evidence which establishes this. I am open to correction.

So I would say that we can suspend making judgement about the persona of VDS till further evidence, however his theories and propositions are for us to see and evaluate independent of what he was.

4. There may be, and are, many valid arguments against MSG (likewise Subhas Bose etc too), but not having non-laudatory views about Nazism is not one of them. It is like, there are many valid arguments against BRAmbedkar, but his being against Islam is not one of them. Coming back, British were much more evil. They used brave Indian soldiers as cannon fodder and yet paid no homage to them. Hindus must realize that both the world wars were significantly won by their soldiers.

5. MSG was supposedly soft regarding Mahomet and Islam. That, for me, is a more valid point against him. I write about this issue later in this article, when I mention racial aspects.

With this caveat, let me begin,

In the first half of the twentieth century, (especially during first world war) monarchies and kingdoms fell apart and in their place there was rise of nation-states. And the question of what constitutes a nation in the nation-state became important. That the state must provide security, criminal justice, etc were a given, but what more, or what less should the state provide also entered the discourse.

Two sets of answers emerged. For nation, ideas of Racial nation and Propositional nation were presented; while for State ideas of Dictatorial and Democratic states came about. 

Notice that we are ignoring the economic aspect here. Except that we wish to emphasize that democracies are inherently socialistic in their economic models. It less often leads to welfare, rather it more often leads to cronyism.

Racial nation model is that a nation is a group of closely related people by blood (therefore language, culture etc). Propositional nation model proposes some ideas of justice and then how to go about ensuring justice. The Marxist model presented a call for International unity against injustice. Injustice was defined to be class-exploitation by haves of have-nots.

This too is a long story and well beyond the scope of this article. For us, it suffices to say that, India did not fit in into any of these categories. It was not a monolithic race (I do not know what modern genetic studies say, I am not an expert), nor had people formulated any single proposition that could be used as unifying theme. At the same time, deep down all Indians (read Hindus) felt that they were one, and they were inspired by Vivekananda's speeches which forcefully brought out aspects which provided at least some glimpses of the timeless unity that we have had.

In this backdrop, VDS attempted his formulation for India. I think that VDS was not only quite intelligent, he also had (to begin with) a lot of compassion for the Indian muslims, who he saw as brothers of Hindus who had converted for some reason or ther other, and in most likelihood under duress. He built his theory of Hindutva, and in it we can see his compassion for "racial Indian people". Thus his hindutva can be seen as racially compassionate proposition. Most probably he was also aware of the pitfalls of internationalisms, so he put forth his perspective which focussed on a territorially bounded region.

As part of building further background, let us consider SriRamakrisha-Vivekananda and Ramdas-Shivaji pairs. SRK was abstract and storehouse of spiritual energy and Vivekananda was concrete and a pragmatic appliance which could manifest the energy drawn from his guru. A similar model can be used to understand Ramdas and Shivaji. In my opnion, VDS wanted to start a movement which will be even more concrete (sociopolitically and socioeconomically) version of the relatively abstract ideas that were proposed by Vivekananda. In this sense, we can also view Vivekananda-VDS as Ramdas-Shivaji pair. (Please note that these analogies are approximate).

However, VDS was not merely intelligent and compassionate, he was also a very pragmatic man. Thus VDS at once set out to tackle real on the ground problems. Casteism, untouchability, inter-caste marriages etc. were questions that he wrote boldly about.  Similarly he forthrightly wrote about whether Hindus should get English education, whether they should join armed forces, whether they should acquire and use modern technology, etc. He promoted whatever he thought would strengthen political strength and unity, and he opposed whatever he thought would enervate political unity and strength. He was one of the first who thought that ghar-wapasi could be and should be attempted, and was also the first to realize that ghar-wapasi was not enough and might not succeed either. One may disagree with the solutions he provided, but one can not deny that VDS DID attempt solving problems (in a political way) which most were unwilling to attempt.
 

Coming to MSG, on most racial compassion and territorial inspiration issues, MSG was similar to VDS. MSG was focused on answering the question: what kind of nation India is? While VDS focused on winning political freedom from foreign rule. Thus MSG and VDS differed regarding what actions were to be undertaken. As persons, MSG was supposedly very spiritual, and VDS was an atheist.  MSG favored "spiritual" Hindutva over VDS's "political" Hindutva. This also led to disagreements and divergent actions.

Thus, while VDS started Hindu-Mahasabha, a political party; MSG's RSS turned out to be closer to Ramkrishna Mission of Vivekananda. While MSG thought (Correct me if I am wrong) Islam could be accommodated within "spiritual" Hindutva, VDS quickly (and rightly) realized that Islam (and therefore, in general muslims) were adversaries of Hindus. While VDS dabbled in ghar-wapasi and quickly nearly abandoned it, RSS is still almost obsessed with it. 

Later, therefore, VDS became quite bitter about RSS. He thought of it as a wasteful enterprise which was destined to fail. Now I don't fully agree with VDS, but I sympathize with VDS more than I do with MSG. One could conjecture that MSG thought much longer term, etc., but these are endless debates. Our dharma, sanAtana dharma is surely not about sacrificing long-term for the short-term or vice versa. Rather, it is about striking the right balance. It could even be that different individuals can strike different balances. VDS was vindicated when RSS realized that it had to enter active politics, even if by proxy, through Bharatiya Jan Sangh (now BJP).

I guess that RSS is closer to being racialist. I do not consider race realism as wrong per se. However, we must not ignore the following: people who are highly religious will sacrifice race for religion, and vice versa. Indians (if they are a race) are highly religious (you can see Indian muslims, christians being more religious muslims and christians than many other races). So Indian non-Hindus are easily excitable on religious grounds, even against their own racial brothers (Hindus).

Further, I think we need not consider MSG and VDS as contradictory, we can use their understandings as complementary. For example, if we ignore Gandhi's suicidal rather Hindu genocidal non-violence, his "solution" (in terms of Swadeshi/Khadi) was an economic-solution for the war against British imperialism. 

Just as an aside, imagine what would have happened if we had combined VDS-political-pragmatism and Gandhi-economics in terms of Khadi-guns and Khadi-grenades against the British.

Now, I am in a position to present VDS and MSG views on the map-problem. I understand that this will ruffle a lot of feathers. So I must mention as I mentioned in my previous article, while it is caricatural  but intended to bring out essential and differentiating features. Also, that I am no scholar (nor do I intend to become one) and open to correction. 

 VDS description/view:
 

Past: It was a glorious period, and was also mostly highly advanced in terms of knowledge of the material world. They had most ingredients of "modern science" too.

Hindus lost because, inter alia, they neglected political pragmatism, and pursued impractical idealism,  VDS initially thought that racial solidarity and cultural pride would overcome malignant natures of Islam and Chriastianity, but later realized otherwise, and understood them as adversaries.

Present: Major corrections are needed. Political pragmatism is foremost among them. Cultural pride must be accompanied by concrete practical actions.


