svenkat wrote:if India spurns me, should I turn a Jihadi?
No,its not as simple as that .Dilli billis spurned yeddyurappa and he is battling in his home turf.
yeddyurappa wanted 'meagre' rent.The rent that Karunanidhi,YSR charged exorbitantly,what pawar charges very reasonably,what Cong-BJP(Mahajan for instance) think is par for the course in the spirit that the ruler should get tribute.To be fair,BJP is far far bettr than Cong,but it aslso accepts rent.akalis expect it.SMKrishna was given rent,but SMK was not an extortioner.
yeddyurappa wanted some money.The bulk was going to the reddy brothers.It was an 'intra-dravidian' issue.Sugriva would not allow Vibhishana to join Sri Rama.But Bhagavan said that Vibhishana too was his devotee who had done sharnaagathi.
What did the ram bhakths in Delhi do? Sushma idiot swaraaj had no respect for the 'vanaraas' of Bellary.She did not think for a minute that reddys were mining barrons(who neverthless considered bellary as home).Yeddyurappa was the lingayat organiser.I asked Gunjur in this forum for his opinion.He said kannadigas wanted the mineral wealth to be used for the state.
1)The BJP could have nationalised the mines.
2)The BJP could have decided that reddys were efficient and there was trickle down and everything was well.
3)Yeddyurappa deserved 'reasonable' rent and BJP could have brokered a deal between yeddyurappa and reddys.
The dilli billis treated the telugu-kannadiga issue as problem between vanaraas,allowed it to fester and finally destroy reddys,yeddyurapa and the BJP in KA.So much for morality,nationalism,rama bhakthi.
One can expect the same in lanka(where BJP will not take a firm stand against tamizh separatism/exaggeration(Yashwant Sinha made a ridiculous statement two days back)while supporting the human rights of tamils,TN-KA kaveri dispute, reservations(fair deal for all and no appeasement) ,seek redressal of telengana grievances in united AP(BJP is committed to Telengana),ensure implementation of SC verdict on Kaveri,while supporting kannadiga minority rights in Udagamandalam/Hosur(in my view,BJP should speak for such people without fear because TN has a liberal dravidian tradition as well as a narrow chauvinist strain).
But as VP Singh said,BJP is only a party of Aryavartha,despite its tall claims.
merlinji,
How can BJP be a party with a difference.Are BJP politicians not human beings? Are they not aware of whats happening around them?Whats wrong with yeddyurappa wanting low rent from mining barons when he belonged the numerically largest caste when thats the norm among dominant peasant castes south of the vindhyas
It was the duty of BJP billis to address the issue and reach an amicable settlement between reddys and lingayats.This is a problem we will continuously see in Kasargod,mullaiperiyar,Belgaum,Abohar-Fazilka,SYL,rajput-ahir-jat in North India.
During Justice Party times,there was a fantastic relationship between kammas and mudaliars in Madras presidency inspite of their differences.
Saar,
this is a dangerous line. This is classic AIT. I wanted to post about this on SL thread, but refrained for some reason. Ramayana has been chosen to peddle the AIT model. One of the reasons, it seems to me, is because Hindus(and Indics, in general) give it a much older date than the 6000 years(that was peddled by the X-ian colonial 'indologists'). So, Sri Rama was made into an 'Aryan' icon, while Ravana was turned into a 'Dravidian' icon. Ramayana becomes a story of Aryan Invasion. The X-ian colonial european indologists forumlated AIT such that 'Aryans' are supposed to be fair, foreign and vedics, while 'Dravidians' are supposed to be dark, indigenous and non-vedic. They did not care to see that Sri Rama and Ravana both are of dark complexion. They did not care to see that Sri Rama and Ravana are both believers of Veda. In fact, Ravana is greater scholar of Vedas than Rama. Those indologists did not care to see that Ravana was a direct descendent(grandson) of Pulatsya Brahma. Both Ravana and Rama are Kshatriyas. Actually, from father's side, Ravana is a Brahmin.
Most important point is: Vanaras and Rakshasas are NOT dravidians. They are not even human. If one thinks that Vanaras are dravidians, they are actually accepting the narrative that south-indians are flat-nosed dark race distinct from the fair sharp-nosed 'Aryan' race.
In fact, all south-Indians are NOT dravidians. Telugus call TN as Dravida-desham. Telugus don't see Kannadas as Dravidians and I don't think Kannadas see Telugus as Dravidians.
It seems to me that all the people residing in TN are NOT dravidians.
Dravida was just like Pandya or Chola. Are all Tamilians Pandyans? Are all Tamilians Cholas? Then, how can all Tamilians be Dravidians?
Are all South-Indians Pandyans? Are all South-Indian Cholas? Then, how can all south-Indians be Dravidians?
