Anti-Hindu Forces are trying to hijack Anti-Corruption Movement

Recall pre-1947, Muslims bargained for Islam during struggle for Independence. Mohandas and Jawahar, masquerading as representives of Hindus, emphasized that Independence was "more important" and conceded huge grounds in the bargain, stressed on the false and suicidal concepts of "Secularism" with Jawahar poisoning it further with "Socialism". The results are there for all to see. About seventy years after independence, Islam has grown into a bigger problem while Socialism has engendered another huge problem of Corruption.

Now, when we are fighting against Corruption, a similar position is arising. The Muslims, the Islam-appeasing Seculars, as well as Affirmative-Action buffoons are bargaining during this struggle as well. Just like we were told earlier that winning against the British was more important than to guard against Islamic machinations, now we are told that Communalism (read Hindu-Communalism) is a bigger danger than Corruption.

We view things differently. Corruption is a big problem. However, Islam, Secularism and Socialism are bigger problems. We must guard against conceding ground to the bigger enemy in an attempt to defeat the smaller enemy.

Team Anna's views on corruption are myopic and their victory must be viewed only as symbolic (see our post here). Further, if they start pontificating on Secularism and Socialism then they are to be viewed as dangerous anti-Hindu, Islam-appeasing people. Congress, Communists, Lalus, Nitish, Mayawati and such imbeciles want Secularism and Socialism to hijack anti-corruption movement. Pro-Hindu groups must avoid falling into this trap. Hindus have to fight corruption, but they have to fight Secularism and Socialism too!

During independence struggle it was clear that Muslims preferred British-rule if Muslim nation was not granted. Even now Muslims prefer Islam over freedom-from-corruption. For example, Muslims would prefer India to be a Islamic nation even if it is corrupt rather than a non-corrupt non-Islamic nation. Also note that Islam is always a beneficiary of corruption in non-Islamic societies. Ditto Secularists and Socialists. Now anti-Corruption crusaders are being foolish if they believe that freedom from corruption is more important than freedom from Secularism and Socialism.

Not only are Secularism and Socialism much more dangerous, we would go a step further. We posit that Freedom from Corruption is quite impossible without Freedom from Secularism and Socialism. For Corruption too, like many other ills, begins in the mind in the form of wrong ideas. And any sane movement must guard against subscribing to wrong ideas.

Prashant Bhushan: Betraying DF-ery

Prashant Bhushan has been reportedly beaten up by some people in his chamber in Delhi today. He had made certain controversial remarks a few days earlier.

Most political parties have had the knee-jerk reaction of denouncing the attack. The video clippings supposedly show a man slapping, pushing and kicking Prashant Bhushan. Usually the politicians are circumspect and want to wait till the complete information is available. However, since the attackers were supposedly from a "right-wing" group, there is a competition to condemn the attack.

Another Dumb-Fuck Medha Patkar called this attack an attack on Freedom of Speech. This, frankly, diverts and diffuses the matter. India does not have free-speech laws in practice. All the so called free-speech is allowed only to ridicule or denounce Hindus (Sanatana Dharma).

The first step towards real free speech will happen only when people will openly be able to discuss the truth and nature about Islam, Mohandas and Jawahar.

The dumb-fuckery of Prashant Bhushan lies in the fact that if Hindus demand a separate nation, he will view it as anti-national and tantamount to sedition. However, in the case of Muslims he wants them to have the freedom to seek separation. He forgets that Muslims have had their demands once, and that itself was unfair enough.

As Sir Vidiadhar S Naipaul says about Communists and Islam:

Questioner: You have been rather vehement about Marxist, leftist interpretations of History. What did you see as a major flaw in their arguments?

Sir Naipaul: Probably not so much the Marxist interpretation of history as Marxist politics which, of course, is entirely criminal. Such disrespect for men. I think that is enough; that is condemnation enough. This lack of regard for human beings.

...

Sir Naipaul: However, we are aware of one of the more cynical forms of liberalism: it admits that one fundamentalism is all right in the world. This is the fundamentalism they are really frightened of: Islamic fundamentalism. Its source is Arab money. It is not intellectually to be taken seriously etc. I don't see the Hindu reaction purely in terms of one fundamentalism pitted against another. The reaction is a much larger response... Mohamedan fundamentalism is essentially negative, a protection against a world it desperately wishes to join. It is a last ditch fight against the world.

Unfortunately the self-appointed intellectuals of the ilk of Arundhati-Roys and Prashant Bhushans are empty vessels. They have neither the courage nor the intellectual and academic honesty to discuss these matters truthfully.

In the din to "condemn" the incident, we must not forget to seek answers to much deeper questions, without which such incidents can only be delayed but not avoided completely.

It is only intellectual bankruptcy if "intellectuals" proclaim to be sensitive to Islamic Separatists, Mao Violence and so on; but remain completely insensitive to the passion of those youth who are striving to express something that could be much more important than what Binayak Sens and Arundhati Roys are willing to sympathize with. Therefore, we must always remember that these Sens and Roys are not the certifying authorities for truth.