Desired Future: A culturally vibrant India which has regained its glorious past, along with modern science, technology, development,  equality, and most important of all, political pragmatism.

and

 

MSG description/view:


Past: It was a glorious period, and was also mostly highly advanced in terms of knowledge of the material world. They had most ingredients of "modern science" too.

Hindus lost because, inter alia, they swerved from their spiritual ideals and therefore lost moral courage.

Islamic/Christian invaders were bad and they strove to destroy Hindu Civilization. But that was because they were Arabs and Europeans, and materialistic. Hinduism has spiritual wherewithal to absorb the essence of Islam and Chriastianity which are good. When that happens, Indian muslims, and Indian christians will be assimilated in the pan-Hindutva vision.

Present: Major corrections are needed, but the corrections are in spiritual and cultural plane. If we replenish spiritual pursuit then the resultant cultural rejuvenation will resuscicate our spiritual nation.

Desired Future: We will regain most of the Past along with modern science, technology, development, and equality. And it will be long lasting for it will be based on and accompanied by a spiritual awakening.

More intelligent people must consider combining: Political pragmatism and love for Hindus of VDS, de-globalization (inspired, say by, Gandhi, but without necessarily rejecting modern technology) as part of economic war against globalism, extending Ambedkar's understanding of Islam to all Abrahamisms (including Judaism), MSG's love for "spiritual" unity of Hindu-Civilization.

In order to save ourselves as Hindus of Akhand Bharat. We need not sacrifice Akhand-Bharat for International-Hinduism, nor do we need to sacrifice Hinduism for Indian-subcontinental-unity. I will write on this some other time, but I prefer a Hindu Civilizational Territory over Extended Akhand Bharat.

Different Descriptions/Views regarding the Map-Problem Part-I

In one of my previous articles I wrote about the map problem and the three maps, and how it is important that we locate ourselves in the maps. In this article, I rewrite, for convenience, map-A (pre 1000AD) as Past, map-B as Present, and map-C as Desired Future. But keep the map problem in mind.

I now present what I think are the descriptions by various groups. In addition, I also present their view (as I understand them) of how the present came about from the past. It is crucial to understanding their views. By no means do I consider these descriptions to be comprehensive, nuanced, scholarly, etc. Yet, I do claim that notwithstanding their caricatural nature, they do convey, what we might call as, their salient and distinguishing features. I am open to refinement, and please feel free to contribute.

It is evident that all the following descriptions suffer from the lacunae mentioned in the map problem. That is, our perception and description suffers from the perspective, and language constructs that we use. And that this perspective and language constructs are insufficient to provide the larger background in which we can see all the maps and locate our position(s). However, it will entertain you and I hope also inform you about the essential aspects of the various views in use at present.

Secular Description/View:

Past: It was mostly a long period of horrible exploitations in an upper casteist patriarchy seeped in ignorance. Some arty entertainment stuff was there but creativity too was minimal.

Islamic and British rules helped break that exploitative patriarchy. More over, culture and art-forms were enriched and embellished by the Moghuls. Further, it was the Oxbridge educated brigade which brought us the dawn of scientific temper etc. Akbar's reign was likely the best period. British Period was bad but because of economic political exploitation of muslims.

Present:  But for the fascists like Savarkar and RSS, we would have gotten much closer to the perfection of Akabar's rule. Alas, we have only partially corrected the godawful ills of the patriarchal past. We still have a very long way to go. But with Secularism and Socialism, we are in the right direction.

Desired Future: Eventually we will also become scientifically and technologically advanced and prosperous like Europe and USA; but it will be without family/social problems rampant in west, and along with Indian/Moghalai cuisine and music.

Chistian/Islamic Description/View:

Past: It was all darkness. Cannibalism, Dark-Idol worship, Feeding Children to Crocodiles abounded.

Islam/Christianity brought a small pencil of light but the natives have been adament. We need to push the light down their throats to civilize them.

Present: Indian independence has grossly undermined our operations, but we need to push harder and further, and by all means.

Desired Future: We dream of a Ajaan enjoying/ Sunday-mass indulgent India. We might retain the tribal, pagan art-forms for preservation sake.


 

Now let us consider views of a few individuals:

Nehru's Description/View:

Past: Highly exploitative period where a few luxuriated, and for the rest it was an abomination. By and large, nothing much to write home about. A long period where lot of riff raff with loads of superstitions and childishness lived.

Islam and X-ianity were God's gift for the region and for the Hindus.

Present: We must quickly get over our quirky obsession with hindu culture etc. and get on with more important things in life.

Desired Future: With some perseverance the rest would also become Hindu just by birth, Moghul by culture and English by education, just as I am (Nehru was).
 

Ambedkar's Description/View:

Past: Horrible and Exploitative Brahminism and Patriarchy existed and flourished. Buddha was the great savior of the afflicted.

Islam was, and is fatally dangerous, but British rule (X-ian rule) salvaged the masses from Brahminical tyranny.

Present: We need to restore social justice through judicious use of affirmative action. Also have constitutional safeguards against revival of Brahminism and Patriarchy. Thus We must remain patriots and shun foreign religions, but rid ourselves of Brahminism by annihilation of caste and remedying superstitions. We have started on this path, and we must persevere.

Desired Future: American prosperity, European grandeur, Indian culture with Buddhist philosophy.

 

Gandhi's Description/View:

Past: India was about simple living high thinking and an austere/simple/minimalist life. And that is the essence of India.

Islam and Christianity, while being inherently good, could harm us only because hindus drifted away from spiritual path.

Present: We must regain situation in Past by upholding that only "spiritual" goals are important. Islam and Christianity can do no harm to us so long as we maintain "moral high ground". We must make self-sufficient villages where all of us can become austere/simple.

Desired Future: After conceding territory after territory, millions and millions of lives, we will achieve moral victory; and rest of the world will understand us.

Congress's Description/View:

Congress, as usual, does not have a consistent view. They use a combination of Secular, Nehruvian, Gandhian views with occasional allegiance to Ambedkar's view. However, since the sole purpose of Congressmen (and all Congress clones) is to cling on to power by hook or crook; they are either unconcerned or even enthusiatically vouch for policies that will result in Christian-Islamic future. But, isn't that what Nehru wanted anyway?


 

BJP-SanghParivar's Description/View:

Past: It was a glorious period, and was also mostly highly advanced in terms of knowledge of the material world. They had most ingredients of "modern science" too.

Islam and Chriastianity are good; but the Islamic/Christian invaders were bad and they strove to destroy Hindu Civilization. But Indian muslims, and Indian christians are good and not fooled by the invaders' rhetoric.

Present: Some small corrections are needed, but corrections recommended by Seculars are hugely wrong because their nature is pseudo. If we push true secularism and true socialism we will get back to the right track.

Desired Future: We will regain most of the Past along with modern science, technology, "development", and "equality".

 

Even a cursory glance reveals how the Secular and the Christian/Islamic views are quite similar. They want most of the Past to be removed, and a "new age" to dawn. We must also notice that while Christian/Islamic views are the invaders' view, Secular view can also be seen as Macaulay inspired view. In that sense, whoever speaks of secularism remains in the firm grip of invaders.

