tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10493985176408002862024-03-13T22:50:34.400-07:00samAlochaka<b>Silence may be golden, but we need to talk.</b>samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.comBlogger299125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-7232709835239425642020-03-26T03:41:00.001-07:002020-03-26T03:41:27.476-07:00Pandemic or PanicDemic? Corona-Gate? Seems so.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The day before yesterday night (24/03/2020 at 20:00 hrs IST) PM Modi announced a 21 day lock down. Under most circumstances, erring on the side of extra caution is the conservative thing to do, and I am conservative in that aspect on this matter. However, one must also ask the question, to err by how much? You see? And the moment one puts such a question, quantitative analysis is brought into action. But on what basis does one do QA? On DATA, you might say. Rightly so, but there is a catch. You must have not only data, it must be reliable data; and further the models you use to analyze data must also be sound and robust. Hmm, unreliable data, not so sound models, deja vu? Yeah. Recall "hockey stick curve", Michael Mann? Recall Climate-Gate? Go figure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
NaMo has asked citizens for full cooperation, and more importantly, exhorted us not to fall prey to panic etc. All very sound advice. However, there is a big catch. In the past (and continues till date) he has fallen for the Climate-Gate trap. That shows that he is vulnerable there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notice one more thing, all the opposition which was baying for his blood for "failing economy", is now exhorting him to take sterner and sterner measures re' COVID-19, despite knowing full well that these measures will screw the economy even further (assuming it is screwed [I don't believe so!]). Smell a rat? If not, you must!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ICMR head Dr Balram Bhargava has been quite calm and sensible for most part. ICMR's assurance that nearly 80% get well with no or mild symptoms, remaining 20% develop more than mild to severe symptoms, about 5% need hospitalization, etc etc (please check recent news for his accurate statements) have been music to the ears of we the people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You might be wondering, what is this guy doing? Supporting the action, or opposing the action? We will come to that in due course.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First a nice joke. Recall 8th Nov 2016? Or was it 2017? Yeah, the demonetization announcement night? After that, someone had made a funny but an apt statement. "Until now India had 1 billion plus Cricket Experts, now we have 1 billion plus Economists". I would add to that, and say now we have 1 billion plus Epidemiologists. The asshat Amartya Sen calls Indians "the argumentative people". May be true, may not be true. I often find the case to be like "Dumb asses pretending to be Extra Smart asses". Okay, you could include me in that group if you wish, no harm. But you get the drift I suppose.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Consider making a few thought experiments. There will be a lot of hand-waving here, but bear with me. Let us simplify the cases we want to handle by considering four types of diseases.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) Certain to Infect (100% sure contagious), Certain to Cause Death, (b) No contagiousness, non fatal (does not cause death) (c) Limited contagiousness, Significant likelihood of causing death (d) Nearly certain to infect, some likelihood of causing death.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Please keep in mind that I have not been exhaustive in the number of possibilities. Now let us imagine what the outcomes would be:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) Nothing can be done, and we all await certain death. Covid-19, almost surely is NOT of this type. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
An Aside: Please keep in mind that philosophically (and in experience) it is true that we all are going to die certainly sometime, however our deaths are staggered in time and as many humans die many new healthy human births also keep taking place and we as humans continue to live on. But we are not talking in this sense here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(b) Nothing needs to be done, go watch whatever. Covid-19 seems not to be as nice as this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Great care needs to be taken to isolate patients, have/administer treatment, and yet we also need to be prepared for the worst. But this is doable. For example Small Pox etc were somewhat worse than this, but we got over it. Covid-19 does not seem to be in this category.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(d) AFAICT, Covid-19 seems to fall in this category. What does that mean? That notwithstanding the fatality ratio, number, etc whatever, it will be nearly impossible to restrict the infections to only a small number of people. Meaning, that over a period of time, we all will eventually get it. Fortunately, the good news is, as Dr Bhargava assured us, most of us will get well, recover, whatever. So NO NEED to panic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now you may ask, then what is the point of taking these "drastic" measures? A very prudent question indeed. This is where, real and reliable data, and real and reliable models come into play.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since, it seems a given that most of us will indeed encounter this virus, and will likely get infected, the pertinent question reduces to: How rapidly will this happen? And how many people might not recover and will die? Further, these deaths need to be "from Covid-19" and not "with Covid-19", a subtle but important difference. For example, a large number of people die every year "with Flu", but not "from Flu". Whereas other large numbers of people die "from cancer, from tuberculosis, etc" and not merely "with cancer, with TB, etc". This is where the "disagreements" begin.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before we delve further, let me make it clear that while we will analyze as best as we can, it does not at all mean that I am insensitive to "deaths" of human beings, even if they are old, or are with existing conditions, and all that. Human life is valuable But, please also bear in mind that about a lakh people die in road accidents every year, but we never ban driving on roads for "securing lives of people". Don't jump in your seat, but please keep it in your mind. My only point is, let us not make "death" an emotional issue to get hysterical.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only argument that seems to drive measures like "social distancing" is that it "flattens the curve". What curve? Some bikini clad woman's abs? Not that friend. What it means is that we want to control the speed with which people get infected. I am sure you all have seen people talking of R0 (R nought) and a figure showing high peak (usually on left), a lower peak (usually on right) and a flat dotted line showing "hospital capacity". But also notice that none of them show that picture with "realistic actual numbers".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, in some recent news <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-fatality-rate-2-here-says-scientist-from-top-medical-body-2200055" target="_blank">article</a>, ICMR says best case scenario is Delhi will get 1.5 million cases, and Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru will get 5 lakh cases. They do not show the availability of current "hospital capacity" in relation to this. The same article, states that with stringent measures "peak" (the actual value is not given, some percentages are given, but I don't want to go into that here. Author, for example, claims 2% fatality rate; Ishwara knows from where, so let us skip that.) will reduce and will happen after 200 days, and with some other "even stricter measures", further reduced peak will happen in 700 days. Notice that, first of all these "predictions" are speculations (recall Climate-Gate). Model (mathematical) plus Parameters plus some more Data used to plot tables or curves. But, even if so, the table must at least show that with these drastic measures we have (say) 90% plus confidence that we will have sufficient "hospital capacity" when "peak" happens. None of this is discussed. And you will discover that, barring flowery language, it is as hand waving as this blog post that you are reading. I apprehend that their hand-waving is much worse. Excepting pandering to "people are dying" emotion, they accomplish pretty much nothing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You may ask: Don't beat about the bush mate, get to the point. Ok, let me try that. The fundamental question is, whether the drastic measures taken are proportional to the real risks. Put it differently, the measures we take have associated costs, and produce (expected) outcomes. <b>The question is, whether the expected outcomes justify the costs. My answer is: a BIG NO.</b> And by the way, don't yell "people are dying" - I warned you about not getting hysterical - because the cure, these "drastic measures" will also have HUMAN-COSTS. Factor that in too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then the question arises, why are such drastic measures being taken? Who benefits? About this, while presently I have mere suspicions. But since the case looks eerily similar to climate-gate, I guess the beneficiaries must be same or similar. And its initial consequences are already much more than Climate-Gate. Bureaucracy, Officialdom has already got "emergency powers". Did you notice that? Empowerment of un-elected officialdom, and further the un-electables, WAS one of the purposes of Climate-Gate, and here and now, the general population, under mass fear psychosis, has voluntarily surrendered that. If you recall, I have always stated that NaMo however good he may be, is neither infallible, nor immortal. Further, even if he is infallible, he surely is not immortal. So every time such "power accretion" to "government" happens, I squirm in agony. Because, for every NaMo that we have, there are hundreds of Kejriwals lurking around, who will blatantly misuse, abuse such powers. An aside: Just recall how the climate-Nobel-Laureate (now dead?) RK Pachauri was parading "Himalaya will melt by year 2025(?) or thereabouts" as loud as he could. Al Gore became the first billionaire trading "carbon credits". Now, likewise will happen for "ventilators" etc. Don't even get me started re' US-election 2020 etc.<br />
<br />
Notice a few other things. All political parties, including those who were mocking NaMo for his "swachchha bhArata" initiative - something that would go a long way towards hygiene, therefore healthcare, blah blah - are unanimously supporting the Govt. Why? What gives?<br />
<br />
All the business-class people, who keep screaming about "free markets", "It is not govt.'s business to be in business", are hoarsely demanding "bailout/stimulus" package. Smell a rat? You must.<br />
<br />
Now that you know that I disagree with the harsh measures taken by the government, you might ask, what are my recommendations to the govt.?<br />
<br />
First of all, I am NOT a statistician, mathematician, doctor, epidemiologist, academician, whatever. So take what I say with a pinch/sackful of salt. Still, FWIW, my suggestions are as follows:<br />
<br />
1. The lock-down should in no case exceed 21 days. I recommend, strongly consider relaxing it much earlier.<br />
<br />
2. Go for fast tracked NPR targeting elderly people first, so we know the "target" population of Covid-19. Make arrangements to secure them. India has a much smaller "elderly" population percentage, and we can get much larger number of younger volunteers.<br />
<br />
3. Screw any thoughts re' Economic Package and such non-sense. Think about it, if at all, after 3 months.<br />
<br />
4. Popularize ayurvedic, home-medicines, for immunity etc. This obsession with "modern medicine" should not be like "Abrahamic Religion". We must focus on getting patients recovered, and not "medical ideology".<br />
<br />
5. In longer term, decentralize mega cities, they are health risks, in such scenarios. Screw all this "metro-train" madness in every city. All the infrastructure investments that lead to further increase in population density must be a strict no-no. If possible, try breaking big cities! <br />
<br />
I don't want to write too many of these suggestions off-hand. I would rather list a small list of recommended reading with a few quotes from them. You could read such/similar articles and draw your own analysis/conclusions.<br />
<br />
1. <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/" target="_blank">A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.</a><br />
<br />
Quotation: "The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco."<br />
<br />
2. <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/25/covid-19-updated-data-implies-that-uk-modelling-hugely-overestimates-the-expected-death-rates-from-infection/" target="_blank">COVID-19: Updated data implies that UK modelling hugely overestimates the expected death rates from infection.</a> <br />
<br />
Quotation: "In practice, a high proportion of people killed by COVID-19 will have
serious underlying health conditions, and would be much more likely than
average to die from non-COVID-19 causes."<br />
<br />
3. <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/25/wired-climate-denial-is-like-covid-19-denial/" target="_blank">Climate Denial is like Covid-19 Denial.</a><br />
<br />
Quotation: "...<span style="color: #880000; font-weight: bold;"></span>When
scientific questions become political issues, he added, people’s beliefs
become statements of identity. '<span style="color: #880000; font-weight: bold;">To some extent we see that with the coronavirus.</span>'” <br />
<br />
4. <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/24/the-italian-connection/" target="_blank">The Italian Connection.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Quotation: "So let’s end this crazy ... lockdown, there’s a whole raft of work
to be done shoring up our medical sector to withstand the coming wave,
and it can’t be done at home with our heads in the sand, hundreds of
thousands of people not working,.., and our
economy in a shambles …"<br /><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-538390198758111682020-03-24T14:18:00.003-07:002020-03-24T14:18:33.081-07:00Happy Hindu New Year<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Wishing you all a very happy and prosperous new Samvat.</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-79940551750491089572019-03-10T23:44:00.000-07:002019-03-10T23:44:02.906-07:00Election 2019: opposition's gaslighting and a strategy for counter-gaslighting<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. Introduction</b><br /><br />The rumble of 2018 elections has slowly settled down. I am not going to talk about Congi infighting whatever. I would rather recommend that we view that as subterfuge to lull us into becoming complacent.<br /><br />As I mentioned in my previous <a href="https://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2018/12/election-2019-recommended-strategy-for.html" target="_blank">post</a> (published before E-2018 results were announced), Election 2019 are extremely crucial (much more than 2014) (AND 2004 also, will come to explaining that later). And likewise electing NaMo (even if as a place holder) too is extremely crucial.<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And make no mistake, the focus of "opposition" is: (Check their focus: BJP <=271, so that) Whatever be the case, NaMo ceases to be PM. <br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And while a few things have happened since Election-2018 results day. Say, 10% for EWS, then a decent budget, there is a fundamental thing that is being missed out on. While other things must continue, I want to focus on what I consider to be the fundamental thing, and rightly handling it will be crucial.<br /><br /><b>2. Gaslighting, A Primer</b><br /><br />In my opinion, anti-NaMo strategy has been <i><b>gaslighting</b></i>, that is "<i>to gaslight</i>" general people. For understanding gaslighting I refer you to this <a href="http://age-of-treason.com/2015/02/17/gaslighting/" target="_blank">post</a>. Check <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting" target="_blank">wikipedia</a> as well. That whole blog itself is an eye opener on many aspects, some of which are applicable in Indian context as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A relevant part is copy pasted below: <br /><blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which
information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or
false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt
their own memory, perception and sanity.[2] Instances may range simply
from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever
occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the
intention of disorienting the victim.</span></b></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly.
</span></b></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So in short: Gaslighting is fundamentally an Exploiter-Exploited abusive relation. Exploiter cons exploited to believe (delude himself/herself into believing) that: Exploiter is a well wisher and protector. Any doubts re' exploiter are owing to lacunae in self (exploited). None other than exploiter is a benefactor and none other can protect. Subtle threats, exploiter is gracious as friend, but as an enemy will be fatally dangerous. <br /><br />Observe that anti-NaMo "opposition" is doing exactly like the above (including the threats).<br /><br /><b>In particular</b><br /><br /><b>What are the relevant truths?</b><br /><br /><b><span style="color: #cc0000;">a. Election 2019 is extremely crucial and NaMo must be relected.<br /><br />b. In 2014, NaMo won elections on three planks, viz., Nationalism, Anti and Non corruption, and Development. And he has delivered significantly on each of them.</span></b><br /><br /><b>Thus as part of gaslighting, they falsify each of these. Look at their corresponding gaslighting points.</b><br /><br /><b><span style="color: blue;">a. That either election-2019 are not crucial, or if they are crucial, they are crucial to remove NaMo. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>And to "fortify" their reasons they assert (denying point b above)</b><b><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: blue;">b. That he (NaMo) has delivered nothing, and destroyed everything. And thus they shout: He is not only not a nationalist, he is personally corrupt, and all claims regarding development are false. </span></span></b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notice that their subterfuge consists of a wide range. From insinuations to allegations that NaMo has compromised National Security and is personally Corrupt (Rafale), and his claims of development are same as India-Shining claims of 2004. Thus their strategy is to equate Rafale with Bofors, and development with India-Shining. Further, they suggest that whatever big changes NaMo did were destructive, and motivated by personal corruption. For example check their blabber about Demonetization, and GST.<br /><br />Likewise while they are shouting all kinds of things, they are very clear about their "common minimum program". BJP <= 271, resulting in non NaMo PM. Notice how their messaging comprises diverse strategems. Lulling people into believing that BJP should get (and will get) <=271 with non-NaMo PM and then we all can have peace. Investigate what "peace" they are after! It is the peace wherein they get their "pieces" without fear of "law enforcement". That is partly the reason for their focus on getting non-NaMo.<br /><br />Remember, now they are not even (in that sense) opposing BJP, they are opposing only NaMo (shah, doval, yogi, etc). It also includes (not to overlook subterfuge by insiders) general vacuous ramblings like: toggling between nothing-needs-to-be-done and nothing-can-be-done. So you will on one hand hear people who will claim NaMo is so well placed that he will easily get 300+ blah blah, or you hear those who say that now all is lost and we must brace ourselves for a khichdi government, or at least non-NaMo.<br /><br /><br /><b>That these tirades are false (factually) has been shown by various authors (much better than I can do).</b><br /><br />But don't overlook a very sinister (not unlike Cong ain't it? Huh) scheme: Cong is using subliminal threat techniques. Recall Sibal issuing statement in Press threatening bureaucrats? Dog whistling like (with just 44 we are able to do this, imagine what we will do to you if non-NaMo becomes PM) and often <i><b>people are swayed by fear. </b></i><br /><br />Among "internal subterfuge" there are "insider hinting" games. Two specifically come to mind. I mention them per my hunch, I hope I am proven wrong.<br /><br />Recently, Shatrughna Sinha said in an interview NaMo is a dictator. In recent past, even Nitin Gadkari dog whistled, I am flexible, NaMo is rigid. Then he was ambiguous re' Mallya, though NG clarified later. So, in that sense, I dunno what is cooking.<br /><br />Likewise, Subramanian Swamy, while doing great work on Hindus etc, has been emphasizing (or is he giving it away?) the strategy that we are uniting Hindus, and dividing muslims. Thus, once again, a crucial part of goal (of opposition) is to divide Hindus and unite minorities. (Bua Babua alliance in UP, for whatever it is worth is to divide potential pro-BJP Hindu voters uniting them along caste lines).<br /><br />I must also mention that both NG and SS have been staunch non-corrupt pro-Hindutva persons, and they must be knowing how crucial it is to reelect NaMo. And they are not naive not to know how their statements might be used by "opposition". So if they are doing it "in support of NaMo" then their political communication skills are much above my pay cheque. I hope they find their words in the right nick of time.<br /><br /><b>Now before we come to what we can and should do, let us also take a look at what ain't work.</b><br /><br />First, a little general rant from me. I have written a little, and much better authors than I am, have written volumes about how BJP communication strategy (including their IT cell) has been, to say the least, stupid. This is something that I have never fathomed. While cadres among BJP/RSS are totally dedicated (etc etc), I wonder why their "media representatives" are chosen from among the least competent, nay, from among the most highly incompetent. While I hardly doubt their "dedication" to the worthy cause, their performances are such below par that one might be tempted to call them "real Pappus". And worst part is, even the "best" among them perform much below their abilities. I can't fathom what befuddles them.<br /><br /><b>For example consider the following</b><br /><br /><b>a.</b> N Sitharaman, as defense minister gave a "huge speech" in parliament. Even before 2014 I was a non-admirer of her vacuous sternness. Notice that during this "long speech" in parliament she was using phrases like "hang on" .... pitiful! Do better homework folks!