Pandemic or PanicDemic? Corona-Gate? Seems so.

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.

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.

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!

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.

You might be wondering, what is this guy doing? Supporting the action, or opposing the action? We will come to that in due course.

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.

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.

(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.

Please keep in mind that I have not been exhaustive in the number of possibilities. Now let us imagine what the outcomes would be:

(a) Nothing can be done, and we all await certain death. Covid-19, almost surely is NOT of this type. 

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.

(b) Nothing needs to be done, go watch whatever. Covid-19 seems not to be as nice as this.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

For example, in some recent news article, 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.

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. The question is, whether the expected outcomes justify the costs. My answer is: a BIG NO. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.?

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:

1. The lock-down should in no case exceed 21 days. I recommend, strongly consider relaxing it much earlier.

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.

3. Screw any thoughts re' Economic Package and such non-sense. Think about it, if at all, after 3 months.

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".

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!

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.

1. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.

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."

2. COVID-19: Updated data implies that UK modelling hugely overestimates the expected death rates from infection.

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."

3. Climate Denial is like Covid-19 Denial.

Quotation: "...When scientific questions become political issues, he added, people’s beliefs become statements of identity. 'To some extent we see that with the coronavirus.'”

4. The Italian Connection.

 

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 …"

Happy Hindu New Year

Wishing you all a very happy and prosperous new Samvat.

Election 2019: opposition's gaslighting and a strategy for counter-gaslighting

1. Introduction

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.

As I mentioned in my previous post (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.
 

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.
 

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.

2. Gaslighting, A Primer

In my opinion, anti-NaMo strategy has been gaslighting, that is "to gaslight" general people. For understanding gaslighting I refer you to this post. Check wikipedia as well. That whole blog itself is an eye opener on many aspects, some of which are applicable in Indian context as well.

A relevant part is copy pasted below:

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.

The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly.

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.

Observe that anti-NaMo "opposition" is doing exactly like the above (including the threats).

In particular

What are the relevant truths?

a. Election 2019 is extremely crucial and NaMo must be relected.

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.

Thus as part of gaslighting, they falsify each of these. Look at their corresponding gaslighting points.

a. That either election-2019 are not crucial, or if they are crucial, they are crucial to remove NaMo.

And to "fortify" their reasons they assert (denying point b above) 

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.  

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.

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.

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.


That these tirades are false (factually) has been shown by various authors (much better than I can do).

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 people are swayed by fear.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Now before we come to what we can and should do, let us also take a look at what ain't work.

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.

For example consider the following

a. 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!

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 here). 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".

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!

c. 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).

Now you ask, Oh dear, this is getting long and winding. Tell us, then what should we do? Let us consider a few examples. 

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!

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. 

Thus, destroying the "source" (of gaslighting) is the key.

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!!

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.

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 focusing on two (main) messages:

1. Cong means TREASON. Treason against Hindus, India, Hindu Civilizational Territory, etc.
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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?

Mohandas, the Congi "hero", subverted freedom movement. Check his behavior re' Subhash Bose (not that SB was an angel), re' Bhagat Singh, Azad, etc.

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.

Mohandas subverted Patel (Not that Patel was an angel, but FWIW, was much better than Jawahar).

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.

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?


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. 

A message for NaMo:

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).

He should scarcely forget, that his Opposition also has same goal (obession): MKGMD: Modi Ke Gaand Mein Danda.
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.)

Mr NaMo, make use of constructs like you used in an old video (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.

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.

3. Use this opportunity to educate "minorities". 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.

In Short:

The problem is gaslighting, and its solution is counter-gaslighting.

Pulwama and later ...

After my last post I have been wanting to write another. But, I should say, not unexpectedly, Pulwama happened. So let us deal with that.

I had mentioned that anti-NaMo gang will go all out no holds barred (whatever be the cost) 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?

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.

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!).

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!

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!

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?

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 are 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').

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Recently, Chitra Subramanian (of Bofors investigation fame) has "exposed" Anglo-Saxon designs. 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 here and here, 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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Election-2019 A Recommended Strategy for Hindus

 TL;DR

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".

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?


Now for QL;YR (quite long,  yet read)

After the first two years of Modi-Sarkar (check here here here here here for first year, and here here 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.

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.

First things first:

Election 2019 is MORE IMPORTANT than 2014. You may ask, why?

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:

1. NaMo will not be made PM candidate.
2. Even if he is made, he will be unable to keep allies.

Both these points went awry and the assumption was rest asunder. And yet, there WAS a twist (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).

However, the unexpected happened. But, the rest is not history YET. 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 Greatly Worried. They want to avoid Modi winning (even a simple majority) whatever be the cost. Yes, you read it right - WHATEVER-BE-THE-COST. 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 "opposition" has solely one aim. Restrict BJP to 271 or less. Rest will be managed (incorporating intra-BJP treason).