However, it is not difficult to notice that BJP/Sangh-Parivar view is hamstrung too. While they emotionally believe that Past was great (or at least claim so); their actions are towards bringing "true secularism" and "true socialism" for "development". Also notice that while they(BJP) may not consider Islam-Christianity as positively good, they do consider them as minor-issues if not non-problems which can easily be tackled and almost magically solved, as soon as true-secularism is applied. Thus, they too are not free from the grip of invaders' perspective.

In a way, I have done a little injustice to RSS here by clubbing their view with BJP's view. Unfortunately RSS itself has been somewhat ambivalent about their Hindutva perspective. Let me approach this matter somewhat obliquely now.

In the past, much greater minds have addressed these issues. To name a few among many, Ramdas/Shivaji; Vivekananda etc. very clearly perceived these issues, and also wrote and spoke about them. I would request someone to summarize what Samarth Ramdas thought and wrote on these issues. About both Ramdas and Vivekananda we can say that they inspired the masses, and also gave seminal ideas, and possibly provided some elaboration. However, lot of further details remained to be worked out, especially in order to make them applicable in the political domain.

We must note that none among Gandhi, Nehru, Bose, Ambedkar etc. attempted this line (Ramdas/Vivekananda). A nuanced analyses of their approaches is beyond the scope of this article.

On the other hand, both  Savarkar and Golwalkar (among others), in a way, pursued their line (Ramdas/Vivekananda) and attempted to work out the details. In  my next article on this matter, I will try to address their work in a similar manner. Somewhat of a caricature, but an attempt to bring out the essential and distinguishing features.

Anatomy of an Inferior Writer: How Desktop publishing birthed strange new phenomenon in India, the Bhagats.

This satirical article is a paraphrasing of this. Even proper names are to be viewed as place holders and I welcome you to imagine your favorite targets in their place.

 

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

The rise of desktop publishing and cyber marketing has led to a strange new phenomenon in India. It is the strong and distinctive presence of a celebrity-species often referred to as 'Bhagats'. The term used to refer to shallow and voyeurish writers who tend to be aggressive peddlers of all things of cheap quality.

Intellectually they often lend their support to low grade intellectuals like themselves, for that is the way to being invited to various LitFests. (It is a different matter that when self certified low grade individuals and so-so authors like Salman Rushdie mock their caliber, these authors are equal to merely give furtive and sheepish smiles.) And they are extremely protective of freedom of low-grade speech. They dislike old Hindu kings for they strongly believe that those kings conspired to shortchange their subjects in the past. They often swap their ignorance of history online.

These true bhagats would have been an interesting anthropological phenomenon, had they not been causing cacophony all the time on twitter, blogs, and even main stream TV channels. A few years ago, Salman Rushdie rightly categorized them as "they also have to live". Just a few days ago, a true bhagat attacked soft spoken women on twitter who were feeling nice, if not proud, by the well meaning 'selfie with daughter' campaign. 

So who are these bhagats? What drives them? And what can we - and more importantly, they - do to calm themselves down? For this, it is important to understand them.

One, these true bhagats are not just LitFest membership seekers. They are not all The-Halka members. Some of them managed to graduate from IIT/M, they call themselves "authors" instead. Their stated aim, if you are to believe them, is national entertainment, and winning back for India its lost humorous story.

In reality, they are neither engineers, nor managers, and least of all, authors. Typically, and at the cost of stereotyping, true bhagats have the following four traits in common. First, they are almost all incoherent. Second, they have weak communication skills, particularly in English. This in turn leads to a bit of an inferiority complex, of not being cool or sophisticated enough to write even within a mile of Shobha De in a fast declining, literary world.

Third, they often believe that they are great at talking to members of opposite sex. As a result they are unlikely to know how to behave with them or understand the "shoo away" signal from them. For example, the men 'bhagats',  think all women desire them, but are shy of approach them. So they try to inspire shamelessness in them during conversation in lifts/elevators. In simple words, if i may say so, their minds are filled with imagination that they are in an elevator even while their bodies are obviously elsewhere. But being logically and perceptually challenged, they have no way of getting it.

Fourth, there is an over-riding sense of shame about being an incompetent author, about having worse pulp writing skills, and even their own readers. Deep down they know that pulp writing authors like themselves are among India's most mentally negligible. They also know that they are third rate writers with third rate plots, with few achievements in style, narrative or even vulgarity.

To hide this shame, they over-compensate in terms of chest-beating their potential readers (who in the heart of their hearts they hate for reading their low grade writings). Also to them, Media anchors and in particular men-hating snobbish and conceited women represent the highest aspirational figures. Sagarika Ugly-Indian-Male Ghose, they pleasantly discover to be incontrovertibly from intellectually modest means-background and represents the best that writers like them can aspire to be.

Success of such men-hating snobs gives true bhagats a genuine reason to rejoice and feel that they have a place at the top. Hence, defending them as those being  "confident women" is vital. Therefore, you have seen true bhagats defending misandric inanities on various issues, and find they are vigorously attacking anyone questioning such. Objectivity is lost when the person they are trying to protect and worship is seen as an idealization of their own kind.

Hence, an inferiority amplified by inferiority complex overcompensated as superiority complex ridden Indian writer who is frustrated, ashamed of his writing skills and has poor ability in communication is vulnerable to transforming into a true bhagat. And that’s why confident persons, notwithstanding their "English skills" who mock bhagat-adored "confident women" hit a raw nerve on all counts and get the worst of the true bhagat treatment.

Since main stream media allows verbal as well as textual diarrhea, their anger expresses itself as thinly disguised personal rant. Note that MSM always invites these true bhagats to rant on their shows. In fact the MSM had to tell this one specifically, as even they seemed to have had run out of their hyper-aggressive ranters.

Of course, at the end of the day, any ranters are welcome and MSM doesn’t mind them. Especially, as MSM never distances itself from this unrestrained, in-elevator-expressing testosterone carriers. Yet, what seems like rant starts to look schizophrenic mega delusion pretty soon and cements the  off-the-onion image of the writer. Ultimately, the Indian MSM will get sated and go back to its default ranters – The-Halkas. There’s a reason The-Halkas adorn all LitFests whereas the 'bhagat' has just about managed to attend a few.

Meanwhile what can we do? The best strategy is to not take true bhagats too seriously. Of course, it is difficult to ignore personal abuse. But try to understand their motivations. They are not writers; they are simply Frustrated And Complex-ridden Textual-Verbal-diarrhea patients (FACTVPs, pronounced fact-wups, not to be confused with the past participle of the cuss word you may want to use on them). Of course FACT-VP doesn’t have the same ring to it as bhagat, but it is a more accurate descriptor.

To FACT-VPs themselves i would only like to say this. Read more, talk less, and practice writing even lesser. Get some female editors and ask their advice on writing as well as how (and why) not to grope in elevators. When confident, try to ask someone to read a precis you wrote and accept her feedback like a man. Who knows, you may get a few paragraphs worthy soon. Once you do, trust me, you will have better things to do than just rant.