<br /><br /><b>b.</b> S Irani is a glib talker. She has the ability to stymie even the highest wpm (words per minute) news-anchors, and turn them into fumbling earth worms. In short, very very effective in insulting (a very important skill in right place and right time, for example against Kapil Sibal, Renuka Chaudhary, and likes), but to no real avail (on certain other occasions). Take for example, the famed (recent) show down between SIrani and Navika Kumar (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe5WhuroJi8" target="_blank">here</a>). NK was destroyed and was fumbling for words. Yet S-Irani forgot to mention, in simple straight terms: "Are you representing RaGa? Let "him" ask his questions, you focus on what you told me the topic was". If you look at the interview, to her credit S-Irani did imply it. But in mass communication (per my understanding and I am no guru in MC) making simple, crisp, and to-the-point statements are "the key".<br /><br />So to say the least, BJP needs to really work on their communications aspect. And that brings us to another crucial point. While, it might work to resolve confusion among the undecided and honestly confused people, certain things, like the following doesn't work!<br /><br /><b>c.</b> Point by point rebuttal of "opposition" won't work. (On them. That is, it wont stop them). Why? Because, their goal is not to "debate" (and bring out the truth), their goal is to gaslight (and obfuscate the truth, nay invert the truth). <br /><br /><b>Now you ask, Oh dear, this is getting long and winding. Tell us, then what should we do? Let us consider a few examples.</b><b><span style="color: #cc0000;"> </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">1. Stone Pelters (in Kashmir): Will shooting the "stones" work? Do we shoot at the stones? Or do we use pellet guns on the stone-pelters? Think!<br /><br />2. When we are blinded by bright lamp, do we need another source of light? Nope, we first break the blinding source of light. Then, we can "show" the truth in our own mild light.</span> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Thus, destroying the "source" (of gaslighting) is the key.</b><br /><br />Don't rule out Shishupala treatment. This was Hajpeyi's biggest folly. And would have been Advani's biggest folly too. A stitch not done in time, wastes nine ninety nine and often worse. If only a drug-carrier was not "saved" back then .... think!!<br /><br />As an aside let me mention that this is why Elections 2004 and 2009 were NOT SO CRUCIAL for Cong. In 2004 they knew that Hajpeyi was a no-danger. And in 2009 also they knew that Advani would be no-(real)-danger. In 2019, NaMo IS clear-and-present-danger to them, and their survival itself.<br /><br />So now we come to what we should do (to counter gaslighting). In my opinion, the solution is deceptively simple. I surmise that we miss out on such solutions mainly because we look for complex solutions. The solution, among other things, comprises of <b>focusing on two (main) messages:</b><br /><br /><b><span style="color: #cc0000;">1. Cong means TREASON. Treason against Hindus, India, Hindu Civilizational Territory, etc.<br /> </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">2. All opposition, Cong, Cong led, non-Cong non-BJP, anti-NaMo subverters within BJP, etc., are all SAME. They are Cong-A, Cong-B, Cong-C, and so on. Their purpose? Same! Obfuscation and gaslighting, to elect a Non-NaMo PM. And it is a pity that those who started their lives as "anti-Congress" realizing that Cong=Treason have now become part of that treasonous entity.</span></b><br /><br />Imagine for a moment (NSitharaman, and SIrani are you listening/reading?) NS telling a news anchor in her usual calm composure, no need of vaccuous sternness: You know I am a soft spoken person, but I must tell you, and I hope you are knowledgeable and perceptible enough, that Congress IS treason. Treason against the aspirations and welfare of the people, to say the least.<br /><br />Imagine (likewise) SIrani with her calm face, no need of manifest disdain (for the anchor, at least as strategy) telling NK: Come on, don't tell me you don't know that all opposition, Cong, Cong-led, non-Cong non-BJP etc are all the SAME? Aren't they united merely to bring down NaMo? And for what? All those who started their lives as anti-Congress because they realized Cong meant treason - treason against peoples' aspirations - are now in Congress camp? Don't you agree this is a pity?<br /><br />After this the anchor either agrees with you, or exposes himself/herself. Well, I am not skilled in being imaginative, but you get the drift. <br /><br />And mind you, don't doubt even for a moment what I said about Cong. I am being kind, Cong is much worse. And if you lack perspective in seeing Cong is treason, consider the following:<br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>It (treason) started at inception itself. After 1857, Brits wanted "safety valve" against possible future uprisings. Primarily Congress started to be a "honey pot/trap" against potential "violent freedom fighters". Many were outed (to British) or lured (with honey traps, Rai-bahadur positions etc). And notice, how the party which was founded to stymie independence-struggle claims that it got India independence. My No. 11 foot! Get what is meant by gaslighting?<br /><br />Mohandas, the Congi "hero", subverted freedom movement. Check his behavior re' Subhash Bose (not that SB was an angel), re' Bhagat Singh, Azad, etc.<br /><br />Mohandas (and Jawahar), subverted partition (divided territory while keeping people; it should have been dividing people while retaining (and possibly expanding) territory) A task yet to be accomplished. There seems no begining in sight either.<br /><br />Mohandas subverted Patel (Not that Patel was an angel, but FWIW, was much better than Jawahar).<br /><br />And never forget, the non-violent Mohandas "supplied" (was primarily instrumental in supplying) Indian soldiers for British wars. Millions of Indians (soldiers) died, while India got a zilch in return.<br /><br />Just compare that with present Cong. Like earlier, Cong always was/is anti-Hindu, at the same time they always convert their fight (i.e. Cong vs X fight) with non-Hindus into a Hindu vs non-Hindu fight, fooling and manipulating Hindus into fighting wars of Congress, not of Hindu self-interest. Is there any surprise that Cong rule seems contiuation of Brit rule?<br /><br /><br />Don't buy even an iota into Arun Jaitley's (for example in Aapki Adalat) Panditji (for Jawahar) and Indira Gandhi (1971) fetish. Jawahar/Indira were equally, if not worse, scum. The point to remember is: You can't polish turd.</b></span><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A message for NaMo:</b><br /><br /><b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Here I want to chastise NaMo. He has this strange fetish of Mohandas. NaMo seems to present MKG (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) as his ideal; and thus often acts as if his goal is (to become) MD (Mahatma Dhimmi).<br /><br /><span style="color: blue;">He should scarcely forget, that his Opposition also has same goal (obession): MKGMD: Modi Ke Gaand Mein Danda.</span></span></b><br />Remember further that NaMo has to protect people from Cong "threats" as well (see above threats to bureaucrats by Sibal). On this, NaMo must really show how strong he is even about protecting people from Congress. No idealism, Mohandas stuff. Rather if Cong gives shit (even in words), give back hundred buckets of shit (in action!) (Just an aside, this is paraphrasing from a book "Inscrutable Americans" by some Indian author.)<br /><br />Mr NaMo, make use of constructs like you used in an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i41GJXXjVU" target="_blank">old video</a> (2:30 min approx) "Aaj munh mein ungali daal rahe ho ..." etc. Now that you have gone no holds barred, I will not take it lying down. It is a question of OUR people and nation.<br /><br />Thus NaMo has to unleash an All-Out No-Holds-Barred fight. Shun dharmAbhAsa and work to establish dharma. In his UK talk-show he grandly claimed that he does not want to be remembered. While that is a lofty ideal for sure. In terms of present crisis and its demands: That is nothing. He shouldn't mind being remembered (by non/anti-Hindus) as a "villain"; so long as he does well for Hindus.<br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>3. Use this opportunity to educate "minorities".</b></span> The undeniable fact is: Congress does not help muslims, it only destroys Hindus (except those who collude with them) and for that it funds terrorists. the fundamental truth that sullas, X-ians here in India need to realize is that they have been fooled into misdirecting their fight against "casteism" into a fight against "Hinduism". The blatant fact is Mullahs and Padres exploit sullas and X-ian commoners much much worse than "alleged patriarchal brAhmins" even imagined. Worse, Mulla-Padre "brAhminism" is a much more virulent "international" form of brAhminism. While within Hindu fold pre-converted sullas and X-ians (as "downtrodden") could wage a fight, as sullas and X-ians they are mere expendables for the "Global Caliphate and Papacy". And Mullahs and Padres gaslight commoner sullas and X-ians. So as people, sullas and X-ians must re-evaluate their strategy. And they don't even need to imagine and analyze much. Their future as "Islamic Ummah" is manifest in the form of "peaceful and prosperous Pakistan" the Global Hub of Terrorist-farming where their own sulla citizens are held as captives. Their (sulla, X-ian) genuine thinkers must realize that their roots are more important than flimsy "structures" that they imagine to be strong fortresses, in reality which are prisons. Returning to roots must be a Global understanding. And in the context of whole Indian subcontinent, it is even more crucial. But I digress.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>In Short:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>The problem is gaslighting, and its solution is counter-gaslighting.</b></span></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-73977843858037044102019-03-07T05:05:00.002-08:002019-03-07T05:05:40.984-08:00Pulwama and later ...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After my last <a href="https://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2018/12/election-2019-recommended-strategy-for.html" target="_blank">post</a> I have been wanting to write another. But, I should say, not unexpectedly, Pulwama happened. So let us deal with that.<br /><br />I had mentioned that anti-NaMo gang will go <i>all out no holds barred</i> (<b>whatever be the cost</b>) to try and ensure BJP<=271. Now let us consider what options did they have? Even a cursory look at the situation will tell, even a not so keen observer, that they had to do something "radical". Why, you ask. Didn't congress win Raj/MP/CG? Hmm. So let me elucidate. If you look closely Cong only won CG. Raj/MP were "close contests" where anything could have happened. Also in MP/CG BJP had been in power for 3/4 terms so, you never know why, people might just want to try a change. But the crucial message is this. If you look at Raj, and especially MP, despite huge loan-waiver promises Cong won by a limited margin (and mind you it was still only an assembly election). Further, many surveys mentioned that while people wanted to change/punish the "state government", people expressed satisfaction with NaMo at center. So what does that mean?<br /><br />For the moment, imagine the following (actually RaGa has already begun doing that): Cong et al promise massive freebies ... what will be the result? First, in Raj/MP/CG the hollowness of loan-waiver schemes became manifest much sooner than Cong expected. So, unless some trick works, voters may not get fooled second time by false promises. Then, even in usual terms, NaMo has delivered HUGE on many many aspects. And, to top it all, then there was Feb-1 budget.<br /><br />I am sure most of you saw the expressions on faces of RaGa, Kharge, et al during budget; and on Sonia's face after Mulayam-uvacha. So what do you think? If you thought that Cong et al will try anything less than, or other than, the message that "NaMo can not handle national-security", you either have limited powers of observation and/or limited powers of reasoning (well grant me some liberty to taunt you!).<br /><br />Thus some Pulwama like thing had to happen. Ok, you say, now what? If you recall I have mentioned quite a few times about intertwined caste-war religion-war that is going on simultaneously in India. So worms had to crawl out ain't it? Some "Bal" guy, and some commie magazine raised the question of castes of those martyred in Pulwama attack. And notice, the use of the term "upper caste". You fucking assholes, why did you not ask "how many brAhmins? Dear readers, do you know why they didn't ask that? It is because the question was designed by "brAhminism" peddlers!<br /><br />A small digression. In general keep this piece of information in mind. This is not final word, or universal truth, but it will often facilitate easy understanding of seemingly complex situations. brAhminism (more accurately Judeo-brAhminism) works to a plan. JB wants to manipulate people to "hate" brAhminism (wait, you may ask, why do I hate it then, you will have figure that out yourself) and then they guide and manipulate the hatred like so. Judeo-brAhminism -> brAhmins -> B-surname -> brAhmaNa -> sanAtana dharma. Their final goal is to incite hatred against dharma. Never overlook that. But then you may ask, why JB-anti-brAhminism? Haven't you heard of "controlled opposition"? Go figure!<br /><br />Coming back to the martyred in Pulwama. So should we ask how many brAhmins, or let us take it further, B-surnames die? But then you must learn to take answers as well. (At least) one B-surname did die, P Tripathi. So what do we conclude? B-surnames are not patriots? How many women die? How many "Gandhis" die? How many MP/MLA/MBA/PhD/X/Y/Z die? You get the drift? And now will you ask caste and religion of Abhinandan Varthaman? What will you do when you are told how many B-surnames die in the MI-helicopter crash in Budwama?<br /><br />So what is the point, you ask. The point is Fight-against-brAhminism is not to be trivialized. Nor is it to be given in the hands of "Judeo-B" themselves (however much they try; and mind you they <b>are</b> at it!) Otherwise, you will end up with Yadavism, Reddy-ism, Pawarism, etc which are nothing but brAhminism-clones.Or even worse, another set of JB taking over. (Recall, 'controlled opposition').<br /><br />The larger point is, even when statistics show some trend (and they could be valid trends), be careful and observe "who is mentioning/promoting it and why?" (Of course, you are free to, and must, do so about me as well). Oftentimes you will realize that their larger point is to divide Hindus. Always keep the following point as well (as I wrote in previous post) brAhminism is anti-brAhmaNa, and brAhmaNa-wisdom liberates you from brAhminism.<br /><br />Now let us return to the main theme. The Cong et al goals are: 1. To establish that NaMo can not handle national security; and 2. To divide Hindus.<br /><br />Thus we must be extremely vigilant and not fall prey. Keep observing how the mind-manipulation games are being played, and avoid buying into it. If possible, also share your wisdom and understanding.<br /><br />Now let us move to other points. I will not gloat over Feb-24 (retribution)strikes, or Abhinanadan's return etc; rather I will share with you my apprehensions. There are certain things whose smell I just don't like. Let us focus on them for now.<br /><br />Notice how government is making noises (including Sushma at OIC meet) that "Islam is a religion of peace" and ours is "war on terror". Doesn't it sound like GB-Bush circa 2001? I will oppose tooth and nail, India becoming US of circa 2001; spending trillions of rupees and lakhs of lives (of our valuable security personnel) on "war on terror" with no solution (coz the problem itself is ill posed). On one hand losing our precious security personnel, and then (a la Steve Sailor re' America, please do web-search!) "invade them and invite them". This will be a death blow to our nation and civilization.<br /><br />So political compulsions aside NaMo must remain clear about basic concepts. Notice how the message now is OIC is good, only Pakistan is bad. No fools. Islam is bad and Pakistan can recover if it sheds Islam. That should be the clarity we have.<br /><br />Then NaMo's obsession with Kashmiris. Let us be clear, I am for we (Hindus) regaining Hindu Civilizational Territory (over extended akhanD bhArat). If Kashmiris, Pakistani sullas don't want to do gharwapsi, they should find more attractive places in OIC countries, for example. So this obsession about winning hearts of Kashmiris is bull shit.<br /><br />I also sniff a very perilous game here. This Islam is good, terrorists are bad, is a (one of the) Judeo-Globalist line. This is Secular-Humanism as front, and Judeo-blah-blah as the real thing. I also think USA does not want Chinese accessing Gwadar. This suits India, but US (a front for Israel?) may seek Baluchistan independence so that Israel can use Baluch to poke into Iran. India must keep away from such designs. Per our past experience, soon Baluch (a la Bangladesh) will become another sulla-terrorists-exporting hub. Much later, after America's decline "secular-humanist-India" will be the new barking/biting dog of Judeo-Globalists. And when Pakistani ISI is blamed, never ignore that ISI also means Israel and (United) States against India. Again, this is not to condone Pakistan, Islam, sullas, whatever. The point is, we must be alert against all sorts of enemies, and have clear understanding of our situation.<br /><br />Also, don't rejoice prematurely about Jamaat-e-Islami ban (in Kashmir) etc. Read the language behind. That government will take strict action against "radicals". Remember that Hindutva-folks, Gau-Rakshakas, etc could easily be classified as "radicals" any time, and then you know what will befall them. Just for starters, some Kashmiri sullas got bashed up and "Hindu Fascism" has already been vilified. And the Werlemans etc who do it are (alleged) "natural allies". Beware!<br /><br />Recently, Chitra Subramanian (of Bofors investigation fame) has "exposed" <a href="https://www.republicworld.com/opinions/what-gives/global-anglo-saxon-media-helps-manage-pakistan-as-a-terror-state" target="_blank">Anglo-Saxon designs</a>. All the press/media that she is exposing are jew-owned, jew-controlled, jew-run media/press. Playing "both" sides is the typical Judeo-(brAhminical) stratagem. Recall, till recently their version was Christanity vs Islam, which meant Judeo-Xianity vs Judeo-Islam, so no matter what happens to X/Islam Judeo wins! In India, they will push for Judeo-X and Judeo-Islam (also read Secularism, Humanism, blah blah) against Hinduism. Not to mention, "swadeshi sullas" kind of fraud (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbX0SI21lo" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By7OzTxkPsc" target="_blank">here</a>, for example). However "well meaning", these could very well be existential-stupidities (stupidities that risk your very [civilizational]existence). Similar is the fraud of "Alla ka Islam" vs "Mulla ka Islam" by Tarek Fatah. We, as Hindus must evaluate Islam (and any such) from the perspective of "What in the worst case?". While, even a novice will at once realize that Islam is full of poison "even in the best case".<br /><br />Likewise, on to other related matters, even now, as the shrill drum of "Israel is India's natural ally" is being beaten; the jewish media is crying hoarse about perils of Hindu-Nazism. (Not to ignore the fact that Leslie Udwin, Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doniger, etc etc are all "jewish"). Don't overlook these crucial things in your enthusiasm.<br /><br />So there are multiple indirection(s) working to obfuscate the situation. One, blaming Anglo-Saxons. Just to be clear, I don't say AS/Whites/X/Y/Z are our allies by definition. What I say is, anyone who is a potential pagan is less dangerous than he/she combined with Judeo-something. Thus, we (as Hindus) must encourage people to return to their own roots. Second, Joel Skousen (a respectable analyst) keeps mentioning Globalists (Anglo-American, Russian, Chinese competing globalists). If you look closely, what will you find? Judeo-Globalism. Make your own observations. Draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />There is another thing I want to mention. Besides the bogey of Hindu-Fascism etc, the bogey of Hindi-imposition will also be propped up. Why? Simple. They want to push secessionist tendencies here. Therefore, when people use arguments like Sindhi/Baluch/Pakhtun "nationalities", keep your antenna alert. That is a prototype to be used against India too. Now don't you see what ChandB Naidu, Maomata Jihadidi, HDKumaraswamy, etc etc are doing? KCR will follow soon. Never forget that the "brAhmin" KCR's daughter once blabbered about her pride of being a Nizami (erstwhile ruler of Hyderabad). The shit runs deep, very deep.<br /><br />The long and short of it that there are wheels within wheels and we must guard against falling prey to anti-Hindu stratagems. Just as caste/religion war is intertwined in India. Racial-nation vs Proposition-nation war is being played globally. And "both sides" are (often) being played by the same "controlling group". We should focus on "what is good/best for Hindus?". And not be swayed by high-sounding generalities. Otherwise, on the whole, the going has been ok so far.</div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-7664382554684722952018-12-09T01:58:00.000-08:002018-12-09T10:33:20.159-08:00Election-2019 A Recommended Strategy for Hindus<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b> TL;DR</b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Vote
NaMo (I am not saying BJP/NDA, okay? Am saying NaMo and his team) - vote
NaMo and his team 450+ seats. About
100 might be won by "true seculars".</b></span><br />
<br />
A hand-waving argument, but will suffice for TL;DR: I don't have any
great love for Modi, but when I see ALL THE Corrupt, Anti-Nationals HATE
him so intensely, the simplest conclusion that I draw is the following:
This man MUST be doing something right. Otherwise why do all these
WRONG/EVIL people hate him so much?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Now for QL;YR</b> (quite long, yet read)<br />
<br />
After the first two years of Modi-Sarkar (check <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better.html" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_4.html" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_58.html" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_50.html" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2015/06/narendra-modis-strategy.html" target="_blank">here</a> for first year, and <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-fall-fall-and-fall-of-narendra-modi.html" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-letter-to-narendra-modi-on-his.html" target="_blank">here</a> for the second year) I stopped the evaluations. I had mostly said what I had to, and it was for Modi government to take it or leave it. During past 4-5 years, his government has done some good things and some bad things. While other things have been passable (to say the least), re' issues related to Hindus/Middle-Class, the errors of omission have outweighed the errors of commission. This is just to communicate to you that I have watched the proceedings with disinterest if not dispassionately. And by no means am I a Narendra-Modi fan, though I am not his detractor either. So this post is NOT about NaMo. It is for us, the Hindus.<br />