Hindu voices must be heard too. This is their land. Hindus must push their agenda on as many fronts as possible. And debunking Secularism, Socialism, Islam, etc., is a good starting point.

What should Hindu strategy be on Jammu and Kashmir?

Recently Pakistan has made a statement that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India. Indian officials are crying foul, in exactly the same way as Manmohan Singh, P Chidambaram etc. cry foul whenever there is yet another terror attack.

In our opinion, the Hindu (believers/followers of Sanatana Dharma) perspective on the issue should be as follows:

Pakistan itself is an illegitimate state and geographically the area currently in Pakistan is an integral part of Sanatana Bharat (or Akhand Bharat if you like). Those who live in the region and are averse to this truth have only two choices. They leave Islam and gain understanding, or leave the region and go and practice their cult ("islam a goat-fucker-bronze-age cult. mohammad was an arab pedophile.") in the arabian peninsula. The right to self determination, if at all, must apply to Tibet and such places.

Hindus must always be absolutely clear about fundamentals. They have been taken for a royal ride in the name if pseudo-ideals of Mohandasian-nonviolence and Jawaharian-secularism-socialism.

Even team-Anna has failed in recognizing that the root cause of corruption in the country has been socialism! The bigger the government, the more the corruption.

It is far more important to debunk and discredit Secularism and Socialism than to merely point out the symptoms of the disease. Corruption is the symptom and Secularism and Socialism (and its ally Affirmative-Action) are the causes!

A Proposal for Hindu Political Resurgence.

JD(U) National General Secretary has claimed that Nitish Kumar will make a better PM than Narendra Modi. And he gives his reason as: "Gujarat was already prosperous and Modi has made it more prosperous but Bihar was poor (when Nitish took over) and he is making it prosperous."

He does not quantify the differences made by these two chief ministers to their respective states, nor did he normalize the differential for the difference in duration of their respective tenures. Thus, he seems to have a know-how to compare a decade long Modi rule with about a year long Nitish rule and announce his verdict! The political class in India is full of dumb-fucks like Mr. Shrivastav, the JD (U) national general secretary.

These are the so called "Socialist" politicians for whom "prosperity" (specifically economic prosperity) means everything. And yes, please remember that if Modi performs better on the prosperity measure then he will be charged with Communalism.

Hindus must be extremely cautious against such cheats. During Bihar's bad times, Modi had sent Rs. five crore to Bihar, which Bihar goverment must have even utilized at the time of distress. However afterwards this self-righteous moron Nitish Kumar returned the money merely to establish his own Secular credentials during elections. Hindus must firmly decide to reject all Secular and Socialist leaders.

Politicians with explicitly pro-Hindu stance must come together and cooperate on a common program. This will make a very sensible beginning. Bal Thackerey, Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Modi could consider discussing the modalities of working together. We need a minimum of ten to fifteen years of a strong pro-Hindu (pro-Sanatana Dharma) rule. Such a rule must set in motion Societal Reform as well as implement crucial aspects of Systemic Reforms as discussed here.

Bal Thackerey can be a father figure and mentor, while Subramanian Swamy can be the intellectual strategist. Narendra Modi can be the abundant supply of energy! However there are certain crucial points that must be settled before a working partnership can be forged.

1. All of them need to sign a pact to work together for a decade with transparent and objective monitoring so that no side can cheat the other. Once they decide that their love for Hinduism will overwhelm all other distractions, they will all be able to make necessary adjustments, happily, willingly and most importantly lovingly. In the event of any subterfuge, the conspirator must be forced a political death by the Hindus.

(a) The senior Thackerey must suspend the Marathi Manoos thrust for the time being. This is not because the cause of the Marathi Manoos is to be ignored. It is because, when the cause of Hindus themselves is not well-served, how can the cause of Marathi Manoos be served? The warriors of Maharashtra have made significant sacrifices for the Hindu mother land, namely Sanatana Bharat. They need to do the same again.

However, within the systemic reforms, once decentralization, local governance and public enterprise sets in, the socialistic subterfuge of population redistribution for wealth redistribution will automatically be curbed. The right of freedom to associate, when accompanied by the right of freedom to disassociate, will provide sufficient checks and balances.


(b) Mohandasism, Jawaharism, Secularism, Socialism, etc., need to be shunned completely. These are all variations in the tendencies of civilizational suicide. Narendra Modi and Subramanian Swamy will need to shun Mohandas.

Once Education founded upon Sanatana Dharma establishes Nationhood based on (Krishna + Chanakya), Charity based on Wisdom, Freedom and Responsibility based on Understanding; the evils mentioned in the previous paragraph will die a natural death and the Hindu psyche will also get vaccinated against weakening thoughts.


2. The work on a new Constitution can also begin. Subramanian Swamy may have the necessary competence and the contacts to initiate the process. We have expressed reservations against him in the past (see here and here), and he needs to address those issues in a direct manner.

Firmness of Bal Thackerey, Astute Acumen of Subramanian Swamy, and Energy and Dedication of Narendra Modi could make their team really formidable.