Good luck, so long as you don't shower your ill-luck, of unsolicited rant on the unsuspecting.

sanAtana bhArata : Draft of a Book Under Preparation

I got the pdf version of a book. It seems like a draft version. May be it can be improved and/or completed.

I will try to work on it. I also invite your comments and suggestions regarding the same.

The book can be viewed/downloaded from here. Please feel free to circulate.

The Map Problem:

In my previous article I mentioned regarding a dearth of writing from certain perspectives. If someone asked me what my perspective was, I would be tempted to reply "Hindu Civilizational Perspective", and yet it remains fuzzy. What is HCP? Is there one and unique HCP? Such issues prop up. It is also true that it is arduous to define HCP.

Recently I came across a quote, attributed to one Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar. Please read the quote before proceeding. I twitted:

The Judge erred in the final sentence. It should be: "It is a way of life, and Much More." : Dakshinamurthy.


I wonder why such  errors happen, that is, why do Hindu intellectuals traverse a valuable path and then suddenly falter or dither. I want to share my current understanding of the situation.

Here I place before you two pictures, each purporting to be a map. For convenience you can assume one to be map-A and the other to be map-B. Now, notice that there are various roads shown in both maps.

map-A

map-B

Now I ask you a simple question, which road will take you to your destination? Can you answer it? Don't jump to a conclusion, please think slowly, carefully, and coolly. Further, if I told you that you need to take some particular road (say, some specified route), will you accept my answer? Again, please don't jump to a conclusion. Please read the preceding paragraph, and this paragraph, and think a while. These are not difficult questions, but take some time to think.

I am assuming you have indeed taken some time.

Now, as one tries to answer the said questions, one realizes that one needs additional information. For example:

1. Where am I? Where will my location (call it point S) appear on map-A and/or map-B?

2. Where do I want to go? Where will my destination (call it point D) appear on map-A and/or map-B?

If it turns out that both my starting point and my destination point are on the same map (whether A or B), the task becomes much easier. However, the moment it turns out that my starting point and my destination points are on different maps (one on map-A, and the other on map-B), we run into further complexities.

Further assume that neither map, shows its scale or its compass. The language and naming is disparate too. So what do we do? How do we go about finding an answer for ourselves?

We at once realize that we need a larger map which can place both the maps into one with appropriate scaling and directions. Then, and only then, can we hope to answer for ourselves. Now imagine what happens when we want to depict our geographical-social-political-cultural-civilizational condition/situation rather than mere geographical location. Doesn't the problem get much more complex?

Now I present to you my bigger hypothesis. I believe that we suffer from an even more complicated problem. In our present case, we in fact have three maps. Say, map-A, map-B, and map-C. Let us assume that they correspond to our historical situation (pre-Buddhism/Jainism etc.), present situation (Secularism, Democracy, etc.), and our desired situation in the future, that is our destination.

I also say that most of the terminology in present use is somewhat accurate to describe only a part of the picture of our present situation, that is map-B (not even where we ARE on map-B). About maps A and C, we have much less accurate depictions, and even these are often clouded by either fancy or prejudices. The difficulty is compounded by the limitations and constraints of the usage of the present day terms.

While the situation is so complex, our leaders (thought-leaders, political-leaders, etc.) are self-assuredly telling us that they have unambiguous and guaranteed-to-work solution to our problem. [Recall that the problem is: Where are we, and where do we want to go?] Why are the leaders promoting dubious solutions with great confidence? Doesn't that baffle you? It does me! And yet, we must not be averse to supposing simple and straight explanations, viz., they, many if not all, could be so selfish and short-sighted that they just don't care.

In my opinion, unless we address this map problem sufficiently, we will remain confused.

A Problem; And a Proposal.

I have been reading on the web for quite some time. In Indian circumstances one is handicapped in a peculiar way. While there are numerous writers of various hues and cries who author from certain perspectives belonging to one type; there are few who do likewise from perspectives belonging to the otherwise type. Sometimes I wonder whether there are any who belong to the real otherwise type. That is, I notice that there are none who write from a perspective of the real otherwise type. And this gives a sinking feeling that most of them are writing the same thing. It would have been a very happy happenstance if the said 'same thing' was as per my preference. Unfortunately, it is not. Unfortunately I strongly dislike it, even if do not despise it. Recently I have been interacting with some friends with whom I shared this plight of mine, and surprisingly I found quite a few sympathizers. Rather, it turned out that many were co-sufferers if you get what I mean.

Earlier when I was contemplating on the problem shared above, I used to think that there were no such writers because there are not significant number of people who share a perspective similar to mine. The exchanges with friends, however, changed my thoughts. It looked as if there are quite a few who shared my predicament. Thus, I started to wonder why none was writing any other way. I asked my friends, with whom I shared my thoughts, too. But none of them, while offering various causes as factors, did really put his hand on the nub of the issue. Also, while almost all were willing to gossip about it for long hours, few, if not none, showed any interest in discussing the issues slightly more seriously, or do the writing stuff. After all, I too find talking and gossiping much easier than writing. The pleasant surprise is that modern technology helps us circumvent many of such problems. I have always wondered why audio-blogs have not become ubiquitous, especially that mobile phones have become so common. There is no gainsaying, however, that any fairly serious exchange requires preparation, patience, and often perseverance. In simpler terms, one needs to do it a few times to gain reasonable clarity, as back-and-forth exchanges would happen. I do feel, however, that it needs to be done. I do not know whether there are many like me who have experienced similarly. I hope there are. With such hope, I am beginning this endeavor. This is as much a sharing as it is an invitation for sharing.

I am sure you would be wondering how I could ask you to share your views and perspectives without delineating mine so you could compare and decide. If you have read a few posts from this blog, you would know the general drift, notwithstanding the inability to pinpoint the focus exactly. After all, only the writer has changed, I will continue to this blog in the same tradition as I have inherited so to speak. When I asked him what his experience was, he told an interesting thing. He said: "There are silent appreciators, as well as, silent (outright) rejectors. So a meaningful exchanges are few and far between." I hope to facilitate breaking of such silences. Also, I am not omniscient, so it is possible that there are some who do write in ways that I am looking for. If you come across such, please do recommend.

Thank You.

Farewell

We have not been very regular for quite sometime. This is because we don't find the time and the energy to blog. We had been contemplating discontinuing it altogether. Someone who we know only on the cyber space suggested that it might be a good idea if someone else could continue the writing with a similar drift. Fortunately he could come up with a volunteer.

So, in some time, a new person will be writing this blog. Some elements of style might change, hopefully there will be a little more enthusiasm, if not regularity. The fundamental thrust will remain the same, or hopefully, get even better.

By July 1, 2015 the transition should be over.



Updated on: July 18, 2015 (Rath Yatra Day)

I am the new person, and I am maintaining both Twitter and Blog accounts.

Narendra Modi's Strategy

In our previous articles (see here, here, here and here) we wrote about our assessment of Modi's one year in office. We expressed our displeasure regarding many issues. In this article we want to present our view from the perspective that Modi does want to deliver on most fronts, but that he is timing it and strategizing it differently.