<br />
I have been wanting to write this for quite sometime. I didn't want to waste these arguments on some state-elections (even though the arguments are not about them, their misuse is possible. And misuse, over-use blunt the utility and effectiveness of the argument).I don't take Exit polls very seriously and we must wait till actual results are out (whichever way). If BJP does well, they might ignore suggestions here and if they lose they might grab these with enthusiasm, however, I am unconcerned with that for the moment.<br />
<br />
<b>First things first:</b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Election 2019 is MORE IMPORTANT than 2014. You may ask, why?</span></b><br />
<br />
In 2014, everyone knew Congress would lose and BJP will be the single largest party. However, every politician was confident that one of the following things would happen:<br />
<br />
1. NaMo will not be made PM candidate.<br />
2. Even if he is made, he will be unable to keep allies.<br />
<br />
Both these points went awry and the assumption was rest asunder. And yet, <i><b>there WAS a twist</b></i> (as per my understanding). Even those who allied with BJP thought that ditching Modi as PM-candidate will only work to reduce BJP's seats so why do that (BJP/RSS ground level workers wanted Modi [Alleged Hindu-illiterates are quite wise you know?] so not selecting Modi would have led to a huge slack in kAryakartA-zeal; and further they (allies) were sure that BJP would not get 272 on its own). Thus they thought like so (my hypothesis): Let BJP get as many seats as possible (will reduce the additional number of allies needed post election, and thus there will be less power sharing). And after election (since BJP won't get 272 on its own) we can either force BJP not to make Modi a PM (I suspect that he might have withdrawn himself, any ways), or we will be able to force Modi to be a truncated PM (Go figure ... it is easy!). I am sure that even the Congress was BANKING on it. Thus you saw a kind of jovial contempt for Modi (for good or for bad it was also for cow-urine-drinking, tilak-wearing Hindus as well).<br />
<br />
<b>However, the unexpected happened. But, the <span style="color: #cc0000;">rest is not history YET</span>.</b> The unexpected led to many things. However much we (as Hindus, and Middle Class) may be dissatisfied with Modi (and justifiably so), the anti-Modi camp (subsuming within itself anti-Hindu camp) is <b>Greatly Worried</b>. They want to avoid Modi winning (even a simple majority) <b>whatever be the cost</b>. Yes, you read it right - <b>WHATEVER-BE-THE-COST</b>. It is this, that makes 2019 a much more crucial election than 2014. And remember, a BJP (<= 271) = (tacitly implies) Modi won't be PM. So the <b>"opposition"</b> has solely one aim. Restrict BJP to 271 or less. Rest will be managed (incorporating intra-BJP treason).<br />
<br />
For instance, NaMo in my view has been, at the very least, a somewhat Naeemuddin(check <a href="https://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-fall-fall-and-fall-of-narendra-modi.html" target="_blank">here</a>), but the anti-NaMo (even a non-NaMo) PM will be demoniacal and Rabid anti-Hindu. For example, they will quickly do a few things. And for what? They would want to preclude a repeat of 2014 like Hindu-resurgence for ever. Thus, rabid anti-Hinduism (including violence, mass murder, blah blah) will abound. (Slow genocide is any way happening already, and I am NOT looking at NaMo as pro-Hindu either, at least not for now). <b>However, our concern must be, to avoid a non-NaMo PM in 2019</b>. Mind you, I am not even calling NaMo great/bad whatever now. I would rather classify him as a - presently safe/workable "place-holder".<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>My reasons for classifying him as a safe/workable "place-holder": </b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>1</b>.(Even if) Shit, Shit is better than (Confirmed) Poison.</span><br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>2</b>. (Even if) Poison, non-lethal poison is better than (Confirmed) lethal-poison.</span><br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>3</b>. (Even if) Lethal Poison, In the short run, slow leathal posion is better than (Confirmed) fast lethal poison.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
My message to larger Hindu voters (especially also the middle class) is: Your grouse is legit. Please don't whine this time, or better still, please whine all you can but please do swallow the bitter pill one more time, and vote NaMo. However, this time, keep a plan-B (NaMo replacement, if needed, though we must work as if it WILL be needed) ready by 2022-24. Another important aspect is for those who want to teach NaMo a lesson. Yes, we must teach NaMo a lesson, but without inflicting a lesson on ourselves. No point <span class="ILfuVd"><b>Cutting</b> off the <b>nose to spite</b> the <b>face </b>(see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face" target="_blank">here</a>).<br /><b></b></span><br />
<br />
My message for NaMo: You may rely on TINA (there is no alternative) factor; but you must perceive that if your own CORE voters think WTWA (pronounced like fatwa: wut-wa: Wish There Was Alternative), there must be something amiss. Think about it! And you got a few months to ACT on it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now I come to "details". As I mentioned earlier, 2019 elections are more crucial than 2014. The thing is, you like it or not, NaMo remains, if not THE least anti-Hindu, one of the least anti-Hindus (anti-H he surely is!). Yogi etc might be somewhat better, but Yogi too is too damn soft for my taste. We need some one who has the balls to do 10X-"Islam" on Islam, get it? I know you got the drift. With that behind us, thus for 2019 I am treating NaMo as a reasonable "place-holder" we have. What does that mean? It means we must elect 450+ explicitly pro-Hindu Loksabha members (who, for now, are pro-NaMo [as place-holder] for his being non-corrupt, pro-development, blah blah).<br />
<br />
With 450 pro-Hindu members, Hindus can push NaMo to do what Hindus want. In case some among 450 turn out shitty, we can throw about 150 out and still have 300. Worse, if most are shitty, our 150 can resign and form explicit pro-Hindu party, while leaving NaMo to continue doing his Vikas. You got the drift, right?<br />
<br />
Now you may ask, among so many, Why only NaMo as the place holder (why not x,y,z?):<br />
<br />
<b>1.</b> I am advocating NaMo as a place-holder, for he is by now, at the very least, a familiar evil. Presently we don't know who will be lesser evil. And even if we "elect" a leader, the "leader" can later claim his hands are tied blah blah. So better we fight for a "good hand" (450+, pro-Hindu LS members; see?), then "leader" might not matter much.<br />
<br />
<b>Remark:</b> This strategy will incentivize even non-BJP parties to put forth explicitly pro-Hindu candidates. Then Hindu-voters must choose one who is non-corrupt and pro-H. You ask why non-corrupt? The answer is as follows. Why are alleged secular-Hindu leaders secular? For they can win elections and make huge money. Thus anti-corruption automatically disincentivizes secularism. You may ask, why not corrupt who are pro-Hindu? The thing is, one who is corrupt will not remain steadfastly pro-Hindu. For lucre will lure him into secularism. We have seen that many times, ain't we? The rest of the argument is, the non-corrupt won't mind NaMo's (any PM's anti-corruption policies) and pro-Hindu won't let (even if NaMo, anti-H policies).<br />
<br />
<b>2.</b> NaMo, Amit Shah, and team have formed a well oiled machinery which is working efficiently. Best to leave it working, and work on a plan-B (strong non-corrupt pro-Hindu to replace NaMo in case NaMo repeats sissyness.)<br />
<br />
<b>3.</b> It is also to put some pressure and onus on hindus as well to find a replacement while someone is on the job. I, for one, just after 2014 victory was yelling for finding multiple new NaMos. The turd-tards were busy mocking Pappu, and gloating in self congratulations. In fact, it is only after Gujarat that a bit of sobriety entered the scene. However, even after that, they have always preferred the lazy argument: Arguments like, "So you want to vote Pappu?", "Middle Class is traitorous", etc. It is high time that such imbeciles are truncated within BJP/RSS. Yes, while it is true that they (those dissing Hindu middle class) also ARE our hindu family, however, we must brace for calm, sustained, fight. I never mind abusive language, so long as familial solidarity is a given. The goal must be, let the best strategy be taken. anyways, I digressed.<br />
<br />
<b>A quick, cursory, yet representative evaluation of NaMo's work:</b><br />
<br />
I am not going to summarize pluses and minuses of the govt. I leave that for abler writers and minds. They have done that well (and much better than I do) and will do that. I would cursorily mention a few points.<br />
<br />
<b>NaMo's pluses (Each a big/huge plus): No Corruption, Infra investment, Swacch Bharat, Mudra, etc etc</b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>NaMo's main minuses (Emotionally huge, pragmatically somewhat less so): 1. On Hindu Front 2. On Middle-Class economy front 3. (by and large) on civilizational front. 4. Too much "welfare"?</b></span><br />
<br />
<b>A benefit-of-doubt and alternative view of minuses:</b><br />
<br />
<b>1.</b> NaMo's welfare is "capital investment" (not "consumer subsidy"). So one time cost will likely do away with recurring costs. Recall recurring "welfare" was one of the main planks of Cong's appeasement and vote-bank stratagem. More over, this new approach would likely result in a genuine empowerment which will (hopefully) push "poor" into "self sustainable" middle class.<br />
<br />
<b>2.</b> This "welfare" also has other (likely Civilizational as well) benefits: The people who are vulnerable to "conversion industry" become less vulnerable (Though on ideological level also more needs to be done). I must mention here, that our poor are often much better positioned and ideologically rooted than the "middle class and rich". Never forget that they stuck to being Hindu despite poverty and suffering, while we (as middle class) quickly turn into whiners (however legitimate) and H1B-seekers.<br />
<br />
<b>3.</b> This part I can't do well. Therefore, I would also like someone better equipped to make and present comparison between alternative scenarios and their real implications for middle class. For example, if we have x% growth, y% inflation with y greater than x, does our quality of life improve or does it go down? Etc..<br />
<br />
<b>4.</b> Further, on a broader canvas, if someone can formulate alternative/different strategies: check their consequences holistically, and present in simple to comprehend terms, it might tell us a different story. This again is not much of my domain but I suspect that while NaMo's has not been best, the best may/could not have been too different (in the first term).<br />
<br />
<b>5.</b> Swamy vs Jaitley: This seems to be one of the major sore points for many. I view them as follows. They might have their weaknesses etc and even might be personal adversaries, but I surmise both love Hindus, India, and NaMo (in my preference, in that order) much more than they disagree or hate each other. And at this critical juncture will play judiciously. <br />
<br />
<b>6.</b> Religious War /Caste War.<br />
<br />
I have often mentioned that we are going through a combination of Religious-war as well as a caste-war. I have written about it <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.com/2016/04/hinduism-brahmanism-brahminism.html" target="_blank">cursorily</a>. For now, it suffices to say that brAhmins pretend they are pro-NaMo but will likely vote against him; brAhmaNa-s are explicitly angry with him but will surely vote/support/bless him one more time. He is on to a tough job so things might not go as simple as one might want. In NaMo's second term it will become obvious whether NaMo merely faced difficulties or lacked right intentions. Thus at present give another chance. By 2024, his feet must be held to fire. The B-surnames must guard against being conned by brAhmins, and heed to wisdom of brAhmaNa-s. (Just to be plain, I don't assign brAhmaNa-ness based on support for NaMo, rather my support for NaMo derives from brAhmaNa-wisdom).<br />
<br />
I further surmise (only as a benefit of doubt this time) that it is owing to this dicey deception game, NaMo is unable to be explicitly pro-Hindu. In my opinion, brAhmins are trying to con B-surnames, SC/ST, and minorities to unite (just as Cong vote bank used to be, and later became BSP vote bank) against NaMo. On the other hand, in my understanding, NaMo is trying to unite Indians (likely hoping gharwapsi, which muslims and christians should do if they get even an inkling of the con-game they are subjected to by their Mullahs, and Padres).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>7.</b> <b>Thus, my note to X-ians and Sullas:</b> <br />
<br />
People
convert(ed) to X-ianity and Islam (let us ignore love-jehad victims,
rice-bag converts etc for the moment; not that their numbers are small,
rather to make a larger point) to be free from alleged-"casteism" and
"brAhminism". However, despite the conversion, they got into the trap of Mulla/Padre brAhmins. So what use was conversion? Newer "brAhmins" to replace earlier ones, with added contempt by Arabs and Europeans? Sullas and X must realize that sanAtana dharma is the only
"religion" which is truly anti-brAhminism. Judeo-Abrahamisms are
brAhminical traps. So sullas and X must do gharwapsi and join hands with
Hindus, and work on (and fight for) brAhminism-free hinduism (not
brAhmaNa-free). Realize that brAhminism is first and foremost
anti-brAhmaNa. Likewise brAhmaNa-wisdom frees you from brAhminical clutches. (aparOkShAnubhUti [direct perception] over Officialdom)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>8. Note to Hindus/Mimddle-Class who are contemplating voting against NaMo:</b><br />
<br />
Before you make up your mind, calmly consider the following:<br />
<br />
<b>a.</b> 5 years of corruption-free government. First time in 70 years. Not even Hajpeyi/PVNR did. Shastri might have been greater, but lasted (was allowed to last only?) 2 years.<br />
<br />
<b>b.</b> We all lament Hajpeyi's election loss in 2004. The question is: Does only Modi need to learn from Hajpeyi-2004? Is there nothing that Hindus should also learn from what they did to Hajpeyi?<br />
<br />
In my opinion, had Hindus given second term to Hajpeyi (even as a place holder) things would have been much much different.<br />
<br />
<b>c.</b> We (in general) want democracy, and still blame someone who tries to win elections? Then, what do we want? A pious loser? Remember, for all his greatness what people did to Hajpeyi. He was a "pious loser". Who hailed him for his piety? None. Rather, all mocked him (even when they pretended they respected him) for being a loser. Again, I am no fan of Hajpeyi, but what needs to be said, must be said. The main point is, Hindus must avoid striving to become "pious losers". At least for quite some time now.(Also check "cut off nose ..." part mentioned earlier).<br />
<br />
<b>d.</b> DeMon, Triple-T, etc are tough-decisions. Did Hajpeyi/PVN take any such tough decisions? Of course you will say, "coalition govt". Then why should we seek another "coalition govt"? Get it? We may only say that had Hajpeyi/PVN a majority like NaMo has, they would have taken much tougher decision. Yes, that does show NaMo in poor light, but does not take away his "place-holder" status for now. And as I mentioned earlier, we do need a place-holder in this crucial election.<br />
<br />
<b>e.</b> PVN was "forced to do" many things which he did (likely unwillingly). Ditto Hajpey (Kandahar etc).. NaMo too "had to be the way he has been", but he DID have the option of "ceasefire with Cong". No gainsaying that. And from what appears (a few more active [could become action-packed as well] months are left) he won't be a "ceasefire with Cong" type. He shouldn't be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>So what is the bottom line?</b></span><br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Election 2019 are much more crucial than 2014. While NaMo may have been much worse than what was expected of him and what he could have been; he remains a safe and reasonable place-holder. Further, in reality he may not even be as bad as he is made out to be. More importantly, in our anger to teach him a lesson, we must guard against cutting off the nose to spite the face. We must elect NaMo with a team of 450+ non-corrupt, anti-corrupt, and explicitly pro-Hindu Loksabha members in 2019.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-69559846284500449192018-03-25T09:31:00.003-07:002018-03-25T09:31:58.190-07:00Happy Ramanavami<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Haven't posted in a while. Wishing you all a very happy rAmanavamI.</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-18221558132931040622017-10-05T13:42:00.002-07:002017-10-05T21:42:55.002-07:00SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap Prayashchitta Parihar Prasannata Yojana. A suggestion.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dear Mr Narendra Modi (and Arun Jaitley),<br />
<br />
Your recent speech at Company Secretary Institute's golden jubilee invoked quite appropriate examples from mahAbhArata. Duryodhana's arrogant pramAda, and Shalya's duplicity (the real story is more nuanced than you presented, but still) nearly pin-pointedly underlined the subject matter.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite my general support for DeMonetization (and overwhelming public support as well), I still maintain that it is still too early to evaluate DeMon. And it may never indeed get evaluated, except on data-independent sound principles. Our "alleged" intellectuals are too prejudiced to make an even a trifling unbiased evaluation, leave alone an objective evaluation.<br />
<br />
Further, its truest vindication, if ever, will emerge only based on cleansing of "black money" that is yet to take place. I presume some work is underway. But I digress.<br />
<br />
Likewise, GST rolling out has also been (again despite the fact that I generally support it) a somewhat damp squib. Basically, I suspect that the system is too infested. Few honest-dumb-fucks, largely what-do-I-care-I-get-may-salary, and more than critical numbers of intelligent-crooks. You get the drift? Nothing short of "draining the swamp" as Donald Trump termed it (and he too is miserably failing in it), will turn the tide in any realistic and tangible terms. I have a small suggestion re' GST. Try and get the following done(I am not an expert, I am sharing with you some general impressions):</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. Along BHIM app lines, get a JavaScript based web-page which can do Form-Validation off-line. Such a page can be hosted on a static-page site with CDN (content delivery network) etc. It need not be a free accounting software. Just some thing that can check (for validity, not necessarily "correctness of data") GST forms. What I mean is, for example, that wherever date must be put, a date-type is put and (say) not some arbitrary text.<br />
<br />
Once Form is "valid", a person can attempt to submit (for example) it to the GST site.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. For sometime, (say a few more months till things stabilize), allow only 1-2 submissions per person per month/per-time/whatever. I mean, if I am a trader, it should not be possible for me to submit/attempt-to-submit (say) 5-6 times. This will drastically reduce the load on GST form accepting servers. (Will work somewhat like indelible ink on finger during DeMon cash exchange at Banks).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I surmise that it should be possible to put such a system in about a few weeks (like BHIM app was made in a few weeks).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But I digressed again. This post is about a suggestion to give a last chance to those who might be having "black money". This chance is NOT about any concession, nor does it help them to get back any part of it. Rather it is about something else.<br />
<br />
Corruption in India is for many reasons, but I want to highlight two of them. First is the regular allegation that India's traders are often thieves. This has been beaten to death, and you will have to figure out a way to correct it. Second is that governments in general are SO CORRUPT that people do not want to pay tax. I mean, if I am a trader (or for that matter anyone), why should I pay tax from my hard earned money, only to get infernal statues of Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra, et al, dotting the whole landscape, making blots all over the place? You get the drift? Good.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
At the same time, of course, non-payment of tax MUST involve (notwithstanding any other things) certain amount of shame or guilt. (Though I doubt if shameless Indians have any of it). However, if you are going to run behind their behind (And I assume and wish you ARE going to; you promised to make tax-thieves cry bloody tears), as a last "concession", you could think of the following honorable exit: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
1. This does not help in any way to launder "black money"; it only helps one avoid humiliation; helps one cleanse onself of guilt and shame, and helps one to rejoin mainstream honorably.<br />
<br />
2. Please feel free to refine as per needs. I am NOT an expert (in any thing).<br />
<br />
Continuing from your mahAbhArata analogy, I have named it: SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap, Prayashchitta, Parihar, Prasannata, Yojana. And it is like so:<br />
<br />
3.1 A person declares his hitherto undisclosed/uncaught/untaxed/whatever money to the government.<br />
<br />
3.1.1 Consider including foreign bank deposits, as well as bEnAmI property also in the ambit. <br />
<br />
3.2 50% of this declared income goes straight to the govt.<br />
<br />
This money will give you quick slush funds, and generous breathing space despite global recession, and looming wars. I suspect we are living in war times and thus we better play safe.<br />
<br />
3.3 Remaining 50% also to govt (but this is with a twist). You make a few (I have mentioned 3) separate funds:<br />
<br />
3.3.1 Citizens Monitored Disaster Management Fund.<br />
<br />
3.3.2 Indian Investment Abroad Fund (this has 2 parts). It is done in rupees, not in any other currency. So those nations need to buy stuff from India or route through India.<br />
<br />
3.3.2.1 Investment in Education and Health in poor/struggling nations (say from Africa, Latin America). Must be non-muslim nations. We ain't should fund our own destruction, okay? Such investments will lay foundation (long term relation building, send teachers and all)<br />