We clarify that we do not imply that Bal lacks in astute acumen or that Swamy lacks in energy and so on. We have mentioned the signature qualities of these people though they may have other qualities as well. For example, Bal was the only politicians who boldly declared that he was proud of what the Kar Sevaks did in Ayodhya.

If they can guard against Bal falling prey to ego against his own team in the name of courage, Swamy falling prey to slimy cunningness against his own team in the name of strategy, and Modi falling prey to being the one with a heart but without head; this combination will make a very good start.

Is Mohandas Relevant?

In an article, a certain Mr. Vinayak Hegde makes a case that the "Mahatma" is still relevant. He tries to preset himself as a neutral commenter by mentioning both Narendra Modi and Arundhati Roy in a somewhat negative vein as his examples. He points out certain "contradictions" in the approach of the two, which he says are emblematic of the many. He says that the Mahatma was a person with a few simple ideas and goes on to add that the "Mahatma" inspired people with his ideas and until we get some one who could "inspire" people with his ideas, the "Mahatma" will remain relevant.

We feel that the article is a mish-mash of facts and fiction. Before we analyze the article, we must understand to differentiate between people, ideas, and inseparable association between the two when such an association exists. For example, the general theory of relativity is irrevocably associated with Einstein. For Einstein was the one who proposed it, it is his theory.

Those who associate Truth and Non-violence with Mohandas are blowing smoke in the faces of their audience. Truth and Non-violence have been ideas since almost the beginning of time. The scriptures of Sanatana Dharma are dotted with mention of these. In somewhat modern times, the Jain teerthankaras as well as Bhagwan Buddha popularized non-violence. The Sikh gurus sacrificed their lives for the same ideals. And we believe that even the ancient religions elsewhere in the world including Paganism must have had some features covering them.


The so called "Mahatma" gave his interpretation to the practice of these ideas through his writings and his life. Fair enough. So did many people before him and will do after him! The ideas of Truth and Non-violence are NOT inseparably linked to Mohandas, though his interpretation of the two is. Thus we must distinguish between the following two things:

a. The ideas of Truth and Non-violence

and

b. Mohandasian interpretations of the two.


The second point in the article was the "inspiration" factor. If inspiring people with one's ideas is the acid test, then it would appear that Osama Bin Laden is on a higher footing compared to the "Mahatma". The "Mahatma" could inspire his stooges, including Jawahar and Congress to offer merely lip service to Mohandasian ideals while sticking like limpets to power. On the other hand, Bin Laden has been an inspiration to thousands of youth to lay down their lives!

Further, the "Mahatma" projected himself as a Sanatani Hindu, and people were "inspired" becuase they thought he was a Hindu saint. Thus it was not he but the faith and devotion of a large number of people in Sanatana Dharma which was a major factor in inspiration. For example, the devotional song "Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye" was composed and popularized by the famous Hindu saint from Gujarat, Narsi Mehta. Though, in modern times people often wrongly inseparably associate the bhajan with Mohandas. Thus is the power of propaganda and repetition!

Thus for Hindus Truth and Non-violence have been and will always remain relevant since they are intimately related to Sanatana Dharma. But Hindus must believe their expositions by Krishna and so on, and not distortions propagated by Mohandas.

Thus, as we have mentioned earlier, Krishna's Non-violence is to be adopted and Mohandasian non-violence has to be junked and dumped!

In one sense Mohandas could remain relevant. The people will need to be taught how wrong interpretation and practice of even great ideas leads to one's doom. Thus it will caution and warn people against such follies.

The author also stated that:

Which bring us to one of his best features - He practised what he preached, a feat so rare that it must be an endangered species.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We quote from here:

The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi quotes him on February 19, 1944: "If God wills it, He will pull her through." Gandhi: A Life adds this wisdom from the Mahatma: "You cannot cure your mother now, no matter what wonder drugs you may muster. She is in God's hands now." Three days later, Devadas was still pushing for the penicillin, but Gandhi shot back: "Why don't you trust God?" Kasturba died that day.

The next night, Gandhi cried out: "But how God tested MY faith!" He told one of Kasturba's doctors that the antibiotic wouldn't have saved her and that allowing her to have it "would have meant the bankruptcy of MY faith." (Emphasis mine.)

But Gandhi's faith wasn't much of an obstacle a short time later when it was his ass on the line. A mere six weeks after Kasturba died, Gandhi was flattened by malaria. He stuck to an all-liquid diet as his doctors tried to convince him to take quinine. But Gandhi refused and died of the disease, right? No, actually, after three weeks of deterioration, he took the diabolical drug and quickly recovered. The stuff about trusting God's will and testing faith only applied when his wife's life hung in the balance. When he needed a drug to stave off the Grim Reaper, down the hatch it went.

So much for "he practiced what he preached"!

Concluding remarks:

1. Truth and Non-violence will remain relevant.

2. Krishna's non-violence will remain relevant as the guiding principle.

3. Mohandasian non-violence could remain relevant only as a caution against follies.

4. The halo around the myth of Mohandas will surely give way and the Truth will become known to people.