We present this in four segments. Models, Image, Time Line, and Strategy and Control. In models section, we describe our view of how various components of the picture. This will make us understand the behavior of the components. In image  section, we describe the kind of image that Modi needs to project (positive) and imager that Modi needs to guard against (negative) but which his detractors would like to push. In time-line section, we describe how deliverables must get delivered so that an advantageous situation exists for Modi in 2019. And finally, in the last section, we describe how, based on the models, the desired image and its time line, Modi can manueover the control variables for his goals.

This does not in the least mean that Modi wants to merely win elections in 2019. We believe him to be a well intentioned PM, and we believe that he wants to make a great change for the better in India. And for that he might need more than one term. However, what we mean is that Even if he is looking forward to merely win the 2019 elections, he could use the outline given in this article.

(A) Models:

1. Voter Model:

(i) Hindutva Middle Class voters are too demanding, and too easily irritable. They are the most difficult to get to vote too.

(ii) His Support Base (both potential and actual): Silent Hindutva poor, silent Hindutva middle class, (in potential) non-Hindu poor.

(iii) His opponents: Loud vocal secular (both Hindus and non-Hindus) Middle class, (in potential) non-Hindu poor, (now slowly increasing) Vocal Hindutva middle class.

2. Opponent Model:

(i) Congress and other opposition parties are not concerned about "Hindutva" voters of Modi. they know the flimsiness of the Hindutva-brigade (2004 etc.). Also they know that it is highly unlikely that Modi will do a Hajpeyi.

(ii) The main fear of the opposition parties is what the "middle and poor" class people perceive Modi as. We can notice that they are scurrying to alter Modi's image into a Corruption-accommodating and anti-poor leader. It is unlikely that they will succeed.

(iii) He has detractors within his own party, who might be waiting for Modi to fail/fall in some way, so that they can jump all over his corpse.

Possible Scenario Predictions:

(a) If he goes aggressive on Hindutva and economy goes in doldrums, people would say: why did he have to do it so badly. "Ghar mein khane ko nahin hai aur ladai pe nikal pade".

Remark: Modi would want to avoid this.
(b) If Economy takes off a little and then aggression happens as a result of cross-border provocation, he will have much better traction. (We have had a glimpse of this during this Myanmar incident).

Remark: Modi would want to have better than this.
(c) Before next LS election he would have achieved a healthy majority in Rajya Sabha, so he wants to aim at a strong (350+) majority in Lok Sabha in 2019.

Remark: Modi will have this as desirable.

3. Constraints Model (Simple Lessons for Modi from 2004 loss; a few possible causes that added up):

(i) Apologetic behavior regarding 2002, resulting in cringing-Hindutva image.

(ii) Despite decent infrastructure development and growth rate, the message could not be conveyed to people, Hindutva folks were completely sidelined, and India-Shining campaign was seen to be "arrogant".

4. Strong Points Model (Some innate strengths in favor of Modi):

(i) He will (most likely) remain personally clean and impeccable (unlike MMS).

(ii) If his party detractors, and opposition parties do not oppose him he will do much better. If they keep opposing him, he will gain sympathy (vo kaam karna chahata thaa par usako kaam nahin karne diye). This will help him to further strengthen his grip on BJP as well as candidate selection.

Remark: We don't view this as bad per se; for we can't disallow a PM, who we want to act as an efficient CEO, the freedom he seeks, and then blame him if he fails to deliver. He will have more to worry if he is given freedom, for then he will have to show success. He will be comfortable if he is denied freedom, for he can legitimately claim that he was not allowed to function freely. In our understanding, Modi will lay claim to the freedom he seeks and get it for himself, and he will also deliver what he has in mind. (Which may be different, in content and sequence, from what most critics or "intellectuals" expect)
(iii) He will not capitulate regarding 2002, anti-terrorism, etc. Even if he does not go the whole hog as per the "Hindutva" script.

(B) Image:

Modi would strive to project a comprehensive image in which:

(i) He remains clean, and impeccable.

(ii) He remains visible as someone who is working hard for noble goals.

Remark: The above two are easy, for Modi merely needs to be himself to be so. The only effort he needs to put in will be to counter the contra-campaign by his opponents (both within and without) to sully his image by reality-inverting propaganda. Modi should not take it lightly, but he need not boil his head over it. His actual personality, his ability to communicate, and most importantly, delivery of deliverables on the ground, will take care of this.
(iii) Development, infrastructure growth, Economic growth to be perceptibly better than 2004/2009.

(iv) Poor peoples' on ground experience and hope for the future to be significantly better than 2004/2009.

(C) Time Line:

Politics is as much about timing as it is about image. Even if it turns out that Vajpeyi was a stauncher Hindu than Chhatrapati Shivaji, it matters a little about the results of Election 2004 results.

Until now we believe that Modi will not have to be other than himself to project the right image. However, we do not rule out the possibility that someone could be compromised. For now, we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

(i) Poor peoples' on ground experience must change for the better, latest by third year middle, and keep steadily improving after that.

(ii) More aggressive economic reforms (free market for middle/upper class) can also begin then or even a bit later.

(iii). Fourth year, and later could see aggressive Hindutva or suggestive-Hindutva.

(D) Strategy and Control Variables:

To achieve the said image, at appropriate timing, given various models regarding the situation, a part of Modi's strategy could be (or possibly is):

(i) To provide "free market" to middle class. This will turn many "secular" into his voters even if it does not turn them into non-secular.

(ii) To provide "development" oriented welfare (not doles a la Congress, rather growth opportunities with charitable perspective) to poor. This will consolidate his Hindutva-poor base, and also significantly shift non-Hindu poor (Gujarat Experience?).
 

In view of the above he has (until now) managed the Control Variables appropriately, for example:

(i) Development focusing on for poor/lower-middle class. (This has begun)

(ii) Small scale industry oriented reform. (Has begun or might begin shortly)

(iii) Tax (Income Tax, etc.) reforms. (Can begin from third year too).

(iv) Hindutva agenda. (To be timed to peak at the right instance).

From the above, it is clear that Modi Government (even while doing much better than UPA yet being highly disappointing) is on a decent course.

Pit Falls:

What we have mentioned are average scenarios. We have ignored a few delicate but extremely important things.

(i) Modi himself is compromised:

The lure of becoming an international figure is often too strong even for the staunchest nationalists. While Modi is unlikely to be an easy or a cheap sell out like say Jawahar; the possibility that Modi has sold himself out, or has been bought out (A combination of threat and inducement) can not be ruled out with absolute certainty. While we are unhappy about Modi's volte face on FDI/GM-food/Aadhar etc., and we DO have our suspicions regarding certain employments under his govvernment for Economic posts, and while there are many who are "sure" that Modi is a zionist and all that; we still would like to give him a benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being.

However, you will notice that such a thing will not alter his winnability in 2019 (unless he stands exposed by then), if he does as what we mentioned in this article.