<br />
3.3.2.2 Investment in Medium Term (say for 100 years). For example, in Siberian gas: extraction, fossil fuel based power generation. Russia has been our friend, and for further security it could be JV with Japan. And power transmission from there to India. We could sell power to Japan, Mangolia, Koreas, etc. Power cable will CROSS OBOR (China) so that will be added advantage. It can also connect with similar investment with Iran.<br />
<br />
3.3.3 Investments in High Risk Technology Research. By high risk I do not mean risk to life. I mean, some mad, out of the box ideas; which if 2 in 10 work, we hit the sky, you get the drift?<br />
<br />
4. Now people whose money gets into this (in principle you could make this open to general public also) can choose under which head the money will get used. In this aspect, it is akin to cooking-gas-subsidy voluntary surrender initiative. Clarification: They get "control" but NOT profit.(Drafting will have to take care of this aspect). However, they can monitor if babus are working on the "investment" etc or not. On one had it needs to be ensured that owing to whatever little control they won't funnel profits to selves. On the other, since they themselves have been "thieves" in the past, they will keep a damn good tab on "cleaver by half" babus. (Need to ensure that the two thieves groups don't form a cartel).<br />
<br />
5. You may be wondering why this 3.3.2.1 etc.? Make Jaitley also read this, at least about (say) ten times. He will get a taste of form-filling terror that he loves to inflict on people. Government forms are so full of such multi-layer convolutions.<br />
<br />
6. The biggest advantage of this scheme is: You GET the money, without having to rely on those IT/ED/GST babus! Coz, if all goes well, people declare it on their own, and they just go and deposit it in some account, with a "preference for investments" directive. (Total half page). And they get a receipt. That's it.<br />
<br />
7. Despite all your measures, if it still fails, your resolve, and peoples' support for making the corrupt cry bloody tears will get doubled! And tax-evaders would know it. Though, I think this scheme should be more of a positive initiative than a fear inspiring one.<br />
<br />
<br />
All the Best.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-20941016737158169862017-04-02T07:56:00.000-07:002017-04-02T07:56:42.591-07:00Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet v0.1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Preface:</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have been toying with the idea of writing this article for a long time. You will soon notice that it still reads at least unrefined if not utterly unfinished. But given my limited writing abilities, I realized that even an unlimited wait would not lead to any significant improvement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also ours is the age of growing impatience. While the latest desi Shabbas Goy Pankaj Mishra authored "Age of Anger", it is more impatience than anger. Impatience with not mere "elite" but "elite suspected of wilful treason against, and callous indifference towards suffering of, people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have titled this v0.1 in an arbitrary manner. It only means that it is <i>work in progress</i>. However <i>the progress</i>
might happen so slowly that you might never get to read any future
versions. Also, the essence of the message of this article is unlikely
to undergo any significant change. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><br /><b>Some Background:</b><br /><br />By <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations" target="_blank">population</a>, jews are about 0.2% of world population. If we assume that they were much more numerous about 2k years ago, may be they would have been (say) 5% of world population? Anyway, that is not the main point. About 2k years ago Christian and Moslem populations of the world were 0% each.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now consider Abrahamism (jews plus christians plus moslems), their population is about 54%. If we add "secular, atheist, etc" into this (because Secularism, Atheism, as practiced in modern times are largely Abrahamic "atheism", while secularism is indeed "Judeo-Christian western" concept. Thus, post this addition, the Abrahamic population totals about 70%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If a similar calculation is done in terms of land area. The percentage might add up to like more than 80% of inhabitable land area under control of Abrahamics. Compare that to say less than 1% land area that Judean kings might have controlled prior to 2k years ago.<br /><br /><b>Quite a feat, no?</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, yes, I know, you would say that "Science/Technology practicing persons" in the sense of "modern Sci-Tech" were nearly 0% and have become nearly 100%, so don't read too much into it. But we MUST read into it. SciTech is being used by people everyday in their daily life, and it "works". If there are problems, theories and solutions are discarded. Nay, even if a guild of some practitioners goes somewhat askance (like modern cancer-treatment, psychiatry, etc) there is often a powerful counter push. Last but not least, if Sci-Tech too becomes a "propaganda" rather than remaining something that "works", it will also decline, nay it will also have to be shown the door. The "climate science" fiasco has already shown hints of that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand, Abrahamisms insist that notwithstanding whether they "work" or not, they must be accorded a special privilege as "religion" coz it is their "faith" which must be deemed sacred, no matter what. And if you notice carefully, the notion of "Secularism" is more concerned about forcing non-Abrahamics into accommodating Abrahamisms, than anything else.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, from this perspective, it seems interesting to investigate what Abrahamisms are all about and how and why they have had such massive percentage gains.<br /><br />It is in order to study this, I have chosen the personalities of Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet.<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>My Usual Routine:</b><br /><br /><br />However, let me begin with my usual disclaimers and caveats. <br /><br /><b>Group-0</b><br /><br />You might be wondering, what on earth has made me write this article. And that if i am writing this will I be heaping loads of well researched insults on these "prophets". Well, I am sorry to disappoint you.<br /><br />However, this in no way must be taken even as a remotest hint of advice that we can drop our guard against the abominable ideologies run after the names of these persons. Though in this article I am not touching upon the abomination aspect at all.<br /><br />Just as a woman must be cautious regarding approaching men, for on one hand it indeed is plausible that they will eventually fall in love, marry and live happily ever after, it is not ruled out that the man will turn out to be a serial rapist, would rape her, impregnate her, and move on! In our case, we know for sure that notwithstanding whatever fair understanding we might accord these "religions", they have been rabid plunderers, and the only reason they havnen't moved on yet is because they feel their plundering is not yet finished.<br /><br /><b>Group-1</b><br /><br />I am not writing this as a student of comparative religion or philosophy as that stupid ass Zakair Naik might claim for himself.<br /><br />I am not a "scholar" either.<br /><br />I began with an initial appreciation of the fact that Islam itself is a problem not what the apologists term as radical Islam, Islamofascism and such balderdash.<br /><br />I could understand that notwithstanding its white-washed face, underneath Christianity also lay horrible past and even at present an ever continuing basket of subterfuge and stratagems.<br /><br />I realized that the usual critics and exposers of Chrislamism always fell short of taking things to their logical end.<br /><br />Thus I naturally ended up noticing that there were fundamental problems with Judaism (the parent of Islam and X) itself, and that things should not be brushed under the carpet for deference to terms like "Israel is our natural ally" and such levity.<br /><br />Since these ideologies run in the name of these personalities, I wanted to understand them. Not from the point of view of admiring them, insulting them, or even evaluating them "objectively", but from the perspective, that If we give them generous benefits of doubt, can we find some take-home useful essence? Something? I have tried to find mine, though this need not be the all.<br /><br />This article is some kind of summary of what I understand of the trio. While I must unabashedly declare that I am (in my writings) trying to be pro-Hindu, or at least trying not to be anti-Hindu, this article is more from a somewhat neutral perspective. At least, I am not writing this to grind any axe (though that can be, should be, and surely be a legitimate purpose in itself, just that I am not doing it in this article) against the trio.<br /><br /><b>Group-2</b><br /><br />While there are numerous studies investigating and doubting the historicity of Moses, Jesus and Mahomet (and they are legitimate too), I am not undertaking any such revision here. As a non (jew, christian, moslem) I realise that the effect these "persons/prophets" have on us, especially on our survival, it is better to consider them "real threats" even if they are "fictional persons". Though, however, in this I am not critiquing their persona either. <br /><br /><br />However, I am not going to pull any punches, when I comment on the "followers" of these prophets. I am gut-sick and bone-tired of incorrigible fools shouting "Manuwadi brAhmaNical Patriarchy". I am not stupid enough to wish that someday they will also accord some semblance of benefits of doubts to each among Manu, brAhmaNas, and Patriarchs. This in no way means that legitimate, or even "hate-filled" criticism of these should be forbidden. Just that, I am not going to consider the sensitivities of anti-M-b-P in this article.<br /><br />I have chosen Moses in a somewhat arbitrary manner, though he is important for the "ten commandments" which supposedly (notice the term supposedly) form Judeo-Christian Civilization. The choice of Jesus and Mahomet must be obvious.<br /><br />So I am writing this assuming Moses, Jesus, Mahomet did exist; they were real people, they were good people, and they tried to identify cause of suffering, and proposed corrective measures. Likewise, further, they possibly loved the whole world too, identified some problems in their context, and likely tried to provide some timeless solutions to ever-standing problems.<br /><br />And then I will present my thoughts on why certain other things happen despite their teachings.<br /><br /><br /><b>Moses:</b><br /><br />Jews believe that they were (are) Yahwe's chosen people, who once thrived and prospered; but did something wrong, fell from the grace and were exiled. A savior (Moses) was born, who led them to their freedom/salvation.<br /><br />However, he did not merely save them. He went further. He told them that the cause of their fall from grace was some kind of immorality, and that they had to regain their morals, and that they must rebuild their lives on Ethics (given by ten comamndments).<br /><br /><br /><u>My View:</u><br /><br />Jews pride in being "the chosen people" often forgetting that the term "chosen" can (and should) also mean that they must be measured against "higher standards" (compared to the unchosen ones). Further, pre-Moses fall and exile must ever remind them that they too are fallible, and that their suffering is not always merely because others hate and/or victimize them. They may be inflicting their own downfall on themselves by compromising on their own "Ethics".<br /><br />It is for them to judge themselves if they are living by even lower standards. The rest of the world could be having a different opinion to theirs.<br /><br /><br /><b>Jesus:</b><br /><br />Jesus of Nazarene was born (immaculate conception) to (virgin) Mary and Joseph and grew up to be a fine gentleman.<br /><br />Jesus's teachings were "revolutionary" for his times. Replacing the typical Judaic prescription of "Jealous and harsh-judge" G-d (jews prefer to spell G-d I am told), the G-d of the "jewish scriptures", he presented a loving and compassionate "Father" in his "gospels" to people.<br /><br /><br /><u>My View:</u><br /><br />Jesus has been the most respected among these three, especially even by the non-Abrahamics.<br /><br />I won't mock "immaculate conception" for I believe that such a thing could be at the very least plausible. In the case of Jesus, whether it did happen or not could be debated though. I emphasize that I have nothing against those who question immaculate conception on the basis of "science" or whatever. A simple and pure hatred of Christianity can also be a legitimate basis for questioning IC (just as Judeo-Christian-Muslims do to Hindus in particular and pagans in general). Just that I am not doing it in this article.<br /><br />My small point is, we can focus on what Jesus did and said (even if it only a myth, we in this article take it to be real as explained before) rather than how he was born (though Christians consider the process of birth as one of the most crucial "proof" of his divinity). Also, since "immaculate conception" can not be proven to be impossible (however unlikely "laws of biology" might render it) we might as well, for the sake of nicety (at the very least) take it as plausible.<br /><br />I did not mention the splitting of Red Sea by Moses earlier, but regarding that also, I would in this piece take a similar stand. What matters is that Moses saved his people, and actual splitting or not of the sea is not critical to that aspect. Or even the fact whether they were exiled to Egypt, or a town in (present) Yemen, then also known as Misr.<br /><br />Coming back to the point that Jesus, seems the most respected among these three especially by Abrahamics. So much so, that (for example) Vivekananda likened Jesus to Siddharth-Gautam Buddha. But while Jesus and his early followers may have suffered, later Christians perpetrated horrible atrocities on "sinners". In fact one needs to merely look at what Portugese (Catholic) X-ians did to Syrian Christians in Goa, and the Shia-Sunni conflict among muslims will appear to be a child's play. And then imagine the plight of "heathens and pagans".<br /><br />Now, re' Jesus, it seems that Rabbis and priests were exploiting the masses in the name of "G-d" and wielding the "fear of God's punishment". Jesus allayed such fears and declared that God was (like a) Father and loved people. This must have been a great relief to toiling populace of his times who might have been reeling under exploitation by the then "clergy". And there is also the aspect that Jesus, in fact, came to save people from Rabbinical (and other priestly classes) horrors.<br /><br />In terms of the content of his message, we might even conjecture that Jesus's message was towards "realization" rather than "textual authority" (take a look at what he replied to a questioner who asked whether one could divorce one's wife by writing a certificate since Moses allowed so).<br /><br />Notwithstanding any or all of this, Jesus has been used as a mere shield by Christans/Church to inflict untold miseries upon non-Christians. <br /><br />Jesus' teachings, termed gospels, themselves underwent a lot of supposed "cleaning" (or should we say doctoring?). Various "gospels" were removed and only a select few were incorporated in the "authentic" King James version. As far as I understand, the very chasm between Eastern and Western Europe seems as much based upon differing Church scripture, as much on race. Eastern Church retained certain "gospels" which were removed by the Catholic Church. Also, never forget that while Bolshevism was against Russian Church (Eastern Orthodox), the saviors from Russian empire were propped by Pope, Catholic/Western Church (Recall Lech Walesa of Poland) etc.<br /><br />Further, Jesus's life/teachings were sandwitched between Old Testamant (jewsih bible) and some early Church writings. It looks as if Jesus' influence was reduced to mere someone who died for the sins of others, whereas the main teachings were to be obtained from Old Testament and Church writings. <br /><br />In that sense, Christianity (and much more so the Church) as we know now, may have much less to do with Jesus (and his teachings), and more to do with those who "control" Christianity/Church and their lust/greed for power and money.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Mahomet:</b><br /><br />Mahomet's case seems the weakest. For in his own life, he committed awful plunder and subjected people (read his enemies) to mind numbing brutalities.<br /><br />His canon message was that Allah is the only God, and Mahomet is Allah's final prophet.<br /><br /><u>My View:</u><br /><br />We can still salvage some honor for him by assuming that may be his life story has been distorted and manipulated. May be he (like Jesus) saw the exploitation by "religious authorities" and wanted to end it once and for all. He probably noticed that common people who are not endowed with much intellectual power were being fooled over and over again by complexities perpetrated by the intelligent and cunning using "religion". He tried to plug the hole by emphasizing that there was only one God Allah, who was merciful and kind, you needed no intermediaries to pray to him, and you must consider this to be the final message.<br /><br />So the question arises, that if Moses wanted his people to be moral, Jesus taught God loved all, and Mahomet abolished middlemen between men and Allah, why did such blood bath ensue the spread of their ideologies? A Jiddu Krishnamurti will dismissively say that all ideologies are utterly idiotic and violent. But that is simplistic generalization, and I suspect it to be even a deceptive generalization, for it merely provides a stick to beat up "all religions". Further, while I disagree, I surely accept that what JidduK said does indeed apply to those who consider what JIdduK said as new "ideology". But I digress.<br /><br /><b>A Remark</b>:<br /><br />It is important to say all this, for there are many well meaning Hindus (pagans) who get sentimental emotional about any criticism of Moses/Jesus/Mahomet.<br /><br />This is highly common among especially "alleged educated hindu women". With due apologies to Rani Lakshmibai and Goddess Durga, I must mention that modern woman, much more so modern feminist woman often displays such utter lack of any political sagacity that one wonders whether they are even equipped to make any worthwhile political decisions. But yes, if we can have Rahul Gandhis, why not others. But understand, that while RG is, in most likelihood, treasonous (don't go by his foolishness/innocence charms that he is charading); many of these educated women seem non-treasonous in intent, so one wonders what makes them so vulnerable to such deep foolishnesses. But I digress again.<br /><br /><b>An Analysis:</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, what was the cause that messages by these seemingly well meaning wise people led to endless wars? The answer seems to lie in the peculiar tendency prevalent among all the three. It is the wont of all Abrahamisms that, no sooner has a message been given, the "text keepers" enter the scene. The "authenticity of text" is quickly made to base upon "true copy of original" rather than any reasonable sense of the "realizability" of the message. Further, the "authentic message" always includes a call to "tell the whole world" (read conquer, convert or kill the rest). And then begins, first the evangelical imperialism, and then the eternal cleansing of the "impure" by the "pure".<br /><br />Please contrast this "obsession" with "authentic text", with (say) a Socratic (pagan) <a href="http://www.azquotes.com/quote/757984" target="_blank">teaching</a>, other versions <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174%3Atext%3DPhaedrus%3Asection%3D275c" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/phaedrus.html" target="_blank">here</a>.:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />". . . Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded. . . ."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />I have deliberately chosen as "western" and "phoren" quote. This is because I think usually normal Hindus instinctively understand this and need no "quotes". However the "educated" will be convinced only by "phoren" wisdom. Thus.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further more, there is an even more sinister "unity" among these three. Recall that the ten commandments contain commands to prohibit theft, adultery, killing etc etc. However, notice that none of the "followers" among these are ever bothered by blatant flouting of these dictats by their peoples. Their focus is centered upon one and their only obssessive dictat: Thou shalt not worship God in any image. I used to wonder why this was so. I suspect that this is because this is the easiest stick that can be used to beat pagans with, and also gives heavy leeway to ignore on the one hand all other goodnesses that might be prevalent among the supposed adversaries, and on the other hand excuse all perfidies that the Abrahamics commit on the "unbeliever". This also provides them with the Marxist-like obsession with "destroying the old to build the new". Bertrand Russel likely had this mind also when he called Communism a Christian heresy. These days, Christains likewise call Communism "Islam without Allah". A better way to understand might be to see Marxism as "Judeo-Atheism".<br /><br />The important point to understand is that, owing to this obsession with "God without image", "authentic text", "only one true God", "evangelical zeal", and carte blanche against "pagans/heathens/idolators", Judaism and its children remain an existential treat to any semblance of "religious freedom". The freedom they allow seems to be the freedom that Henry Ford once said re' his mass-produced cars: "You can get any color so long as it is black".<br /><br />Now, I would also like to give some examples of fundamental structural differences between Abrahamics and non-A, in particular Hindus:<br /><br />Hindus also believe that ultimately there is one Ishwara. [The word God of Abrahamics is quite different from Hindu word Ishwara, though just for once we can let it pass here to simplify the example]. But a typical Hindu construct is: If there is one Ishwara then all these multiplicities of gods must somehow be related to Ishwara (Unification)<br /><br />In contrast, the typical Abrahamic construct is: If there is one God, then "only one" among these many gods must be true and the rest must be false, and therefore must be eliminated. (Exclusion and Extermination).<br /><br />Swami Chandrashekhar Bharati, who was shankarAchArya of sRingEri math, in some place contrasted these aspects like so: Ishwara alone IS (no matter what name(s) you give Ishwara} versus There is only one (true) God (ours!). I have hardly seen anything that summarizes this fundamental aspect (Unification vs Exclusion) so well.