For instance, NaMo in my view has been, at the very least, a somewhat Naeemuddin(check here), 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). However, our concern must be, to avoid a non-NaMo PM in 2019. Mind you, I am not even calling NaMo great/bad whatever now. I would rather classify him as a - presently safe/workable "place-holder".


My reasons for classifying him as a safe/workable "place-holder":

1.(Even if) Shit, Shit is  better than (Confirmed) Poison.
2. (Even if) Poison, non-lethal poison is better than (Confirmed) lethal-poison.
3. (Even if) Lethal Poison, In the short run, slow leathal posion is better than (Confirmed) fast lethal poison.


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 Cutting off the nose to spite the face (see here).


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.


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).

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?

Now you may ask, among so many, Why only NaMo as the place holder (why not x,y,z?):

1.  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.

Remark: 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).

2. 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.)

3. 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.

A quick, cursory, yet representative evaluation of NaMo's work:

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.

NaMo's pluses (Each a big/huge plus): No Corruption, Infra investment, Swacch Bharat, Mudra, etc etc

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"?

A benefit-of-doubt and alternative view of minuses:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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..

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. Religious War /Caste War.

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 cursorily. 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).

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).


7. Thus, my note to X-ians and Sullas:

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)


8. Note to Hindus/Mimddle-Class who are contemplating voting against NaMo:

Before you make up your mind, calmly consider the following:

a. 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.

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?

In my opinion, had Hindus given second term to Hajpeyi (even as a place holder) things would have been much much different.

c. 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).

d. 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.

e. 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.


So what is the bottom line?

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.

Happy Ramanavami

Haven't posted in a while. Wishing you all a very happy rAmanavamI.

SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap Prayashchitta Parihar Prasannata Yojana. A suggestion.

Dear Mr Narendra Modi (and Arun Jaitley),

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.

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.

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.

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):

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.

Once Form is "valid", a person can attempt to submit (for example) it to the GST site.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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: 

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.

2. Please feel free to refine as per needs. I am NOT an expert (in any thing).

Continuing from your mahAbhArata analogy, I have named it: SP4Y: Swaichchhik Pashchatap, Prayashchitta, Parihar, Prasannata, Yojana. And it is like so:

3.1 A person declares his hitherto undisclosed/uncaught/untaxed/whatever money to the government.

3.1.1 Consider including foreign bank deposits, as well as bEnAmI property also in the ambit.

3.2 50% of this declared income goes straight to the govt.

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.

3.3 Remaining 50% also to govt (but this is with a twist). You make a few (I have mentioned 3) separate funds:

3.3.1 Citizens Monitored Disaster Management Fund.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.


All the Best.

Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet v0.1

Preface:

 

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.

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.

I have titled this v0.1 in an arbitrary manner. It only means that it is work in progress. However the progress 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.

Some Background:

By population, 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.

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%.

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.

Quite a feat, no? 

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.

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.

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.

It is in order to study this, I have chosen the personalities of Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet.
 

My Usual Routine:


However, let me begin with my usual disclaimers and caveats.

Group-0

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.

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.

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.

Group-1

I am not writing this as a student of comparative religion or philosophy as that stupid ass Zakair Naik might claim for himself.

I am not a "scholar" either.

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.

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.

I realized that the usual critics and exposers of Chrislamism always fell short of taking things to their logical end.

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.

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.

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.

Group-2

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.


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.

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.

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.

And then I will present my thoughts on why certain other things happen despite their teachings.


Moses:

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.

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).


My View:

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".

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.


Jesus:

Jesus of Nazarene was born (immaculate conception) to (virgin) Mary and Joseph and grew up to be a fine gentleman.

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.


My View:

Jesus has been the most respected among these three, especially even by the non-Abrahamics.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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).

Notwithstanding any or all of this, Jesus has been used as a mere shield by Christans/Church to inflict untold miseries upon non-Christians.

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.

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.

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.



Mahomet:

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.

His canon message was that Allah is the only God, and Mahomet is Allah's final prophet.

My View:

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.

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.

A Remark:

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.

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.

An Analysis: 

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".

Please contrast this "obsession" with "authentic text", with (say) a Socratic (pagan) teaching, other versions here and here.:

". . . 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. . . ."

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.

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".

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".

Now, I would also like to give some examples of fundamental structural differences between Abrahamics and non-A, in particular Hindus:

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)

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).

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.

Another crucial difference seems to be:

The Abrahamic teacher would insist: Have "faith in the book", and this faith will lead you to rewards (usually only) in afterlife.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.


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.


(Might add some more)