MB describes Dravidians, Andhras, Pandyas, Cholas, Keralas, Sinhalas, and many more. Dravidians are one among many. This identity has been foisted upon entire TN. Then, it is being tried to foist it upon entire South-Indians.
Link to a post quoting MB
This attempt has been going on for quite some time. It started with Justice Party. And yes, Justice party was the vehicle of few powerful landowning castes in Madras Presidency area in British India. Justice party started of as essentially a castist party with an anti-brahmin ideology. The anti-brahmin feelings had two foundations:
a) perception of brahmins acquiring all the opportunities
b) Aryan invasion theory.
Justice Party was formed on the basis of AIT. Justice Party seems to be a brit sponsored movement.
From 1890s onwards, brits were facing heat from the Indian independence movement which was increasing turning aggressive and assertive. Bengal and Punjab seem to be the centers of the Indian independence movement.
In 1905, brits planned to divide Bengal to appease the muslims in the eastern Bengal region. This decision became a flashpoint and caused the Indian independence movement to unify.
Brits were controlling India through two mechanisms:
a) army
b) IAS
Army was dominated by Sikhs and Muslims. Muslim League was asking for a separate country for Muslims. At the same time, brits were also sowing the ideological seeds for Khalistan. They were peddling the propaganda that Sikhism was at a threat from the Hinduism. Sikhs were being groomed as a minority separate from Hindu majority.
Immediately, seeing the threat, brits started putting up 'manchurian' candidates(or limited opponents) whose goal would be divide the Indians and distract the independence movement.
The first manchurian candidate was Muslim League. It was formed in 1906. Then, Gandhi, who was till now being ignored by the brits in South-Africa, was remembered by the brits. They started building him up. Gokhale, who was the head of Congress at that time, started grooming Gandhi to take over the mantle. There was a threat of congress passing into the hands of garam dal. Gandhi was given a victory in South-africa to give an image buildup in India.
In 1914, Gandhi started for India via London. In 1915 Gandhi reached India. Governor of India, Lord Hardinge, himself met Gandhi at his arrival in India. Gandhi was used to divert the people's attention from the revolutionaries and garam dal. While revolutionaries and garam dal were demanding complete independence, Gandhi was stuck with demand for few privileges. While revolutionaries and garam dal were advocating all kinds of actions(including outright violence and assassinations) to oust the brits, Gandhi was preaching 'ahimsa'. While revolutionaries and garam dal did not recognize the brits as legitimate rulers, Gandhi recognized the brits as legitimate rulers. While the revolutionaries and garam dal were subject to hangings or harsh punishments in places like Kalapani, Gandhi was treated with kid gloves.
At about the same time, Justice party was getting formed (1917).
IAS, it seems to me, was dominated by Tamilians and Brahmins. This domination by Brahmins of the government service was used as an excuse to initiate the Justice Party movement. At the same time, it was based on Tamil nationalism.
The movement had a moderate success because of the social conditions. People from other castes also wanted Government jobs. Social conditions are used to incite secession movements.
Ramayana was used as an AIT template. When Ravana was turned into a dravidian icon, simultaneously Lord Shiva was also converted into a 'dravidian' icon. Ravana was portrayed as a hardcore devotee of Shiva. Lord Vishnu was turned into an 'Aryan' icon. Ironically, Lord Shiva is fair complexioned and Lord Vishnu is of dark-complexion.
Anyway, this portrayal was responsible for the moderate success of Justice Party(and its derivatives like DK and DMK). Tamilnadu has a history of Shaiva-vs-Vaishnava. This sectarian schism was used to foist AIT upon the Tamilians. It was sought to make Shaivas supporters of Ravana(i.e. 'dravidian' icon).
Justice Party has a track record of opposing Home rule movement and non-cooperation movement. It adopted a general hostile stance against Indian independence movement. It seemed to prefer the brit rule rather than the 'rule of brahmins'. Eventually, Justice party lost the support of 'Dalits' who accused the party of being a vehicle of few castes(mostly, these castes were powerful landowning ones). So, Justice Party was trying to perpetuate the hegemony of some powerful landowning castes.
The eventual goal seemed to ask for a separate country for Dravida-nadu i.e. the brief of Justice Party was same as the brief of Muslim League. Both were created to delay and distract the Indian independence movement. And if that is not possible than demand for separate countries and keep India divided.
The Justice Party and its later derivatives were based on colonial EJ constructs. The leaders of these movements claimed to be atheists but focused their targets solely on Hindu literature and Hindu deities. It was essentially an anti-Hindu movement propped up by the brits/EJs. Brits wanted to use it to divide the Indians, EJs wanted to use it to divide the Hindus.
For 'Dalits', who became disenchanted with Justice Party(due to the domination of that party by the land-owning castes), Ambedkar was propped up by the brits.