<br /><br />Another crucial difference seems to be:<br /><br />The Abrahamic teacher would insist: Have "faith in the book", and this faith will lead you to rewards (usually only) in afterlife.<br /><br />In contrast, Hindu guru would say: Do this sAdhana (Eg. Chant/Do-japa-of this name (say rAma, etc). There can be many other ways too, I have used this as a simple illustrative example) and you CAN realize "rAma, etc., and the whole truth" in this very life itself.<br /><br />So does it mean that Hindus don't believe in afterlife? Not at all so. Hindus do believe in afterlife, rebirth, and the whole shebang. Afterlife, etc., mean that you can not get away with pApa (commiting sins) and "Law (of karma)" will catch up with you; also that your sAdhanA (even if you do not succeed in this life) would not go waste, and that you will begin from where you left off.<br /><br />So, for example, Abrahamics would mention that the proof that Moses existed is that "the book" says he parted the Red Sea. If you say you doubt its veracity, you are an abominating unbeliever who must be eliminiated by torture. While a Hindu guru would say that the proof that rAma (and like wise others) "existed" is that you can chant his name and can realize in this very life itself.<br /><br />Of course, mere pragmatism is not the test of "truth". But then what IS the test of "truth"? I need to digress here a little. After Hume's empiricism, and logical positivism of the Vienna circle, philosophy of Science (or of scientific truth) was taken to be Popperian proposal of "Falsificationism". That is, (scientific) conjectures must be subject to testing. Kuhn critiqued Popper, and proposed "Paradigms and their shifts". The current status seems to be (approximately) Feyerabend's Epistemic Relativism. Feyerabend proposes "Truth" as what "works". Of course, we need not take Feyerabend, or any other as the "only final" authority. But I would surely like to mention that Adi Shankara too declared re' knowledge: "sAvidyA yA vimuktayE" meaning (approx) "truth (or knowledge) is that which liberates you".<br /><br />At the very least, the SciTech paradigm of "experiment and filter out what does not work" and "sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti" seem closer than "Faith in Only true book and reap reward in (only) afterlife" paradigm. In fact, often the insistence on (only) "afterlife" betrays Abrahamic infiltration. That is one reason why I call Indian brAhminism as Judeo-brAhminism. We might also call it Abrahminism! This stands in stark contrast with the message of brAhmaNas (the spontaneously ethical) about sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti (loosely translated as spiritual practices and relization of truth). I would also like to mention that I am NOT using Hindu-system's proximity to SciTech paradigm as proof of correctness of Hinduism. Rather, it only strengthens the case for SciTech paradigm as it can draw strength from its similarity to time-tested praxis of Hinduism. Emphasizing the aspect of truth as something which is ancient as well as enduring.<br /><br /><br />I must mention here that I have been told by many that Jesus's teachings were along the lines of sAdhanA and realization (in this life itself, a la Kingdom of Heaven within you, etc); but that such aspects have been subverted by the Church lest their hold (social, political, wealth control) on population should be compromised. I don't know enough to comment on its veracity. I think it surely is plausible, even if not highly probable. However, I would insist that no such consideration should lull Hindus into underestimating the existential threat(s) posed by Church and Christianity. It is just that we could remain intelletcually open to the possibility that in future some Jesusism might emerge which honors such aspects of Jesus, and gets rid of the threats-to-Hindus part.<br /><br /><br />(Might add some more)<br /><br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-34834824139406987642017-02-06T08:34:00.002-08:002017-02-06T09:06:27.232-08:00An Open Letter. To: Donald Trump (contains To: Miyan N Sharief)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">Dear Mr Trump,</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">A recent incident in Pakistan provided me with an opportunity to write to you a letter that might give you insights which might prove crucial. And a letter to MNSharief provides a nice foundation to convey what I wanted to convey to you. So let me begin by embedding the text meant for MNS.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">Dear Ms MN Sharief,</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">This letter is meant for your Abboo, Mr MNSharief. However, since he is not on twitter, I am addressing it to you, with the intent that the content will reach Mr MNS.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">The news re' saving an ancient temple in Pakistan has been a minuscule hint of a very small breath of fresh air, but of course it could be a huge part of mega Taqqiyya. All said and done, do you realize that all you Pakistanis were similar (pagan) majorities who were raped and plundered to make you become an Islamic "majority"?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">And you know the basic problem? Let us be frank, okay?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">With all your might and religious zeal, after thousands of years and hundreds of millions of deaths, when you become a perfect moslem in your own eyes, you would still only be a second rate Iranian moslem. I know you know, and you know that all know this. But the worst is not yet said.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">With all their might and religious zeal, after thousand years and millions dead, when Iranian moslems have become near perfect moslem in their own eyes, they still have managed to become only second rate Arab moslems. So you know? You will manage, if ever, to become only third rate Arab moslem. And surprisingly, the worst has not been said yet.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">With all their might and religious zeal, after countless holy wars, millions of deaths, and many millions of murder, the Arab moslems have not yet become even second rate jews. Likewise, Iranians have not become even third rate jews, and you can never even dream of becoming even a fourth rate jew. And even more surprisingly the worst is not yet said.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">You know, I know you know, everyone knows, and you know everyone knows, and I know you know everyone knows that there can not be any second rate jews. You either are a jew, or you are a goy, expendable, dispensable.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">So I ask you this question - and you too should ask this during interrogation of Hafiz Sayeed and friends - is it worth dying in hundreds and thousands, and killing in hundreds of thousands and millions, to become only a second rate Iranian, a third rate Arab, or a fourth rate jew, err fourth rate non-jew?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">Why not try returning to your own civilizational roots? You don't need to hate Iranians, or Arabs, or jews, thought you can pity Iranians and Arabs, and hope that they see this light soon and return to their own civilizational roots respectively. </span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">You know, when you are in your own roots, or return to your own roots, even if you are held despicable, you have the right to remake it your own and become first rate, nay even surpass the first rate, pagans (even if you despise becoming Hindu again)?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">Think about it. Ms Maryam Nawaz Sharief, you are a woman, imagine children born out of rape considering their mother's rapist as their hero and mother as adulteress. Does it make any sense to you?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #274e13;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: #274e13;">Be a proud yourself than being a n-th rate someone else. Best wishes for speedy recovery.</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Now back to you, Mr Trump:</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">I am sure you found the first few paragraphs in the letter to MNS highly enlightening and insightful. But did it strike a jarring note towards the end? Why? Why did it? Is it that you are proud of Judeo-Christian Civilization?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Consider this: Do you know what was the cause of White-Euro "rise"? And what has been the cause of its "fall"?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Aren't you told that you were all barbarians who got enlightenment after Judeo-Xianity, which helped you discover Science and invent Technology? But have you ever wondered, if JC <i>was</i> the cause? Why is it portrayed as the cause? Because discoveries/inventions happened after Europe became Christian, I beg your pardon, Judeo-Christian? But consider this, Europe "discovered/invented" SciTech after they colonized India/China etc. So if you apply post-hoc-ergo- procter-hoc (After this, therefore because of this) which you applied re' X-ianity, then what happens? Do you get the drift of my message?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">And hasn't your fall been owing to White-guilt re' White-imperialism and White-racism? Now consider this: You are taught to think in terms of Judeo-Christian pride and White-guilt. Why not try interchanging? Why not White-pride but Judeo-Christian-guilt? Even now, when your executive order to keep some immigrants away is being criticized, isn't "violation of Christian values" mentioned as one major point? </span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">When Caeser conquered Egypt did he destroy Egypt? Then why did Judeo-Christian Europeans destroy the civilizations of the "conquered"? Was it because of their "whiteness" or was it because of their "Judeo-Christianity"? And it was all commensurate with "Christian values" then, no? Don't you see a contradiction? Or possibly even a deception?</span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">I wont give you any answers, but I am sure if you ask yourself these questions, the very asking will produce some insights.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">However, in light of what I asked Mr MNS, let me ask you likewise: Do you still want to be wannabe second/third-rate jew, err non-jew? Being expended over wars, and what not? Are you still ashamed of "Nazism"? Would you still be ashamed if it was "Judeo-Nazism"?</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Your pal Steve Bannon is
right about immoral capitalism and immoral socialism, it is just that he
is not right about the cause and solution. See these as
Judeo-Capitalism and judeo-Socialism and you might understand.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Keep SciTech, but use White-pagan past to make America great again. If you really want to feel guilty, feel guilty about what Europeans did as Judeo-Christians during their evangelo-imperial conquests? By the way, was it White-Euro-imperialism, or Judeo-Christian-imperialism perpetrated by befooled Europeans? </span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">All the best. Leave "the only true" and provide welcome to "pagan truths".</span></b><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-67656131352869566642017-01-03T09:23:00.002-08:002017-01-03T21:34:46.265-08:00DeMonetization: Pros, Cons, and the way Forward<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Note:</b> <span style="color: #660000;">I consider "Black Money" to be a fuzzy term, a loaded term, and more often than not a term from "Commie/Marxist paradigm". For example, there is back money owing to tax-non-compliance. And then there is "black money" that is used for human trafficking, crime etc. One may need to distinguish these two. Also, while cash facilitates many unlawful activities, all cash is not "black money". On the other hand, corruption has been an endemic problem in India. Bribery, under-quality performance in government projects etc. In some way this also is related to "black money". So things are somewhat convoluted. In some sense, we can safely assume, that a significant fraction of people who kept large amoounts of cash with them, had a sizable amount in terms of money acquired using unlawful means, and also maintained likewise. So we need to keep all this at the back of our minds.</span><br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The lightening struck on 8th November. You might be surprised to know that this time almost everyone forgot 6th December. See? Now would you call this too a Narendra Modi master-stroke? Ha.<br />
<br />
So let us get back to business. The demonetization has been described, criticized and eulogized in many ways and many fora. I do not understand (and often do not care to) the "genius brigade of economists". Not that I despise them or want to underrate them. After all academic pursuits must remain honorable professions. However, one must always bear in mind that a doctor's prescriptions which do not save lives or restore health, though in principle, can be read as pieces of literature, they surely undermine his reputation as a doctor. Well, I was about to write "... his/her reputation ...", but I have been heavily irritated by Feminism of late. And well, there are so many lady doctors these days that we may even use "he" as a gender neutral term, just as anti-sexists often use "she" to refer in a gender neutral manner. Okay enough digression.<br />
<br />
So the question remains, is/was demonetization a success or failure? I will say that it is too early to say; but that does not mean that we should not say what can be said now.<br />
<br />
There are certain observations which have been fairly obvious.<br />
<br />
1. It inconvenienced a large number of people, including poor, middle class, rich, and all.<br />
<br />
2. It almost rattled, nay drove mad, some people at "high places".<br />
<br />
3. While the basic announcements of Dec 8, remained fixed, there were frequent announcements in the nature of what the eulogizers called "fine tuning" and the detractors called flip-flopping.<br />
<br />
4. A large fraction of the amount that got demonetized (old 1000, 500 notes) got deposited in banks (almost 90-95%?).<br />
<br />
5. During salary days of Dec 1-10 there were problems, but they do not seem to be there in Jan. So situation seems easing out. Or do we conjecture that December problems were choreographed?<br />
<br />
Before I put forth my "economics" related view, let me present my view regarding general news etc.<br />
<br />
The political clan/class got even more polarized into pro-Modi anti-Modi camps. So pro-M kept singing glories, and anti-M kept screaming. I would even hypothesize that anti-M swung into action to pursue by hook or by crook a complete failure of the demonetization scheme (check point 5 above, for example). So from this perspective, what politicians have been saying is not worth much.<br />
<br />
The same can be said re' media and the so called public intellectuals etc.<br />
<br />
The common people also got polarized. I mean, at least the hardcore supporters of anti-M leaders were venting bile. We can choose to ignore the pro-M as well. However, the large number of commoners, while being inconvenienced and admitting to being inconvenienced, continued to speak positively about the decision. You must bear in mind that media was constantly stoking people into anger against Modi, and yet, many many people remained upbeat about demonetization.<br />
<br />
I think there is a very important take away here. I am trying to understand it as follows. People in India know that things had been getting worse and worse as days went past (in terms of corruption etc), and something needed to be done. Demonetization is seen as one such thing, may be, among many other things. I think, people chose to give Modi the benefit of the doubt. Even if they do not trust Modi's intelligence, they did exhibit trust in Modi's integrity and intention. And I think they expressed a feeling like so: Okay, there is this tough problem (say Corruption and all), and this guy wants to do something about it. Okay, let's go along. And I think this led to the underlying theme of cooperation with government. And I read it as a very very good sign. If Modi is serious about doing something, he should consider this as his great capital. In more of his future plans, he could even go a step further and say that we are going to try many things (say these 10 things), and it is not necessary that all will succeed, and that even among the things that succeed, all will not succeed equally. Some may succeed more and some less; and that we need to keep striding forward. If he can deliver the message and take necessary bold steps, he can make significant difference. To me, this has been a very important take away. Even more important than success (or not?) of demonetization.<br />
<br />
Most economists kept themselves busy re', what I would term, petty issues. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a dip in the growth rate is not an issue, etc. Let me explain it in Cricket-commentary terms. <span style="color: blue;">A lateral digression: Some one made a very apt comment during this demonetization. He twitted: India had 1.2 billion Cricket Experts until now, and now we also have 1.2 billion economists. So as one among the 1.2 billion "cricket experts" (BTW I am not a cricket buff in any way, though I am highly opinionated) let me explain what the economists were doing. There has been this Ravi Shastry, who was also team India coach, I guess, for some time. Long time ago I heard him commentate once, he used to fill all his time commentating with a truism like this: What India (batting side) needs are a couple of good overs, and what XYZ (bowling side) need are a couple of wickets.</span> Unfortunately Demonetization needs to be evaluated in terms much more complex compared to a one day match in cricket. However, I felt, many "economists" were doing just the same, ranting truisms. And, yes, let me warn you here, that even if the terms are complex, we must still approach them in simple manner (not necessarily simplistic manner) and not obfuscatory manner (something that economists often do, even when they are ranting truisms).<br />
<br />
By the way, in an interview to India Today (<a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-black-money-demonetisation-opposition/1/845224.html" target="_blank">here</a>), PM Modi himself has outlined his thoughts very lucidly (though he may still be keeping some trump cards close to is chest).<br />
<br />
Coming to the meat of demonetization: Any decision has to be evaluated in terms of the following (among other things): 1. What were its goals. 2. How long was the achievement of the goals to take; and then 3. Does achievement time-line reconcile with intended time-line? 4. What grade will we give to the decision and implementation.<br />
<br />
Now, if you look at any one, whether politicians, economists or media persons and media intellectuals, they are all at sea in defining (even in their own framework) these terms. If you read the interview, you can see that Modi has chewed them alive.<br />
<br />
About the goal of demonetization I can say this: Modi had a double edged sword. If a significant fraction of demonetized currency notes had not come back, he would have thumped his chest and said "See? I was telling you! So much black money has been neutralized, blah blah". Now that most of it is back, he is comfortably saying "All the money has come into the formal banking system, and we can do, .. blah blah". So is Modi cheating? His political opponents will shout so. But I think Modi is not that foolish. Actually if you read the <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-black-money-demonetisation-opposition/1/845224.html" target="_blank">interview</a>, you can notice that he is very intelligent. I mean he can beat hands down these Manmohan Singhs and PChiddus hollow, playing left hand blindfolded. I think, Modi took the demonetization decision realizing that it would "work" in either of the case (money comes back, does not come back).<br />
<br />
Now, while it is true that money not coming back would have (likely) meant a big blow to those who lost it; but I think the money coming back could prove to be worse. It may lead to some very big fish getting caught, and brought to book. I think that is where Modi's challenge will lie. And I am quite sure that all those who got their "wealth" converted, are still shitting in their pants, re' what might happen.<br />
<br />
An equally big, if not bigger, challenge is to ensure that further "black money" is not generated. I think his thrust for digital-money is a step towards that goal. However, cyber systems and their security are another level of challenge. I can only hope that Modi is not on flimsy grounds here in terms of getting sane advice. While I have recommended to Modi (come on, I am a nobody and not his advisor, I am a 300 followers twitter guy. I just twitted to him) an article "Reflections on Trusting Trust" (link <a href="https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>), I would remind him of another few quotes: 1. Cryptography is not broken, it is bypassed. 2. Security does not work because we have locks, it works because we have police. Again, I am no expert, I have merely gleaned this from the web, and also confirmed it with some people who I think know at least a little about cyber security. So Modi needs to be aware of two things: 1. While cryptography is a great science and engineering marvel, it by itself does not ensure security. Designs must incorporate mechanisms to thwart its bypassing. I am mentioning this because I think presently Modi is relying on UIDAI flunkies who seem cyber-security dumb-fucks. I earnestly hope that I am wrong, but I fear I am not. So he needs better cyber security advice. 2. He needs to strengthen cyber police. I mean this obsession with tracking down who posted Sonia's nude pics etc needs to give way to teams which monitor real security threats, intrusions, breaches and pursue and apprehend the perpetrators and bring them to justice. However, if Indian cyber police remains as bad as India's normal police, this fetish re' digital-currency could lead to a pretty bad wash-out!<br />
<br />
So to summarize: In terms of goals, demonetization has (already) succeeded in bringing (all) money to formal economy. The remaining parts are: 1. How many (big) fish are caught, brought to book etc? Time will tell. 2. What additional measures are taken (like benami property etc)? In near future, time will tell. 3. How to stop generation of black money? In addition to. so called digital economy, simplification and rationalization of tax laws will be needed. So the forthcoming budget might give some hints.<br />
<br />
So in that sense, one could say, so far so good.<br />
<br />
But there was another aspect: Implementation.<br />
<br />
Now, while this was not the best of implementation, it was reasonably good, except, and I insist except, that I suspect there was some insider treason. I mention a few points. That's not all of it though. Others may mention other points.<br />
<br />