(ii) Subversion by the system itself:

Since we suspect that Indian system is heavily and highly infiltrated, timing and delivery can come unstitched if the system (both bureaucratic and judicial) subverts all the initiatives. Modi needs to take two steps. One, select key bureaucrats very very very carefully. Two, Change and Reboot the system itself. We skip this topic now, and will present our views on this in another article.

(iii) War:

International players can manipulate wars. Modi must ensure that either war does not happen, or if it happens India wins the war decisively. The how and why of this is beyond the scope of this article. However, as politicians, Modi and Shah might be intelligent enough to handle such a crisis should it arise.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-4

Indian public was, has been, and is FED UP of politicians. Most politicians turn out Congress-style. Thus anyone who had a non-politician image did well in the recent past. Modi himself sold his image of a semi-non-politician who wanted to "change" the system, and wanted to "perform". In the following we present an assortment of what he spoke during his campaign. We are not providing exact quotes, we are mostly relying on our memory, and we request our readers to exercise their discretion.

1. Real change choose me otherwise there are many others
2.  I am Hindu Nationalist.
3.  Unapologetic 2002, puppy remark.
4.  Punish the corrupt
5.  It is not government's business to do business.
6.  Policy driven state

Then, when he was feeling somewhat more "confident", he started mixing it up with Twisters like:  "toilet over temple",  and "constitution holy book" (he continues to stick with it now). It was occasionally interspersed with foolishness like: "technology will solve corruption", "new cities beside optic fiber cables" and so on. By that time his 5F, 3T, and such Readers Digestian fluff had become quite popular (they continue to remain so).


However, we believe that people (especially Hindus) developed a love for Modi because he appeared to them a semi-non-politician who wanted to bring about real-change. The real change can not come without appreciating the following two things:

1. There is a looming existential threat to Hindu Civilization. The threat is a continuation of what has been going on for about a millennium. And there is an urgent need to not only take cognizance of it, as well as "naming it".
2.  This subversion happens in variegated forms, which are led by a subversion of language, law, and education.
3.  In view of such existential threats, no amount of "development" is meaningful without urgently strengthening "civilizational security".

Now lets us mix it up a bit:

       4. It is important to bootstrap development in order to bootstrap security. Undeveloped societies do not remain secure for long. Thus development is critical too.

       5. However, it must be designed as "civilizational development". Mere development, or secular development is not just insufficient, it is positively dangerous.

Thus returning:

       6. We must recognize that true-secularism, and virat-hindutva too are insufficient, however much they may appear to be in the tight direction. And further, they are not merely insufficient, they are fraught with horrendous dangerous (especially in light of their vulnerability to deception).


In the face of all this, what did we observe? We, as Hindus get:

• 1. Chastizing of pro-Hindu speech.
• 2. A Sabka Saath Sabka Vikaas government being dedicated to poor, rather than being steadfastly anti-poverty.
• 3. Civilizational wealth-redistribution rather than intra-civilizational charity.
• 4. Often puerile ideas like "gharwapasi". gharwapasi is effective when those outside perceive how well their "in-house" friends are doing. Without taking care of those who remained in-house for a millenium despite horrible persecution, if we indulge in inviting "outsiders" for gharwapasi, we are NOT strengthening our civilization; we are incentivizing going out.
• 5. When non-English educated hindu-civilizxationalists express opinions which name the threats, and caution our society, what is the result? They are being severely rebuked by those whose life is mired in Macaulayian indulgences.

Concluding Remarks:
Notice that whatever we have mentioned DO NOT take much time to make a Beginning. And yet, one year as passed, rather has been wasted and not even a whiff of a hint of movement has happened in the right direction. You find people "exposing" Islamic atrocities based on 9/11 (a mere decade and a half old incident, while Hindus suffered for a thousand years). You find people sloganeering "India with Israel" and "Hindus with jews" ( or likewise Indians with Palestinians etc) rather than the simple: Hindus for Hindu Civilization.

Also, extremely disturbing is the trend of obsession with "foreign things". Whether Indians educated abroad, or Indians with job-experience abroad. We are skipping FDI, GM crops, Aadhar for the moment. Each one of them is capable of dooming us. And yet, what does our PM say? He asks us to "trust" him. Well hindus trusted Mohandas, what did they get?

We will skip over good things like PM Jandhan Yojana, insurance, Mudra bank, etc. These might be good ideas but only fruits over a period time will tell. This also shows why we judge one year of Modi-Sarkar as much-better-than-UPA. However, on the most important fronts, it has been abysmal. It has done worse than mere failing, it has NOT Begun at all. And dear PM, that is why we are heavily disappointed.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-3

We are not going to "defend" Modi by blaming some or many of his colleagues. It has become fashionable to scorn Arun Jaitley and Smriti Irani. Personally, we too disapprove of Jaitley (we will return to it later), and are neutral about Irani. However, for the purpose of this article, we view them as parts of Modi's government, so the buck finally stops at Modi.

Now, we also describe our understanding of the categories of reviewers we mentioned. This might give you, our dear readers, some more "hints". Ha ha. But before that we would like to share a story. Imagine an upper middle class family whose son is driven around in an expensive car by a driver. The son is attending FIIT-JEE and such reputed coaching centers. The driver too has a son, and he is preparing on his own. He is NOT interested in the free super-30 and all. He wants to fight it out in his life on his own. The exams happen, and lo and behold, the upper middle class son flunks badly while the driver's son gets in to JEE top 100. How do you, dear reader, think will the upper middle class family take it? Well, in real life, upper middle class families are not as bad as we imagine, still for the illustrative purposes of this story we assume otherwise. The members, well wishers, those who are patronized by the family, all view this result with utter shock. If you compound it with an imaginary constraint that such entrance exams are conducted only once  every five years, then the reactions would be further amplified. The long and short of it is that they find it nearly impossible to come to terms with the outcome. They can't imagine that while their talented son will only be attempting another shot at the exams, the driver's son could be graduating with flying colors. So they want the driver's son to fail, fail at any cost. But then, they are also apprehensive that the driver's son might succeed further, and the talented son might flunk further. They are torn between opposing feelings. Dear readers, do you get the drift of it? Good.

While the Modi-bashers are torn between conflicting emotions; those belonging to his "side" are so full of themselves that they think that the only way to answer any criticism is to point out what Congress used to do. While Congress indeed did horrible things, but then merely comparing with Congress puts such reviewers into those gloating about "-300 getting to -200" camp.

Now we come to the 4 percent folks who were in the third category. We found them mostly concerned about "only" economics, or Jaitley/Irani criticism in disguise.