The difference between Muslim league and other parties like Justice Party or Ambedkar's party is only one thing: the target audience of Muslim league were non-Hindus. They readily accepted the division from India. The target audience of Ambedkar, Gandhi and Justice Party were Hindus. All Hindus had an innate idea of being united. They had an innate idea of being Indians.
Periyar formed Dravida Kazagham in 1944. Dravida Kazagham continued to be based on AIT. Dravida Kazagham wanted a secession from India and formation of a separate country called Dravida Nadu(which would comprise of the whole region of then Madras Presidency). But, it did not participate in elections. It was supposed to be a social movement.
Dravida Kazagham was split over succession issues.
It seems to me that 'Dravida-nadu'(and many such projects) did not become a reality because:
a) Brits had to leave hastily and did not have enough time or muscle to see through the project.
b) Innate emotional and ideological connection of all Hindus/Indics(including Tamlians) with India.
c) Rejection of 'dravida-nadu' idea by non-tamilians.
Annadurai the founded DMK in 1949. In 1950s, DMK continued to demand secession from India. The main objective of the party was formation Dravidanadu(which included most of south-india). During 1950s, DMK entered electoral fray but remained largely unsuccessful. It seems non-Tamils were not happy with this Dravida-Nadu idea.
It seems to me that the domination of tamilians was not liked by other south-Indians. They were also not inclined to live in 'dravida-nadu' which was constructed on tamil nationalism. The non-tamilians south-indians were afraid that Tamil nationalism seeks to digest their cultures. So, naturally they were not very keen on this idea. This smouldering dislike was finally expressed after Independence. It started with Telugus. In an effort to protect the interests of the Telugu people in Madras Presidency, and to preserve the culture of Telugu people, Potti Sri Ramulu(Andhra Kesari) attempted to force the government to listen to public demands for the separation of the Andhra region from the Madras Presidency, based on linguistic lines and with Madras as its capital. The Government did not accede to the demands for separate state. Finally, In 1952, Potti Sri Ramulu fasted unto death demanding a separate state for Telugu speakers. The death of Potti Sri Ramulu evoked angry reactions from Telugus in Madras state and the demand for a separate Telugu state could no longer be denied. So, in 1953, a separate Telugu state was formed, but Madras city was not part of the new state. Later, Hyderabad state and the newly formed state were merged in 1956 to form Andhra Pradesh.
There is another angle also. The shaiva-vaishnava sectarian division was not as strong among Telugus as it is in Tamil society. Telugus seem to be more egalitarian within the Hindu fold. This social situation prevented AIT from making deep in roads among Telugus. Only a few land-owning castes seem to be beholden to the Justice Party and even they seem to have abandoned the movement seeing the domination of tamils. Sri Rama, in particular, is a beloved deity of Telugus. So, using Ramayana as a model for AIT, kind of backfired with Telugus, IMHO.
The separation of Telugus and the eventual formation of AP must have been a blow to idea of Dravida-Nadu. The secession dreams based on AIT of the tamil politicians with backing from certain castes was jolted. Telugus rejected the idea of living under Tamil hegemony within India.So, there was no question of them supporting 'Dravida-nadu'.
After this, the idea became relegated to the backburner slowly. But, the DMK continued to demand secession from India. In 1953 MGR joined DMK. Till then, he was the member of Congress. In 1962, the chinese invasion whipped up strong patriotic fervour throughout India. In such a situation, DMK had to abandon its stance of secession. In 1964, Nehru died. Lal Bahadur Shastri became the PM. In 1965 India fought a war with Pakistan. Lal Bahadur Shastri died of sudden heart attack in 1966 after signing peace pact with pakistan in Tashkent, USSR. There are many CTs on the sudden and mysterious death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. After his sudden death in USSR, Indira Gandhi came to power. There have always been rumours of KGB funding Indira(and rest of the Gandhis). So, it is very interesting that the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri paved the way for the power of Indira Gandhi.
DMK came to power in 1967 for the first time after its formation. It is noteworthy that DMK came to power after abandoning the demand for secession. The fact that the DMK came to power only after abandoning the demand for secession shows that there was no support for the idea of secession among Tamilians. WHY? Because they were Hindus. The same idea had succeeded when it was used by Muslim League. But, it did not succeed here.
Karunanidhi became the CM. In 1969, Annadurai died. In 1969, Madras state was renamed as Tamil Nadu.
Then, an earth-shattering event happened. BD was formed in 1971 by the military action of India. This event made the powers turn their gaze towards India in a more focused manner. Immediately all the old ghosts were resurrected.