1. I think sufficient adversarial analysis was not done. I had twitted the suggestion for indelible ink mark re' cash-exchange. I do not know if the clerks in Modi's team already had thought of it. If they had not thought of it, I consider it a very very serious lapse. And besides such collossal incompetence, there is this aspect of deliberate subversion. I think, demonetization has also brought this aspect into the fore that "government system" is infested with bugs and worms (likely loyalists of previous governments, politicians etc). This is a major problem. Modi will have to ReBoot this part also.<br />
<br />
2. I would strongly recommend that Modi gets bank records digitized and secured (has multiple copies etc). For, I suspect that "big fish" will surely attempt destruction of records to escape law. We have seen such things happen many times. Recall Abhishek Manu Singhvi claiming that something got eaten by termites.<br />
<br />
3. Detecting fraud etc will need really able minds. Just "imported" big-data software may not suffice. And if Modi's big data team will be like his BJP-IT cell team, MyGov team, etc., then Modi can kiss success a good bye. Modi is already making noises like, for the first time some thing so large has been attempted. Sounds so much like the Aadhaar blabber. The Aadhaar promoters were using the exact same language. Modi should understand that such statements can also be read as: For the first time we screwed 1.2 billion people on such a large scale, so quickly. So get rid of such platitudes. Get the real job done.<br />
<br />
4. Modi must smoke out treasonous bugs from his team. As well as, get loyal as well as competent teams built.<br />
<br />
<br />
Conclusions:<br />
<br />
1. Demonetization has been so far so good: Money has got entry into the formal accounted economy.<br />
<br />
2. Sustained and high quality effort will be needed to catch the fraudsters. Ditto to thwart further generation of black money, as well as checking corruption.<br />
<br />
3. Digital Currency, Digitial economy is promising, but without proper care it could lead to precipitous situations. Get sane and competent Cyber advice, set up cyber police (not a la 66A kind though).<br />
<br />
4. The biggest take away has been the human-trust capital that people have showered on Modi. He must humbly accept it, and make use of it to lead people to their greater destiny. If he can work out a few great ideas (not the fucked up "true secular" ones), and succeed (say) even in 3 out of 5, he would do wonders to his people. While planning for winning 2019 elections must not be taken lightly, with such trust-capital he must aim much higher, and as well achieve more than his aim.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-69368977412620977522016-05-16T03:26:00.003-07:002016-05-16T03:26:42.572-07:00A Letter To Narendra Modi On His Government's Second Anniversary<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dear Shri Narendra Modi,<br /><br />These are celebration times again. Two years after historic election victory, and nearly two years of being in government. There will be a lot of articles praising and analyzing your past two years. There will be various "samvads" and such. You also know how such "intellectual/academic/media" crowd is divided into doomsayers and boomsayers. I won't bore you with that stuff.<br /><br />Last year, I wrote a series (mentioned <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/narendra-modis-strategy.html" target="_blank">here</a>) evaluating your first year in office. I wrote that much later than on 16th May, for in my opinion, none had really broached the perspective I had in mind. That is why this year I wrote <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2016/04/the-fall-fall-and-fall-of-narendra-modi.html" target="_blank">my article</a> much earlier. I attempted highlighting your falls, to caution you lest you forget your urgent "to-do list" in the din generated by conflicting cacophony. In the end I cursorily touched upon what you could do (redo) to (re)gain momentum.<br /><br />This letter is in a similar spirit. I was contemplating writing a somewhat bigger summary of the combination of what I wrote last year as well as this year. However, I decided against it. There is no point in repeating things all over again. <br /><br />Instead, I want to write a somewhat oblique observation. I will try to cut the drab and give only a small number of paragraphs, which (I hope) have explosive punch. This might give you another perspective:<br /><br /><b>1.</b> You got to office, riding on support as well as expectations of people. Instead of making a head-start, you have been dabbling with established non-workable solutions, as well as dilly-dallying regarding taking meaningfully tough decisions.<br /><br />To cut the story short:<br /><br />Two years have gone behind. I do not want five or ten years also to go behind similarly. You have striven in some ways for these two years. You may have learned something about these ways. The least you should have learned is what does not work. So what does one do if one discovers that things one tried did not work? One changes course.<br /><br /><b>2.</b> Dharma is eternal, though particular warriors for dharma are place-holders who execute the fight. If those who are put as place-holders do not hold their place, replacements must and will happen. We as individuals are at best place-holders, and we do service to ourselves by holding our place well, and work for dharma.<br /><br /><b>In light of the above, I adjure you to consider this:</b><br /><br />Spend the next ten days, relaxing and mulling over what to do, and more importantly what <i>not</i> to do. Since you dislike taking holidays, I will avoid suggesting that, though that might be even better. Even otherwise, relax, in the sense that, you take routine decisions, you attend "government anniversary parties", you listen to media review, and you answer their questions also. Yet, at the back of your mind, remain quiet and meditate.<br /><br />Few people voted for you to make you a Prime-Servant so that they could relax. Most people voted for you to enable you to take a position of "General" with whose leadership they could fight the long war that needs to be fought and won.<br /><br />You need to change course radically. In fact it should actually be a <b>new</b> course. Whether Jaitley or Irani, whether Modi or SubbuSwamy, names and persons are not the issue. Charting on the new course is.<br /><br />We have had too many of "If only Prithviraj Chauhan had not pardoned Ghori" analyses of history. Let this time it be such that "This Prithiviraj does not pardon Ghori" builds the future.<br /><br /><b>Imagine, as if this year you have won an election for a three year term. Think afresh. It is time for you to Reboot.</b><br /><br />All the best.<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-38481442490426537772016-04-23T05:26:00.001-07:002016-04-23T05:30:10.311-07:00The Fall, Fall, and Fall of Narendra Modi<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
I am often asked as to why I write with a dozen paragraphs containing caveats, clarifications, disclaimers, only to finish the apparent "substance" of the article in much fewer paragraphs.<br />
<br />
The answer is twofold. <br />
<br />
1. In my arrogant spirit, I could say that this is MY style. However, I am NOT that arrogant, so let me tell you the real reasons. <br />
<br />
2. It is actually my limitation. Firstly, I dislike obfuscating tactics practiced by many authors who focus on pretending to be "balanced", rather than writing/saying what they want to write/say. I prefer to express my views even if they appear to be harsh and extreme, and let the readers decide how and where to find their balance. In that sense, I am decentralizing this "balancing" mechanism.<br />
<br />
3. Secondly, I am not a gifted writer. So I prefer to make the context clear by writing seemingly innumerable denials. For then, I find it easy to communicate what I want to.<br />
<br />
So, for whatever it is worth, let us begin. While the title may seem quite self explanatory, let me clarify the context:<br />
<br />
1. Modi-bhakts and Modi-tards are warned that if their love for Modi supersedes their love for Hindus, they may find this article very disturbing. So please read on at your own peril.<br />
<br />
BJP-bhakts and BJP-tards, as well as their seniors, RSS-bhakts and RSS-tards are advised to read further with grave caution.<br />
<br />
2. Since the previous warning could have the potential to cheer RaGa-backside-lickers, I would sincerely caution them and adjure them to resist their impulses towards premature orgasm given their leader's a-nearly-non-existent tool which is only compounded by his having empty balls (not to mention their mustard size. A strong reason to avoid pumpkin sized ego). Though, you may have something to cheer in the end.<br />
<br />
3. In all my humility and arrogance, I also caution the "balanced intellects" who might be weighing pros and cons and wondering why "development" has not taken off.<br />
<br />
4. This is also NOT a Modi-baiting article, even though I have nearly concluded that he seems turning out to be qualitatively as despicable as the rot that he seeks to replace, bettering them only on flimsy quantitative terms. So, while the article might tickle the genitals of Sardesais and Dutts, it is nowhere near the orgy that they may have been waiting for. Though they might get a much bigger one if things continue, and as they seem they will continue, the same way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
An early warding off of other likely misconceptions:<br />
<br />
<br />
A. This article is NOT about BJP's electoral performances in the recent past, nor on the alleged "high-handedness" of Shri Amit Shah. In my opinion, AS has been doing a nearly wonderful job. The odds against him have been enormous, and yet he has conducted himself very gracefully, and much more so, diligently.<br />
<br />
B. This article is also NOT about BJP's projected electoral performance in 2019. Rather, it is about a much larger issue like, if winning in 2014 didn't make much difference, what will winning (even if it happens) in 2019 do?<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the strongest "defense" of Modi might come from the "development" enthusiasts, I feel that this is the RIGHT time to evaluate even that. Modi government has presented three budgets, and now only two remain to be presented. 2019 budget will be election-budget, most likely a vote-on-account budget.<br />
<br />
When in the same blog, it was written that Modi was the least anti-hindu, and least-Marxist and thus had to be supported, I was readily with that. On that count, I insist that he still remains (among the available crass) the least-anti-H and least-M. When the twitter handle used to mention that Modi was the best we had but was still not good enough, I readily seconded that. Unfortunately, the same has become much truer. The margin by which he is best is fast declining, and the margin by which he is not god enough has reached very high proportions.<br />
<br />
I have already mentioned in my last year's assessment that Modi has drifted far from his election "courage" into the timidity of "statesmanship". Last year, I had told a few friends that after Bihar election it would become clear whether Modi was going to be a mere Hajpeyi, or worse still Hajpeyi on steroids. Now I fear that something much worse is on the way.<br />
<br />
Again, I am NOT going to talk about Jaitley and Irani. Modi is the PM and it is he who is responsible, unless Modi is seeking a Manmohan Singh kind of argument as a way out.<br />
<br />
<br />
Since I have mentioned "fall", three times, may be I should enumerate the three falls:<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Part-One</h4>
<br />
Modi's election campaign was "electric". Among other things he proclaimed things like:<br />
<br />
<b>On Nationalism and Security:</b><br />
<br />
1. I am a nationalist. I am a hindu. So you can call me a Hindu-Nationalist.<br />
<br />
2. Each and every Bangladeshi who is living (illegally) in India will be sent back.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>On Foreign Relations:</b><br />
<br />
Aankh jhukaana nahin hai, aankh dikhaana nahin hai, aankh se aankh mila ke baat karna hai.<br />
<br />
<b><br />On Economy:</b><br />
1. It is not governments business to do business.<br />
<br />
2. We are not obsequious to "foreign business", we want to promote Indian investment and entrepreneurship.<br />
<br />
3. Black money in foreign lands will be brought back very soon.<br />
<br />
I mean, I could go on and on and on. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Fall-One</h4>
<br />
The euphoria reached nearly a peak when Modi prostrated before the parliament (as if entering a temple). I hate to say this, but the downfall began from nearly that instant.<br />
<br />
a. Modi cried, when Advani tried to be sarcastic, claiming that "jaise bhArat meri maa hai, vaise hi bhajapA bhi meri maa hai".<br />
<br />
b. His frequent innuendos referring to himself as "chaiwala" and others as chaiwala haters.<br />
<br />
c. His references to his mother's occupation when she brought up her children and tear-jerking statements. (The latest of them, if I remember right, was when he was with Facebook man Mark Zuckerberg. I suspect that when he was in USA with Sundar Pichai-google, and Satya Nadella-microsoft, etc. he had pulled a similar performance).<br />
<br />
Being moved by emotions is only human, and I am not expecting Modi to be anything even remotely more than human. But if he is merely a "normal" human, let him rather be a voter, not a PM. Just as MSDhoni or so won't be playing for India if they were merely "normal" humans, ditto leading a nation. In fact MSD has won more accolades for being "cool" rather than for being "perceivably emotional".<br />
<br />
So, either Modi betrayed himself too namby pamby and wishy washy to be a "leader", especially because he as a leader who took charge at a gravely critical juncture; or he was doing cheap histrionics to build image. The Q is whose image? I allege and suspect, to cast himself in Hajpeyi-image.<br />
<br />
I despise Advani as he being Jinna-was-secular-lover, Sonia-appeaser, and D-4 manipulator); yet there is no gainsaying the fact that Advani was wronged. Hajpeyi got the better of him and then later dumped him. Modi has merely exacerbated the whole injustice. How? Modi has decided to cast himself in the mold of Hajpeyi.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may. Modi continued his honeymoon with "masses" over his visits abroad, earning "rock-star" epithets by admirers. Some of his few decisions did elicit initial confidence, such as when he disbanded planning-commission etc. However, the man was exhaling too much gas.<br />
<br />
He got his first kick in early-2015. O ye undiscerning, I am not referring to the Delhi election results, I will return to that much later. The first kick was delivered by none other than BHObama, and that too in style. Modi just played like a child in a boxing ring with an experienced opponent.<br />
<br />
That kick should have awakened Modi, but I suspect he preferred sleep to wakefulness. I don't grudge him that. On any other day (in any other times) he would be beating his Jawahar/Rajiv like opponents hands down. But o man, this is the period when our country barely managed to reach ICU in May 2014. Critical care, by competent team had to ensue. And Modi, notwithstanding his whatever, seems to have thoroughly failed at handling that.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Part-Two</h4>
<br />
In the mean time, another Congress-like thing happened. sycophants converged onto all "creamy-posts" and un-"connected" sympathisers, "volunteers" were dumped. It is not that the unconnected sympathizers were expecting plush-posts. NO. Modi completely ignored the fact that, his campaign had drawn people from hitherto unknown sections into working for him. They did not come in droves to seek pots of honey (Though, even if they did, I do not consider it any inferior thing). Rather they came because wanted to work for their mother land. Modi was a place-holder. He still IS only a place-holder. But a place-holder who forgets that he is a place-holder often wakes up to extremely rude realities. Modi, instead of figuring out how to harness that support and enthusiasm, in the name of "systematizing" things, merely bureaucratized them with critical positions occupied by suitably "connected" individuals. Whether MyGov, whether Media, whether IT, whether dash-dash-dash, they all seem that way.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Fall-Two</h4>
<br />
Being a politician Modi knows that politics involves ups and downs. He knows he was demonized during his Gujarat days. He knows that he won against all odds. Then why is a hedging against "downs"?<br />
<br />
I suspect his awarding Hajpeyi a bhArat ratna was a signal to Sonia Gandhi. Assume for a moment that Sonia has compromising evidence against Hajpeyi. what would happen to Modi's image if that evidence were to come in public? Thus Modi gave a rope to Sonia.<br />
<br />
Even a dumb-fuck will know that India's total system has been thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted by corrupt appointements, not only in high places, but all over. So what should be a remedy? The remedy should be a quick and comprehensive dismantling of it, and erection of a newer (preferably no) system. What is being attempted? A servile respect of "Nehruvian Bureaucracy". Not just that, as I mentioned, even in his personal domain of influence, Modi has bureaucratized his "system". [MyGov, Media, IT, etc. among many others] <br />
<br />
Despite tall-talks like minimum-government maximum-governance, the focus is on enlarging government revenues and expenditures, a typical Jawaharian exercise. Modi, if you are foolish enough not to realize that all the money that you are filling in government coffers will be misused by later governments, you can never be intellectually redeemed. I suspect that you are merely paving way for an even more corrupt RahulGa government which can swindle all the money that you collect as revenue. (Sardesais and Dutts, you can hang on this straw of hope).<br />
<br />
Your Aadhar stupidity is stupendous. Never merely imagine what good a good government can do with "money and powers". Always be cautious about what a bad government might do with the "money and powers" accorded to it by "good governments". If you can't understand this, you are too foolish to be a PM. If you understand this but do not act, you are a traitor, just as your predecessors have been.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Part-Three</h4>
<br />
A typical pole-vaulting "hindu"-politician uses the hindu-pole only to discard it at the right time, and crosses over and jumps onto the "secular"-mattress lying on the other side. Modi is expected to demonstrate himself to be an exception. But let us see what he has been doing, or rather not doing.<br />
<br />
Now watch the contrast:<br />
<br />
<b>Pre-election:</b><br />
<br />
I am here to serve ALL 125 crore Indians. Not some over others.<br />
<br />
<b>Post-election:</b><br />
<br />
Meri sarkaar gareebon ke liye samarpit hai.<br />
<br />
Are all 125 crore people "gareeb"?<br />
<b><br />Pre-election:</b><br />
<br />
Ham kisi ki topi nahin pehnenge, par kisi ki topi uchhalane bhi nahin denge.<br />
<b><br />Post-election:</b><br />
<br />
While hindus are being massacred by muslims in West Bengal, what does Modi do? He maintains a few minutes silence during his election speech while the ajaan (a call to kill kuffars) is being broadcast in loudspeakers to "respect" the feeling of muslims.<br />
<br />
<br />
So let us try to get things a bit clear. Most politicians work to WIN elections and not to serve people. Anyone who wants to sell himself, as someone somewhat better, needs to do 3 things.<br />
<br />
1. Promise ambiguously, so that people salivate about much, but try to deliver more than something that will dissatisfy the people. Mind you, here the people must also include "your core support group".<br />
<br />
2. You may not do what you claimed, but AVOID doing contrary to what you claimed.<br />
<br />
3. Delivering takes time, but BEGIN early.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<br />Fall-Three</h4>
<br />
While all kinds of people voted for Modi, and while ALL deserve good governance. But there were two large (largely intersecting as well) groups. Hindus and Middle-Class which was chagrined by a decade of Congress rule. Now let us evaluate Modi:<br />
<br />
1. Made Hindus and Middle Class salivate, and yet has until now done precious LITTLE.<br />
<br />
2. Tens of Hindus have been killed (by muslims), and Modi is still undecided whether he is a Hindu or a Nationalist.<br />
<br />
Worse, instead of keeping quiet, he is giving clean-chits to "Islam" from pulpits in Saudi Arabia. Huh.<br />
<br />
3. Nobody can deliver something before beginning to work on it. Modi seems to imagine himself to be "nobody".<br />
<br />
The worst part is, that not only has he not begun, he shows NO SIGNS of making a beginning in any foreseeable future. If all this does not establish that Modi now is Hajpeyi-on-steroids and is betraying himself as Naeemuddinbhai Damn-Another-Ass Muhammadi, what else will? And don't irritate Hindus by blatant lies like "Terror has no religion" and "Yoga is not associated to any religion", in 2016 we must be way past such nonsense.<br />
<br />
So let me summarize the three falls. <br />
<br />
First began immediately after May-2014. Second happened as time progressed. Third is becoming evident, much more blatantly by the middle of the term.<br />
<br />
I need to comment a little about election debacles. We must remain clear that Congress ruled for so long because either there was no opposition (it takes time to start an opposition, so till about 1970 none existed), or the opposition (votes were) was divided.<br />
<br />
BJP has a different problem. Anti-BJP are easily united. The only way to break the back of this problem is, to not get bogged down by small successes of anti-BJP unity. For power-hunger will fail them. I adjure Amit Shah to plan a strategy in which the pressures/fissures among anti-BJP unifiers become exacerbated. And the main thrust should be Hindu-Unity. What BJP-RSS need to do is to leeave Hindu-reform to Hindus. They should focus on Hindu-Unity (whether reformed or unreformed). RSS-BJP often throw shit at fan by trying to do the reforms themselves. We need Hindu political and military unity. Focus on that. A carefully crafted strategy that honors truth can be made. Abler minds than those at present at the disposal of Amit Shah might need to work on them. Remember that it is fundamentally a "philosophical" fight too. Don't borrow opponent's philosophy. <br />
<br />
However, blaming BJP-defeats on Amit-Shah's "style" is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. These are political wars and wars need generals. If you have even an iota of doubt, investigate how "democratic commies" operate. Commies push for "democracy" in rival parties, only to weaken them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h4>
Where Do We Go From Here?</h4>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