Thus before we present our review, we wish to clarify our position vis a vis Jaitely and Irani. As far as we know, Arun Jaitley was one of the D-4 (Jaitely, Swaraj, Ravishankar Prasad, Anant Kumar) during Advani era. Then he was in good books of Hajpeyi too, at least till Hajpeyi was in power. And now Modi. Now, we believe, that anyone who always manages to remain on the right side of the fence is, more often than not, a man of suspicious and dubious character. And like it is often said regarding justice, that justice should not only be done, but that justice should be seen to have been done; we wish that it is important for Modi to not only remain clean, but to also be seen as clean. (We will mention our recommendation for Modi re' Jaitley later)

In the case of Smriti Irani, we believe it to be more a case of people being jealous of her rapid rise, rather than her (in)competence. We don't value her for her Yale certificate, nor do we denigrate her for her lack of "Doctorate" or whatever. Most of the high academics who have been criticizing Irani have been the ones with fat bottoms drawing fat pay-cheques at government expense for decades and have deep vested interest in the continuation of what we call as the Lutyens-Delhi-of-Academics. However, Irani can do no worse than getting swayed by the bureaucrats in her ministry. If she does that in her bid to protect herself from the wrath of high-academicians, she will be doing a great disservice to herself, and much worse disservice to her job. We believe that she is talented, and we believe that she knows that she is talented. If she asks herself some very elementary questions like: Does our educational system spot talent, nurture talent, and then put them to best use? If not (is there any doubt? haha) how should that be done? What measures does our education system take regarding those who are not "very intelligent"? How does it enable them to utilize whatever intelligence they have to achieve a reasonably happy and prospperous life (say, by being somewhat hard working and all)? - If Irani asks herself such questions and pushes for answers to such questions and their implementations, she would fare much better.

In the case of Jaitley, our advice is based on the premise that he is slimy. Even if he isn't, our suggestion should not make much difference to him. We would like that Modi makes Jaitley a minister without portfolio (he could even be a deputy-deputy-PM or whatever), but he must remain without portfolio. However, as "minister" he could advise (not mandate his advice though) any/all other ministers regarding negotiating the labyrithine pathways of India's babudom. If Modi has nothing to hide from public, he loses nothing even if Jaitley is able to know all that goes on in any department (which he anyway knows now). At the same time, all departments are protected from Jaitely's intrigues should he desire them. In this manner, even if Jaitley is slimy, the government is protected from his machinations, while his capabilities are utilized nearly fully. And, if Jaitley is clean, he should gladly do this "sacrifice" for the good of his "friend's" government. We must recall that other members of the D-4 have been doing far better already.

There is a certain skill in Congress kind of people, that they specialize in making themselves indispensable even though they do nearly nothing. And we believe that Jaitley does have, and most likely practices, such a skill. He would do a great service to the nation if he can use his skills in rooting out other "Jaitleys" from the government, and device means so that in future newer Jaitleys can not gain entry, then he would have fulfilled more than a fair share of his obligation.

Now that we have meandered round and about, we can return to presenting our review, in the concluding part.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-2

A little Background:

Ten years of UPA, and especially its final years were anything but horrible. Peoples' noses were getting cleared, and they could start smelling the Congress-shit. Wanton corruption, Lawlessness, name what you will, prevailed. People wanted some air (even if not fresh) as much as a drowning man yearns for a whiff of air. This is why Annas, Kejriwals could open their shops. People wanted something different from Congress, and something that could potentially deliver something. In Delhi-2013, BJP could not convince people that it was different from Congress, so people chose Kejriwal (though he deceived the people and jumped into parliamentary elections later).
 

In such a situation Narendra Modi's choice as a PM-candidate inspired people's imagination. Nay, it was almost as if the groundswell people's imagination forced the BJP to make Modi their PM-candidate. Here is a man, they thought, who is clean (different from Congress), and who will deliver (whatever said and done, Gujarat became a reasonably known place for "delivery").

And he led a great campaign. We must be clear, for the moment, that Congress was almost surely destined to lose. Even Advani, along with Nitish Kumar might have cobbled up a coalition, with Congress "respecting" the message of the "peoples' mandate" and letting some of its partners switch sides. So an Advani, or an Advani-like government was, kind of assured. Then what was the need of Modi?

 

A Brief Analysis of Advani:

We have heaped scorn on Advani and Hajpeyi in the past, so are we going to retract our opinion? No. We will present a somewhat more refined analysis. Let us, for the moment look at Vajpeyi and Advani in two "roles"; Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B; similarly Advani-A, Advani-B. There was Vajpeyi-A who along with Advani-A built the BJP, as if from scratch. (Not exactly, but still). There was Advani-A who led the rath yatra and fired Hindu-imagination with his "Jahaan Ram ka janma hua hai Mandir vaheen banayenge". This was a powerful lunge, in times when politicians were busy further dividing the hindus (Mandal commission and all). In our opinion, Advani-A outperformed Vajpeyi-A. He made a genuine sacrifice in letting Vajpeyi-A become PM, accepting him as his elder and leader. Okay, okay, ignore "Vajpeyi was a coalition builder and such and such...".

And then? And then Vajpeyi-B, popularly known as Hajpeyi happened. Vajpeyi-B was suspicious and insecure re' Advani-A and an internecine feud ensued. The 2004 debacle is history. Whether Advani-A was shortchanged or what remains unknown, though we have our suspicions. But this in a way destroyed Advani-A's "confidence", and (this is our guess, we are not privy to any personal confessions by Advani-A) this started Advani-A's decline and degeneration into Advani-B. While Advani-A stood as tall as, if not taller, than Vajpeyi-A, Advani-B was striving to outdo Hajpeyi in his "haji-ness". This was the reason BJP lost in 2009. In hindsight, we believe that had BJP been unapologetic re' 2002 in 2004 elections, Advani-A would have become PM just as Modi has become PM in 2014. But that was not to be, and in any case it is only our hypothesis.

However, Advani-B too, while unable to fire Hindu imagination, was quite likely equal to the task of puling it off in 2014, just as he did in 1999. Not that well, but some respectable total to cobble up coalition to "respect the mandate".

If, under such background, Narendra Modi got elected, he was chosen by people not to be a Hajpeyi, or Advani-B; rather he has been chosen to outperform Advani-A.

We digress a little further here. Recall what we wrote about Congress. Is it possible to have a "clean" Congress? No, but it IS possible to have a "seemingly" less-dirty Congress for a while. How? Change the people (politicians within Congress). Why only "seemingly"? Here lies the crux of the issue. Congress, as a group of a "kind of people who use certain kinds of solutions", is bound to produce only shit because those "certain kinds of solution" are designed (and known) to do only and precisely that. Ha. Good you guessed it. In a nutshell "secularism" and "socialism" epitomize their "solution strategy". However, that will not elucidate it as much as we wish to convey.

In an abstract way, take secularism as "separation of some concerns", and socialism as "sharing, collectivization of something". This pair, facilitates phenomenal levels of hypocrisy in Indian politics. For example: If Congress loses (apply collectivization) all the leaders (there are no leaders in Congress, only stooges of Congress president) own the responsibility. If Congress wins, it is the Congress president who won. We mention here that such can also be a practice in "good faith" in a good and honest team. However, in Congress, it is a different story. Now, observe most other parties in India. Aren't they similar? Whoever is to be robbed is pushed into a "collection", whoever is to be made "rich" is separated from the "collection". Whoever is to be hidden from "law" is pushed into collection, whoever is to be victimized is separated from the collection. And so on.