In 1970s, Khalistan movement was formed. It seems to me that Naxalites/Maoists were made into a potent force 1971. LTTE was officially formed in 1976. Calls for dravida-nadu were replaced by calls for Ellam. The chief funders seem to be X-ians. Interestingly, the other side, the sinhalas are also ruled by x-ians. So, while the Tamils are Hindus and Sinhalas are buddhists, both are ruled by X-ians. In essence, dravida-nadu is replaced by ellam, but the idea is still the same: separate nation ruled by Tamils. It seems to me that Ellam is a crypto-Dravidian movement. There is an interesting side to this. Supporters of dravida-nadu and ellam claim that Tamils are Dravidians(in AIT). Sinhalas claim that they are Aryans(in AIT) who migrated from North-India to SL. Both of them have their identities shaped by AIT or AMT. The EJs are supported by the west and vice versa. The ultimate aim of EJs and west is to colonize the locals.
The theory of AIT/AMT is playing the role it was meant to. The same thing had happened in Africa: Tutsi Invasion Theory.
US was fighting in Vietnam from 1962 to 1975.
In 1979, Soviets started campaign in Afghanistan. Mujahideens were formed to resist the Soviets. These Mujahideens were sponsored, trained and supported by US, UK, Saudi, and China through Pakistan. Pakistan was the interface. The funds and skills acquired by pakistan during this program was diverted in its fight against India.
Khalistan movement became prominent in late 1970s and early 1980s. Khalistan movement was well-supported by the pakistan. It was seen as a retaliation for creation of BD. This was part of new thousand cut-policy by Pakistan propounded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In about the same time, Naxals were wrecking quite havoc in India.
It seems to me that the source for funds, arms and ideologies of all these various factions in Indian sub-continent are one and the same network.
Kongis have learned to divide the opponents(by putting up manchurian candidates) from the old masters brits(west). They are still following the same model that brits followed before 1947. Actually, Kongis are continuing the brit system.
The only thing that needs to be done is to reform the elections such that
a) voting is made compulsory
b) option to choose none of the candidates
c) only a candidate who has secured 51% votes wins(otherwise, the re-election among the 3 leading candidates with an option to choose none of the candidates)
d) if none of the candidates secures highest percentage by a large margin, then re-election with new candidates.
Such a system would invalidate all the games played by kongis like cash, creed and castes.
Otherwise, all that Kongis need to do is:
a) appease the 'minority' by pampering some mullahs or parties like MIM.
b) pamper some caste/section within the Hindus.
c) Divide the rest of the votes by setting up dummy or manchurian candidates.
It is like a student needs to secure just pass marks and he is allowed to cheat. Even then, if the student fails, then imagine how useless the student must be. The same is the situation with kongis.
I, for one, am hopeful of change. I think people will punish this utterly rubbish governance and brazen corruption and imbecility. I mean people don't even have to be intelligent or politically savvy or any of that. They just need to vote on the basis of super-duper inflation(price rise) of all commodities and utter failure on all fronts. I don't see any saving grace for this regime. So, I don't see on what basis any section will re-vote for this regime. I think the only people who are still sticking with the Kongis are the 'minority' and those with vested interests. I think the aam aadmi has turned against the kongis and will vote with a rage against the kongis. I mean the standard of living of people is being seriously hurt by the policies of the people.... like the frequent increases in the prices of petrol, the removing of subsidies for gas cylinders, the stagnation of growth, failure in curbing the islamic terrorism, ...etc.
The question is can the opposition parties make use of this situation and come to power.
It is not at all inconceivable that Kongis have manchurian candidates within the opposition parties who will try to disrupt the chances of their own party. Hopefully, such people will fail.
It seems to me that the Kongi system had bankrupted the nation by 1990s. It was PVNR and NDA regime which revived the country's prospects. Immediately, the Kongis come back and start leeching off it. Country needs to be rid of this kongis for at least another 20 years to be set right...
PS: Sorry for the rant.
PPS: Fanne ji, Sri Rama's purpose seems to be the destruction of Rakshasa network. Of all the various avataras of Sri Maha Vishnu, the greatest slaughter on Rakshasas was done by Sri Rama. Sri Rama appears like 'softie', but it seems the bodycount left by Sri Rama is the highest. After Sri Rama, Rakshasas became endangered species. And for this purpose, He went about collecting everyone and anyone. The only rule of Sri Rama seems to be,"regardless of what you have done so far, you must remain dharmic from now on..." Anyone who agreed to this rule was accepted(with a notable exception of Vali).
First Sri Rama destroyed the outpost of Ravana. Then, He targeted the ally of Ravana: Vali. After that, He secured the entire Vanara sena. He saw to it that the Vanara sena was not divided after the death of Vali by accommodating the son of Vali and Sugriva. Then, He sent Hanuman to scout the enemy camp to learn the strengths and weaknesses of enemy. Finally, He declared the attack on Ravana. He accepted the defection of Vibhishana. Vibhishana proved immensely useful in the war because he divulged many secrets about the workings of Ravana camp.
. First I will ask/join NCP to throw stones. In the era of zero-ethics, I being first of all anti-national, can buy some BJP folks and then ask to create a rift between Raj and BJP. Use media as well. 