So the Q that might be asked is this: Can Modi rise? What should Amit Shah do? Before I answer this, I want to ask a rhetorical question. What will Modi achieve by rising again? If Modi can not utilize present moment, why and how will he utilize future? A person who is afraid of beginning will never reach anywhere. Except may be win a few elections.<br />
<br />
So Mr Modi, listen carefully, you must demontsrate by making a beginning, to communicate that you are willing. Only if you are willing, what I say later will make some difference.<br />
<br />
And what I say, is nothing new! Politicians win elections. Winning elections puts you in a "position". It does not necessarily bestow "wisdom". So it is important for the elected to draw upon wisdom of others, especially well wishers and enthusiasts. And for that you must have a simple mechanism. What is that? You can have all think tanks, Vivekananda Foundations, MyGovs, etc etc. But you need (and members of your cabinet need) personal think-tanks. Ok, think-tank is an over abused term. Basically you need people who meet, discuss, and provide you with "action plans" including "philosophy". If you get mere "crisis management" you are running a modified Congress government.<br />
<br />
Such people, do not need money or position. They DID work for you pre-2014? Did you PAY them? NO. Are they feeling cheated because you did not pay them? NO. Then what is it that is making them feel cheated? Before you answer that question, wonder how they worked with you pre-2014? You "listened" to them with "respect". Whether you did what they asked you to do was immaterial, for that was (and IS) for YOU (one, members of your cabinet) to decide. What such "volunteers" need is the "respect" that you "listen". Irrespective of what horrible things they have to say, and then act appropriately. The first and last cut-off happens when politicians cut such channels off by appointing sycophants as "information routers". The problem Mr Modi, is that like Advani had D-4, you have (even if unknowingly) M-10. The problem is not even 4, or 10. It is that such form a cartel, especially if there is "money" and "power" to throw around. What are your M-10 doing? Bossing around just as the Advani's D-4 did.<br />
<br />
And Mr Modi and Mr Shah, there is NO derth of people who will criticize you to make you more saleable and more secular and socialist. Have a few hundreds who tell you Hindu (and middle class) point of view. Get that? Your diabetic advisors are asking already exhausted and starving hindu, middle classes to practice "low glycemic diet". Fie upon such advisors; Horse shit be in their mouths.<br />
<br />
<br />
So Mr Modi, do you think I am giving you NO points for Make-in-India, Start-Up-India, Stand-Up-India, Mudra, Swachh Bharat, etc? Mr Modi, remember, and you know this, for you are, err were, a proud "chaiwala". No eatery succeeds merely by the items it mentions in the menu. If the cooks, the kitchen, the raw-material, the service, is all below-par, mere menu can not redeem it. For whatever it is worth, you have printed your "menu". It should have been, it could have been, much much better. However, let that be. It could possibly be modified as time goes by. But you cannot have "good delivery" if your cooks, waiters, etc are compromised. Don't figure that out the hard way. Take may word for it.<br />
<br />
I will give an example in passing. With your PMJanDhanYojana, you helped crores of people open new accounts. The collateral damage? Has the bank staff been increased? NO. So what happens? All customers need to suffer for hours for things that used to take minutes. Whose planning was it? I could go on and on, but you have paid minions to do this job, make them move their fundaments. Huh.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Modi, I hope you remember this, otherwise let me remind you, that your work did not end in May-2014. In fact, it began, rather it should have begun in May-2014. And you should soon wake up and realize that you have not begun yet. Nay, you have not even begun to begin. That is much below par performance by you.<br />
<br />
Get back to your "volunteers". Unpaid, but respected,
hard-bitter-critics but listened to, volunteers. If you like the sweet
and suave voices of sycophants, you are betraying Hindus. And you are not merely betraying their votes, their votes have been betrayed by all until now. You are betraying their hope. That is the problem.<br />
<br />
And since you love "phoren wisdom", listen to the song <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7pI96Osp9c" target="_blank">"Time" by Pink Floyd</a>, (A friend recently recommended it to me as apt for you) and don't miss the lines "...And then some day you find, ten years have got behind you, no one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun...". Even if you manage to win 2019, in 2024 the lyrics will haunt you. <br />
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-38124928942173864922016-04-16T10:52:00.002-07:002016-04-16T10:52:41.588-07:00Hinduism, brAhmanism, brAhminism, paraSurAma, and rAma rAjya<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wanted to release this article on srI rAmanavamI. Apologies for the delay. <br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
In this article, I will try to describe the words in the title. The first three are "isms", the fourth the name of an individual, and last but not the least a term that is nearly always used to imply and mean an ideal "state".<br />
<br />
Regarding the first, there will be little quibble, my interpretation of the character of the person named in fourth might raise small eyebrows, though it will show why it needed another rAma to establish rAma rAjya.<br />
<br />
The real (potentially) explosive part, I suspect, will be the treatment of the second and third terms. While I may appear to be slippery/slimy in wordplay, I have not found any better way (yet) to understand the conflict that is going on, and in addition a plausible remedy.<br />
<br />
While the article is not meant to be a dissing of paraSurAma, it surely is intended to be a warning about perils of brAhminism.<br />
<br />
So for whatever it is worth, let me begin.<br />
<br />
<br />
Part-1<br />
<br />
The term Hinduism is closely associated with sanAtana dharma. The term Hindu was used for us by foreigners. Just as we might call all Europeans goras, or whatever, the foreigners called all of us "Hindus". Thus, in that sense, Hinduism as a term, referred to a combination of belief-system, "religion", other practices, etc. of Hindus. However, when later foreigners saw the things a bit more closely, they wanted to distinguish between "religion" of those following only "austere monks", and of those following the "ritualistic priestly class". The former was called "Shamanism" (from Shamans, referring to Buddhist monks or also possibly Jain monks), while the latter was called "Brahmanism" or the "religion of the (or administered by) Brahamanas).<br />
<br />
In that sense, we can take Hinduism and Brahmanism as terms used by foreigners to denote us for their own usage. And as terms, they can still be used fairly neutrally. Now, we as sanAtana dharma Hindus may want to prefer the term Brahamanism over Hinduism to differentiate ourselves from Shamana-Hindus (Buddhists, Jains and such). We can exclude Sikhs also from "Brahamanism" and include them under Shamanism, though Sikh Gurus did not emphasize monkhood as was done by Buddhists and Jains.<br />
<br />
Now, however, the most pertinent question therefore is, what is Brahmanism. It is easy to notice that it is related to the term Brahmana, and thus the subsequent question becomes, "who/what is a Brahmana?". Probing further, we find that sanAtana dharma enshrines varNAshrama as model for social life; and "Brahmana" occurs as one of the "varNa". Thus who is, or can be a brAhmana becomes an important question. Now, answering this question will involve understanding the principles or varNAshrama dharma deeply and completely. <br />
<br />
This is beyond the scope and purport of the present article. What I want to emphasize is, let us assume that the question "who is a brAhmana" has a legitimate, correct, and benign answer. In the tradition of satyam shivam sundaram, that is an answer that is True, is Beneficial, and is Beautiful too.<br />
<br />
It is another matter that we may, in practice as of now, be far from such a good answer. It may need a lot of debate, possibly even bloody wars, to arrive at a even reasonable understanding and mutual agreement. That is why, I skirted the issue and suggested that we assume that such an answer is possible. Please notice that if we assume that such an answer is NOT possible, we would be nearly implying that Hinduism (as it was being practiced then) was mostly full of "evil practices" and "foreign invasion" was a boon which came to liberate the oppressed majority. Also, I emphasize that I, in no way, surmise that what was being practiced was "best" or even "desirable", for we did lose wars. So we did do a few, if not many, things wrongly. Yet, I would also emphasize that, if only, we had corrected ourselves in time, we would not have lost the crucial wars. Please note that winning or losing war is not being considered the central issue here. What I am emphasizing is that a significantly negative connotation regarding what existed exits because wars were lost and the winners wrote as they deemed fit. <br />
<br />
Thus even for a semblance of fairness, we must surely consider it to be possible that it WAS possible not to lose those wars.<br />
<br />
Here I slip in my crucial bit. Assume that we did not lose those wars. May be we would still be having our share of problems, including social and cultural problems, and our current generation of strategists would be mentating on possible and likely solutions thereof. But there will be a BIG difference. We would NOT mind practicing the continuation (however much modified by the thinkers, leaders, and other such luminaries of the intervening period) of Brahmanism. Or let us from here on use the phonetically lucid brAhmanism.<br />
<br />
Will such a brAhmanism be totally different from (say) Secular-Humanism? I emphatically surmise YES. Will such a brAhmanism be "casteist"? I strongly believe NO. Will it be totally non-discriminatory (with discrimination defined by Marxists, Femisnists, and Critical Theorists, etc)? I don't care, but I hope NOT. For, in my humble and arrogant opinion, fair discrimination is the salt of Civilization. And a contrived totally non-discriminatory society is UNFAIR to all its members except a few who profit from parading such non-discrimination.<br />
<br />
So let us summarize here: Hinduism (a la brAhmanism) is/are term(s) to denote us, though initially used by foreigners. If we believe (as I do) that it was possible for us then not to lose those wars and survive (in a much larger sense than we are surviving now), then we would still be practcing brAhmanism, something which is true, benign and beautiful; though we may not know (as of now) how to detail it.<br />
<br />
So the question also arises, if brAhmanism was so, why did Shamanism arise or happen? A simple and direct answer would be that since brAhmanism would have accorded a whole lot of freedoms (including the freedom to disagree), Shamanisms happened because they were possible! However, I would also like to present a somewhat different answer, as yet hypothetical, though to me which seems more plausible.<br />
<br />
In one of the previous paragraphs I mentioned that fair-discrimination is the salt of Civilization. Herein enters the danger. In any society there are always sinister groups who would like to misuse or distort mechanisms/protocols used to administer fair-discrimination to the advantage (or better still monopolize) for their own group. Such subversion are possible, are happening all the time, including the present times, and thus could easily have happened. What is the nature of such sinister groups? Where do they come from? How do they form? How do they hide? How do they thrive? These are questions to be answered by abler minds. I posit that such are possible, ubiquitous, and could easily have happened in the past.<br />
<br />
One more thing we can guess (or otherwise hypothesize) is that since the sought after advantages would be "material" (whether in terms of privileges or property), their group adhesion would also have a largely material basis. Endogamy, strategic inter-marriage with other groups, genetic infiltration of elites of other groups to subvert rival groups, etc. would seem likely common techniques. I also hypothesize that since brAhmana, in some sense did refer to certain type of elites (by merit), there unfortunately arose the fake-elite brAhmin (by subversion). Sometimes meritorious brAhmana fell for greed and possibly colluded with brAhmin (though in the strictest sense they ceased to be brAhmana as soon as they fell for greed). But we must remember that social life depends upon many approximations. Just as it is not possible to easily determine whether a player really played badly as mistake, or a bad day, or whether he played badly as part of match-fixing, it is often not possible to determine whether it was a mistake by a brAhmana or whether he had already changed into a brAhmin.<br />
<br />
I must clarify here that I am using the terms brAhmana and brAhmin in an arbitrary manner. Both the terms are commonly used as synonymous, so in that sense I AM introducing an artifical difference. But my point is, this difference is essential to understanding how a potentially good thing can turn into a bad thing. And that two very similar looking things can be largely, nay, overwhelmingly different.<br />
<br />
I need to mention that in the preceding two paragraphs I have already defined what I mean by brAhmin (and by extention brAhminism). Just as brAhmin is a fake-brAhmana; brAhminism is a fake-civilization perpetrated by brAhmins. Fake-civilization? What would that mean?<br />
<br />
I am not arrogant enough to claim that I can define here in a few words, what civilization is. This is despite the fact that I wrote that fair-discrimination is the salt of a Civilization. However, if we agree that a Civilization (at the very least) provides "quality of life" and "sustenance" to its members; a fake-civilization provides a fake-quality of life and that too such a thing is short-lived. This point must seem fairly obvious to most people, as in modern times we seem to be enjoying "fake" things while we (even if unknowingly) perceive impending doom.<br />
<br />
And thus, if I am allowed to make a somewhat sweeping generalization, there is this eternal war between brAhmanism and brAhminism. I surmise that it is not unlikely that Shamanism arose as a reaction to some perceived brAhminism, though it reduced itself to its own version of brAhminism. A cursory look at both Buddhism and Jainism (at present) will betray this reality. And it is not surprising that notwithstanding the fact that both Buddha and Teerthankaras emphasized pursuit of liberation, the modern Buddhist and Jain monks often thrive only in "brAhmanism hatred", even though they call it "brAhmin hatred".<br />
<br />
Part-2<br />
<br />
So in all this, where does paraSurAma come in? First of all I need to put a few things straight. paraSurAma is considered an avatAra of Ishwara, and I accept that. Unlike many other "isms" including "Secular-Humanism", my brAhmanism gives me right to critique (even if unfairly) even an incarnation of God. In that sense there is something truly great about the "religion" in which paraSurAma is called an avatAra.<br />
<br />
My understanding of paraSurAma is quite limited. And interestingly it is limited by the behavior and performance of paraSurAma admirers, a whole lot of who are (understandably) brAhmins. A part of my understanding is supported by writings of shrI pundita rAmakinkara upAdhyAya. A friend of a friend of mine introduced me to his writings, and I found them awesome. shrI RU was awarded Padma award sometime when Hajpeyi was PM. Though, from what I have read of RU, he was a greater human being than mere Padma something. But that is another matter. Pt RU was a brAhmana, and if we are not sure, we can also call him a brAhmin. Though his life (I am told) was far from being brAhminical. Be that as it may, if whatever I am writing about paraSurAma, contains small morsels of truth, I owe it largely to Pt RU. The errors and omission are largely mine. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A detailed treatment of paraSurAma and rAma rAjya is beyond the scope of this article, and possibly also beyond the scope of its author. Nonetheless, let me present a few salient points.<br />
<br />
paraSurAma (his name was also rAma), was the son of sage jamadagni. A king kArtvIrya arjuna killed jamadagni to take away a celestial cow that the sage was granted. paraSurAma was on a pilgrimage then. On his return when he discovered the story, he was filled with rage, and he decided to punish all kshatriyas. He DID have a point, that kshatriyas then (who were duty bound to fight for dharma) did not object to or resist or fight kArtavIrya arjuna. And thus goes the story that paraSurAma killed kshtriyas (male kshatriyas) from all over the world twenty one times.<br />
<br />
While Indian admirers of Abrahamic logicians might be wondering why he needed to ethnically cleanse 21 times, whether once was not enough? The simple answer is paraSurama did not kill infants or women (so pregnant women survived and gave birth to children which included male children).<br />
<br />
Why paraSurAma stopped his war etc is an interesting anecdote in itself, so please do look up relevant books.<br />
<br />
So in crude terms paraSurAma was one of the old "genociders". He punished the whole "races" for the crime(s) of one (or a few). And thus (as Pt RU would often say), while there was already a rAma (who indeed could have defeated and killed rAvaNa; just for reference, kArtvIrya arjuna had defeated rAvaNa easily), rAvaNa also thrived, and it required another rAma (dAsarathi rAma) to be born to euthanize rAvaNa. Not just that, rAma had to "fight" with paraSurAma before he fought rAvaNa. And while paraSurAma was so enraged by kArtvIrya arjuna killing his father, he was almost unconcerned while rAvaNa destroyed yajnas and killed many brAhmanas. In short, paraSurAma had soft corner for rAvaNa (depite rAvaNa being bad, for he was son of a brAhmana, sage pulastya). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be fair, after the rAma-rAma samvada (dialogue between dAsarathi rAma and paraSu rAma), paraSurAma is supposed to have realized that the purpose of his own avatAra was over, and he transferred all his powers/weapons to dAsarathi rAma, and retired for a meditative and austere life. paraSurAma is a chiranjIvi (will live until the dissolution) and so is alive even today. Though, please don't ask me how you could meet him, for I don't know. But I do believe that it MUST be possible.<br />
<br />
To return to the main theme, to the paraSurAma-admiring-brAhmins, paraSurAma is brAhmin avatAra for brAhmins. And thus if brAhmins unite, they can still exterminate the whole creation. While other avatAras are for "all". In such interesting attitudes one can see how seeds of "brAhminisms" operate.Such brAhmins often overlook that kshatriya devotee ambarIsha did not want to punish all brAhmanas for transgressions by sage durvAsa. Or that brAhmin (paraSu) rAma was unable to establish rAma rAjya, etc.<br />
<br />
The main point is NOT about paraSurAma, or superiority/inferiority of one or many "castes" over the others. The point is brAhmin attitudes (which result in brAhminism) are antithetical to Civilization, which in our case, we can term as "brAhmanism".<br />
<br />
<br />
Part-3<br />
<br />
Now look at the present situation, and as it has been since quite some time. How meritorious people have been rising against all odds, often to be subverted by scheming adversaries.<br />
<br />
Imagine (and analyze) how invaders would have tried to destroy our Civilizational merit-system and replaced it with their doctored, subverted (and self destructing) fake-merit-system.<br />
<br />
Notice, how in most walks of life, (in very highly paying, highly powerful, highly long-term influencing walks like "films, music, entertainment", "politics", and "think-tank/academics") strategic intermarriages between people happen (the alleged incestuous clubs are indeed so). How, upright people are shunted and destroyed, and how compromising people thrive and rise. And mind you, if you incorporate "illegitimate" offspring, the picture will corroborate even more!<br />
<br />
And just as paraSurAma was; even now, a lot of brAhmanas have soft corner for brAhmins because they have some blood-based kinship. A brAhmana, when he sides with a brAhmin, is actually destroying brAhmanism, and erecting brAhminsm.<br />
<br />
Look at how JNU-kinds are always fighting against "brAhmanism", and if you notice closely, the intellectual power comes from, guess who, brAhmins!<br />
<br />
Notice your neighbours Sharmas, Dubeys, or Vaidyanathans, who consider muslims as their allies in their "power struggle" against "savage" OBC's. Observe your neighbor OBC's who consider "muslims" as their allies in their "War" against "brAhmanism".<br />
<br />
And most of all, look how all the anti-Hindu forces, especially those which are supported by foreign-funds and abetted by sold-out traitors are fanning these fissures. And also don't forget to notice how many of these are "brAhmins".<br />
<br />
Look how anyone who has any merit, is being incentivized to become a brAhmin, while if even a brAhmin wakes up to the horror and wants a course correction is shunted out mercilessly.<br />
<br />
Look how "discrimination" is a bugaboo; and how our ancient Civilization is portrayed as "anti-women", "anti-Dalit", anti-what-not.<br />
<br />
Look at how those who have converted to Islam and Christianity, continue to have "Hindu names" and pontificate on "evils of Hindu society".<br />
<br />
Look at the "caste" of Yechuries, and Karats, and see what kind of brAhmin is lurking behind their anti-brAhmanism. Look at brAhmin Trupti Desais, Medha Patkars, etc., and wonder why they are doing what they are doing.<br />
<br />
Look how "Hindutva Right Wing" is Israel-Nationalist instead of being Hindu-Civilizationist. Look at those who are becoming "self appointed" voices of Hindus, and how they want to (re)define Hinduism.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Look at BJP-brAhmins who are always ashamed of "beastly Hindu traditions", and look at Congi-brAhmins who are professing for minority rights, so that minorities can practice their traditions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Look at those brAhmins who are inciting Hardik Patels against brAhamanical tyranny. Look at those brAhmins who are telling OBC's that they have practiced "untouchability" against "dalits" for "thousands of years".<br />
<br />
Look at history debates, where when it is a matter of fixing era of Hindu scriptures, they are dated (at best) 500 AD, etc; but when it comes to denouncing the Hindus for "atrocities on Dalits" the same "scriptures" imply that the atrocities were formulated and were practiced for (tens of) thousands of years.<br />
<br />