So try and view Congress, is a group which practices thusly. So merely changing people or names can hardly help. Also observe that for anyone who is even slightly competent, dropping moral hangups and practising "congress" can be highly profitable. Thus, you find a lot of "competent" people in congress. And then, when you become much more competent, then you don't want to share even within congress, so you start a new congress under a different name. And if you start losing competence, you surrender and rejoin congress. Political history of India post-independence is replete with such stories.

The main point to understand is that whichever group practices "congress" IS Congress, no matter what the name of the party. Now, try to investigate why Hajpeyi and Advani-B were thought to be congressising BJP. And that is why before BJP can push for Congress-mukt-Bharat, it has to become a congress-mukt-BJP first.

 

Another summary evaluation:

Therefore, Modi must ask himself a few questions. Is he really moving towards congress-mukt-BJP? Has his government done something which Advani-B could have done? Has he refrained from doing something which Advani-B would surely have done? These and similar questions will go a long way in grounding his perception.


By the way, those curious re' Vajpeyi and Advani need to be told that while we do consider Vajpeyi-A and Advani-A to be at least somewhat admirable, Vajpeyi-B (Hajpeyi) and Advani-B turned out to be such abominations that their respective sum totals, viz., (Vajpeyi-A + Vajpeyi-B) and similarly (Advani-A + Advani-B), continue to remain despicable. We also mention that someone might refine such analysis further into, for example Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B, Vajpeyi-C and so on, and come up with even more detailed analysis. Yet, the final sum total would still remain quite indefensible, in our opinion.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-1

First anniversary of getting elected happened on May 16, and that of taking oath happened on May 26. A lot of reviews of past one year have been published. Most reviews can be classified into one of the three categories. First, written by those who are known to be Modi-bashers so were expected to write adverse reviews. Second, written by those who are known Modi-defenders, so were expected to defend the government. About 75% belonged to the first category, and about 20%+ belonged to the second.But there is this third category, which is written by those who want Modi government to succeed and yet wished to provide a critical assessment without undue Modi diatribe while avoiding undeserved eulogizing. When we say that only about 4.5%+ belong to this category, we are still exaggerating the figures. We must also clarify that we have not read all reviews in English, and have read none of the non-English ones. So please bear that in mind. Now we come to our review.

Frankly speaking, we expected a much larger percentage to review Modi in the style mentioned in the third category, and a significant number to review the way we will review Modi in the following. However, we were (and we hope the general readers too) pretty much disappointed. So what category IS our perspective? Well, we present our review so that you can judge it for yourself, and then we will also try and categorize our perspective.

First a quick recap of 1947-2014 and Congress.
There are a large number of people (unfortunately BJP too is infested with them) who genuinely believe that Congress was a great movement (with Mohandas, Jawahar and all) but unfortunately it declined and deteriorated after that.  We believe differently. We believe that Congress was poisonous shit and it kept adding newer shit as well as kept rotting further. Then what changed? We believe that it is the ability of people for clear perception that changed. It was (and continues to be) a case of nose getting cleared and olfactory glands returning to normal sensory perception. Thus the more and the clearer people perceive the stronger the revulsion and disdain they feel for Congress. Further, we don't believe that Congress is only a "set of corrupt politicians" etc. For such problems have easier solutions, like, "change the politicians". When people describe Congress as an ideology, they are closer. We believe that Congress represents a "kind of people, who repeatedly attempt certain kinds of solutions". Such a representation will attract its "kind" of people, and it will perpetrate systems and institutions which keep attempting its "kind" of solutions. Please recall that we are not ascribing any ulterior motives to such "people", at least not now. This does not mean that they do not have ulterior motive. However, our purpose is to remind you, our readers, that even without ulterior motive and even despite the best of intentions, when certain "kinds of solutions" are attempted, it leads to perpetration of shit. Ha, now you are making guesses. Good.



Politician and Lawyer:

Consider how an honest leader is supposed to behave. If a large dirty yard needs cleaning, he inspires the imagination of the people (towards the goal of a clean yard), and starts doing the cleaning himself (inspiring people to join him). Now consider how a lawyer deals with his client. A good lawyer warns his client (often even when the case is strong) and yet strives hardest to get the best possible results. A bad lawyer assures the client (even if the case is weak) but after the debacle quibbles with the client regarding what his assurances meant and what they didn't mean.



Priorities:
Now consider a somewhat lateral situation. (Women might understand it more easily though you don't need to be a woman to understand this). Suppose you and your family returns after (say a fortnight/month) a vacation, and enter the house (say at 5 in the evening). Assume you stay in a not-so-automated house and your house (and appliances) is not connected to the internet-of-things etc. So what sequence of action do you expect? We suggest one (of possible many): You first start the water pump (a few minutes later geysers will have to switched on for heating bath-water). Then you quickly rinse two vessels using the water from the bottle you carried in your journey  (the vessels might have been clean but have accumulated dust), open a milk-packet pour it in one vessel and put it on the gas-stove, similarly you put a another vessel with water (everyone might want to have a cup of tea/coffee!). And then something, and then some more thing etc. While there are many admissible solutions possible, consider the following one. As soon as you get to your house you thrust a broom each in to every member's hands and start cleaning the house. Midway, you realize that it would have been a good idea to have a cup of hot beverage, but now it will take another fifteen minutes (at least) to prepare it, so you tell all to skip it, and finish the cleaning job. After cleaning you realize that the pump was not switched on, so all have to wait for water to be pumped and then heated and so on. Pretty awful scene. Surely much below optimal. (And mind you, we are not alluding here to Swachchh Bharat Mission. Not at all.) What we are alluding to are "priorities". And if one is a sensible family person, while traveling itself one has thought about and decided priorities. Priorities will vary from individual to individual, and family to family. However, if a significantly non-optimal (in some cases counter-optimal) priorities are chosen, one suspects the capability of the chooser (even if not the intentions).



Summary Evaluation:

Suppose there are two delivery mechanisms A and B. On a scale from 0 to 100, suppose A regularly delivers -300 (yes, minus/negative 300); and then when you choose B, he delivers -100, isn't it a great improvement? Yet, is it good? Suppose B delivers 5 (yes positive 5), isn't it HUGE improvement? Still, is it good?
 

So dear reader, we are sure that you have made some very good guesses regarding what we are going to write. And you are not off the mark at all. This does not require any great genius. In fact, we honestly believe that most reviewers ARE much more intelligent than we are, and that is why we were disappointed by their reviews.
 

Also, before we shoot our volleys, we want to make it clear that we are NOT going to complain that "Achchhe Din" have not come, or this or that. Things take time. Journey from -300 to 50 can take a long time. Journey from even 50 to 75 is bound to take time. But, there is another aspect to it. The simplest question is: Has the journey begun? If it has begun, is it to cover -300 to -200, or -300 to -100, or -300 to 5, or what? What was the BEST possible journey that could have begun? Have the best possible choices been made? We all must ask these questions, and answer them for ourselves.