In short, notice and understand how brAhmanism is being subverted by brAhminism. Notice how foot-soldiers are expected to behave like duty-loving (duty not for "reward" of heaven, but for the sake of "truth") brAhmanas, while their leaders behave like brAhmins, always cornering the best for their own. How leader after leader rises selling himself as a "brAhmana" (check Naeemuddinbhai Damn-Another-Ass Mohammadi, aka NaMo), and then quickly changes chameleon-like into a brAhmin.<br />
<br />
<br />
Part-4<br />
<br />
The fight against brAhminism too is fraught with deception. There are those who fight against brAhminism because they want to be included in the brAhminism circle. Laloo Prasads, Nitish Kumars are examples.<br />
<br />
The real fight against brAhmins and brAhminism can only be fought by brAhmanism-followers (who to say the least love duty for the sake of truth as a way of life), and that is why it is so important for anyone who wants to be a real warrior to understand and practice brAhmanism.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, more often than not, and especially in horrid times like present, brAhmanas seem divided by petty egoes, while brAhmins thrive with a no-holds-barred unity for self perpetuation.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, in the present situation, brAhmanas need to unite and rise against brAhmins, so that brAhminism can be dethroned and brAhmanism can be enthroned. And mind you, I am not indulging in mere play of words. Think about it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Disclaimer: The ideas presented in the article are still in crude form, and they might require a lot of polishing. However, if I have been able to communicate even a hint of the basic underlying message, I would consider myself sufficiently rewarded.<br />
<br />
May Hindu-Civilization thrive and prosper again over extended akhand bhArata, as sanAtana bhArata.</div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-81880539352420112062015-07-31T02:23:00.002-07:002015-07-31T02:23:53.269-07:00Savarkar's and Golwalkar's Descriptions/Views regarding the map-problem. Part-II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/07/the-map-problem.html" target="_blank">map-problem</a>. 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.<br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>Caveat:</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: blue;">I digress a bit here. There are wrirings on the web, for example <a href="http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2012/09/ganesh-babarao-savarkar-unsung-hero-of.html" target="_blank">Ajit Vadakayil</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</span><br /><br />With this caveat, let me begin,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I am in a position to present VDS and MSG views on the <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/07/the-map-problem.html" target="_blank">map-problem</a>. I understand that this will ruffle a lot of feathers. So I must mention as I mentioned in my previous <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/07/different-descriptionsviews-regarding.html" target="_blank">article</a>, 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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b> VDS description/view:</b><br /><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Past:</b> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> Major corrections are needed. Political pragmatism is foremost among them. Cultural pride must be accompanied by concrete practical actions.<br /><br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> A culturally vibrant India which has regained its glorious past, along with modern science, technology, development, equality, and most important of all, political pragmatism.<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
and</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>MSG description/view:</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Past:</b> 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.<br /><br />Hindus lost because, inter alia, they swerved from their spiritual ideals and therefore lost moral courage.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> 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.<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. <br /><br />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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-73213796472945962962015-07-18T07:44:00.005-07:002015-07-18T07:44:57.864-07:00Different Descriptions/Views regarding the Map-Problem Part-I<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/07/the-map-problem.html" target="_blank">one of my previous articles</a> 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 <b>Past</b>, map-B as <b>Present</b>, and map-C as <b>Desired Future</b>. But keep the map problem in mind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
Secular Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
Chistian/Islamic Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> It was all darkness. Cannibalism, Dark-Idol worship, Feeding Children to Crocodiles abounded.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> Indian independence has grossly undermined our operations, but we need to push harder and further, and by all means.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> We dream of a Ajaan enjoying/ Sunday-mass indulgent India. We might retain the tribal, pagan art-forms for preservation sake.<br /><br /><br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now let us consider views of a few individuals:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
Nehru's Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> 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.<br /><br />Islam and X-ianity were God's gift for the region and for the Hindus.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> We must quickly get over our quirky obsession with hindu culture etc. and get on with more important things in life.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> 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).<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
Ambedkar's Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> Horrible and Exploitative Brahminism and Patriarchy existed and flourished. Buddha was the great savior of the afflicted.<br /><br />Islam was, and is fatally dangerous, but British rule (X-ian rule) salvaged the masses from Brahminical tyranny.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> American prosperity, European grandeur, Indian culture with Buddhist philosophy.<br /><br /><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b>Gandhi's Description/View:</b></h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> India was about simple living high thinking and an austere/simple/minimalist life. And that is the essence of India.<br /><br />Islam and Christianity, while being inherently good, could harm us only because hindus drifted away from spiritual path.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> After conceding territory after territory, millions and millions of lives, we will achieve moral victory; and rest of the world will understand us.<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
Congress's Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />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?<br /><br /><br /> </div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
BJP-SanghParivar's Description/View:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Past:</b> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Present:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Desired Future:</b> We will regain most of the Past along with modern science, technology, "development", and "equality".<br /><br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even a cursory glance reveals how the Secular and the Christian/Islamic views are quite similar. They want most of the <b>Past</b> 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it is not difficult to notice that <b>BJP/Sangh-Parivar</b> view is hamstrung too. While they emotionally believe that <b>Past</b> was great (or at least claim so); their actions are towards bringing "true secularism" and "true socialism" for "development". Also notice that while they(<b>BJP</b>) 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a way, I have done a little injustice to <b>RSS </b>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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-11815181500963885942015-07-13T12:01:00.005-07:002015-07-13T12:01:56.001-07:00Anatomy of an Inferior Writer: How Desktop publishing birthed strange new phenomenon in India, the Bhagats.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: blue;">This satirical article is a paraphrasing of <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/The-underage-optimist/anatomy-of-an-internet-troll-how-social-media-birthed-a-strange-new-phenomenon-in-india-the-bhakts/" target="_blank">this</a>. Even proper names are to be viewed as place holders and I welcome you to imagine your favorite targets in their place.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Good luck, so long as you don't shower your ill-luck, of unsolicited rant on the unsuspecting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-9340007126131836912015-07-12T10:13:00.002-07:002015-07-12T10:13:34.714-07:00sanAtana bhArata : Draft of a Book Under Preparation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I got the pdf version of a book. It seems like a draft version. May be it can be improved and/or completed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will try to work on it. I also invite your comments and suggestions regarding the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The book can be viewed/downloaded from <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxtuTs1EID9rRXY4SFVmTFF3T0E" target="_blank">here</a>. Please feel free to circulate.</div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-84706248929774067412015-07-06T11:11:00.003-07:002015-07-06T11:11:57.524-07:00The Map Problem:<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my previous <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/07/a-problem-and-proposal.html" target="_blank">article</a> 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.<br />
<br />
Recently I came across a <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIzdKy9UkAACVYV.jpg" target="_blank">quote</a>, attributed to one Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar. Please read the quote before proceeding. I <a href="https://twitter.com/samAlochaka/status/616110427731197956" target="_blank">twitted</a>: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Judge erred in the final sentence. It should be: "It is a way of life, and Much More." : Dakshinamurthy. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
I wonder why such <i><b>errors</b></i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jn4JtcXmDiM/VZpPm8EH2KI/AAAAAAAAACQ/L8EMaSzKxkU/s1600/mapAA.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jn4JtcXmDiM/VZpPm8EH2KI/AAAAAAAAACQ/L8EMaSzKxkU/s1600/mapAA.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">map-A</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-28kvKZoWg_o/VZpPrm4xOFI/AAAAAAAAACY/Qpi3YF5w_t0/s1600/mapBB.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="144" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-28kvKZoWg_o/VZpPrm4xOFI/AAAAAAAAACY/Qpi3YF5w_t0/s320/mapBB.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">map-B</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br />
<br />
I am assuming you have indeed taken some time.<br />
<br />
Now, as one tries to answer the said questions, one realizes that one needs additional information. For example:<br />
</div>
1. Where am I? Where will my location (call it point S) appear on map-A and/or map-B?<br />
<br />
2. Where do I want to go? Where will my destination (call it point D) appear on map-A and/or map-B?<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
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.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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?<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my opinion, unless we address this map problem sufficiently, we will remain confused.</div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-35274610028713415422015-07-01T03:22:00.000-07:002015-07-01T03:22:12.635-07:00A Problem; And a Proposal.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <i><b>are</b></i> any who belong to the <i><b>real</b></i> otherwise type. That is, I notice that there are none who write from a perspective of the <i><b>real</b></i> 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 '<i><b>same thing</b></i>' 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.<br /><br />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 <i><b>are</b></i> 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.<br /><br />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 <i><b>focus</b></i> exactly<i><b></b></i>. After all, only the writer has changed, I will continue to this blog in the same <i><b>tradition</b></i> as I have inherited so to speak. When I asked him what his experience was, he told an interesting thing. He said: "<i>There are silent appreciators, as well as, silent (outright) rejectors. So a meaningful exchanges are few and far between</i>." I hope to facilitate breaking of such silences. Also, I am not omniscient, so it <i><b>is</b></i> possible that there are some who <i><b>do</b></i> write in ways that I am looking for. If you come across such, please do recommend.<br /><br />Thank You.<br /><br /><br /></div>
</div>
samAlochakahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14301402691481196418noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-48031619653083755772015-06-24T23:45:00.001-07:002015-07-18T11:20:36.386-07:00Farewell<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
By July 1, 2015 the transition should be over.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Updated on: July 18, 2015 (Rath Yatra Day)<br />
<br />
I am the new person, and I am maintaining both Twitter and Blog accounts. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-50439584884198807942015-06-19T02:47:00.000-07:002015-06-19T02:47:04.509-07:00Narendra Modi's Strategy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In our previous articles (see <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_4.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_58.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better_50.html" target="_blank">here</a>) 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. <br /><br />We present this in four segments. <b>Models</b>, <b>Image</b>, <b>Time Line</b>, and <b>Strategy and Control</b>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<b>(A) Models:</b> </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
1. Voter Model:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(i) Hindutva Middle Class voters are too demanding, and too easily irritable. They are the most difficult to get to vote too.<br /><br />(ii) His Support Base (both potential and actual): Silent Hindutva poor, silent Hindutva middle class, (in potential) non-Hindu poor.<br /><br />(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.<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
2. Opponent Model:</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br /><b>Possible Scenario Predictions:</b><br /><br /><span style="color: red;">(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".</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">Remark: Modi would want to avoid this.</span></b><br /><span style="color: #274e13;">(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).</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color: #274e13;">Remark: Modi would want to have better than this.</span></b><br /><i><span style="color: #274e13;">(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.</span></i><br /><br /><i><b><span style="color: #274e13;">Remark: Modi will have this as desirable.</span></b></i><br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
3. Constraints Model (Simple Lessons for Modi from 2004 loss; a few possible causes that added up):</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />(i) Apologetic behavior regarding 2002, resulting in cringing-Hindutva image.<br /><br />(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".<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
4. Strong Points Model (Some innate strengths in favor of Modi):</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />(i) He will (most likely) remain personally clean and impeccable (unlike MMS).<br /><br />(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.<br /><br /><b>Remark:</b> <b><span style="color: #274e13;">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)</span></b><br />(iii) He will not capitulate regarding 2002, anti-terrorism, etc. Even if he does not go the whole hog as per the "Hindutva" script.<br /><br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
(B) Image:</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />Modi would strive to project a comprehensive image in which:<br /><br />(i) He remains clean, and impeccable.<br /><br />(ii) He remains visible as someone who is working hard for noble goals.<br /><br /><b>Remark:</b> <span style="color: #274e13;"><b>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.</b></span><br />(iii) Development, infrastructure growth, Economic growth to be perceptibly better than 2004/2009.<br /><br />(iv) Poor peoples' on ground experience and hope for the future to be significantly better than 2004/2009.<br /><br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
(C) Time Line:</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(i) Poor peoples' on ground experience must change for the better, latest by third year middle, and keep steadily improving after that.<br /><br />(ii) More aggressive economic reforms (free market for middle/upper class) can also begin then or even a bit later.<br /><br />(iii). Fourth year, and later could see aggressive Hindutva or suggestive-Hindutva.<br /><br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
(D) Strategy and Control Variables:</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />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):<br /><br />(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. <br /><br />(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?).<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>In view of the above he has (until now) managed the Control Variables appropriately, for example:</b><br /><br />(i) Development focusing on for poor/lower-middle class. (This has begun)<br /><br />(ii) Small scale industry oriented reform. (Has begun or might begin shortly)<br /><br />(iii) Tax (Income Tax, etc.) reforms. (Can begin from third year too).<br /><br />(iv) Hindutva agenda. (To be timed to peak at the right instance).<br /><br />From the above, it is clear that Modi Government (even while doing <a href="http://samalochaka.blogspot.in/2015/06/one-year-of-modi-sarkar-much-better.html" target="_blank">much better than UPA yet being highly disappointing</a>) is on a decent course.<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: red;">Pit Falls:</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />What we have mentioned are average scenarios. We have ignored a few delicate but extremely important things.<br /><br /><b>(i) Modi himself is compromised:</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><b>(ii) Subversion by the system itself:</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>(iii) War:</b><br /><br />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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-88411305635945735762015-06-04T02:16:00.002-07:002015-06-04T02:16:31.099-07:00One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-4<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /></div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Real change choose me otherwise there are many others</li>
<li> I am Hindu Nationalist.</li>
<li> Unapologetic 2002, puppy remark.</li>
<li> Punish the corrupt</li>
<li> It is not government's business to do business.</li>
<li> Policy driven state</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />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).<br /><br /><br />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:<br /></div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>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".</li>
<li> This subversion happens in variegated forms, which are led by a subversion of language, law, and education.</li>
<li> In view of such existential threats, no amount of "development" is meaningful without urgently strengthening "civilizational security".</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />Now lets us mix it up a bit:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5. However, it must be designed as "civilizational development". Mere development, or secular development is not just insufficient, it is positively dangerous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />Thus returning:<br /><br /> 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).<br /><br /><br />In the face of all this, what did we observe? We, as Hindus get:<br /></div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>1. Chastizing of pro-Hindu speech.</li>
<li>2. A Sabka Saath Sabka Vikaas government being dedicated to poor, rather than being steadfastly anti-poverty.</li>
<li>3. Civilizational wealth-redistribution rather than intra-civilizational charity.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>Concluding Remarks:</b><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <b>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.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-44073018539443324532015-06-04T02:08:00.001-07:002015-06-04T02:08:45.880-07:00One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-3<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now that we have meandered round and about, we can return to presenting our review, in the concluding part.<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-55700000818410339832015-06-04T02:05:00.002-07:002015-06-04T02:05:41.257-07:00One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A little Background:</b><br /><br />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).<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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").<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A Brief Analysis of Advani:</b><br /><br />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...".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Another summary evaluation:</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1049398517640800286.post-9990351540914741812015-06-04T02:02:00.000-07:002015-06-04T02:02:13.179-07:00One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>First a quick recap of 1947-2014 and Congress.</b><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Politician and Lawyer:</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Priorities:</b><br />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).<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Summary Evaluation:</b><br /><br />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?<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0