Strategic leadership for the future of India - II

[Rahul M]

aha, they goofed up bigtime. very rarely do you see the truth out in the open.

[harbans]

I don't know much about Greg really, but trust your assessment would be right. I meant he is right in a very generic kind of way. Chinese, Americans, Paki's well even Maldivians are aware that we dilly dally and wish wash. Our leaders certainly do. We will not take a stand they are certain. Look at the way China is toying with us, bullying us on ArP, stapled visa's, threatening India on hosting Dharmic leaders and while our leaders meekly acquiesce, all this interestingly is interspersed with statements on Indian media aggression and such.

It's really easy to bully people without spine. Now Italians have been doing so for a few weeks without any significant statement from Indian leaders. Not one categorical statement stating that under international law India has the right to hot pursuit and arrest and trial in such a scenario. The top mandarins of leadership have made it to the top not on quality based leadership, but on remaining silent when they should have stuck there head above the parapet and taken a stand. MMS himself rose up to the top because of his not taking a stand and being a status quo'ist. Pranab has he ever taken a stand that is extra more than the status quo requirement? Never. They promote such people too in the setup. This is apparent in a lot of our leadership today.

[devesh]

that ad shows all the tribal paranoia of the Europeans. it comes to the fore in a raw style.

[Agnimitra]

I was shocked to see the EU ad how a calm, meditative European lady calms the barbarians of India, China through a Dharmic meditative posture.

Harbans I think that second 'barbarian' was a Middle Eastern Moslem guy, not Indian. But I agree with your point in general. Actually instead of 'outrage' at the 'usurpation', we should loudly and publicly express appreciation that Eurotrash have begun to assimilate Dharmic memes and give them a pat on the back.

[Lilo]

Harbans I think that second 'barbarian' was a Middle Eastern Moslem guy, not Indian. But I agree with your point in general. Actually instead of 'outrage' at the 'usurpation', we should loudly and publicly express appreciation that Eurotrash have begun to assimilate Dharmic memes and give them a pat on the back.

^^ Carlji, you are mistaken.
The saffron+blue+turban combo is a common attire of a Sikh gatka martial artist .



In the context of this discussion
Here is an old wikileak

Eastern promise, western fears

The U.S. ambassador in Paris met Michel Rocard, a former Prime Minister of France, in October 2005 for one of those sweeping, freewheeling chats that Gallic statesmen evidently specialise in. The bulk of the conversation deals with the French political scene but at the end, M. Rocard shares his concerns about the place of France and the United States in the new world order and proposes a joint Euro-American think-tank to prepare for the future. “Speaking of the growth of India and China, along with all the other challenges confronting both of us,” the leaked cable quotes the senior French politician as saying, “We need a vehicle where we can find solutions for these challenges together — so when these monsters arrive in 10 years, we will be able to deal with them.”

[Agnimitra]

^ True, but they're always mixing stereotypes up. I think in their heads they were thinking of an Islamic "towel-head" warrior type. They're struggling to integrate their huge Moslem populations.

[Lilo]

^ True, but they're always mixing stereotypes up. I think in their heads they were thinking of an Islamic "towel-head" warrior type. They're struggling to integrate their huge Moslem populations.

Or it can be as inane as successive google searches for martial arts of China,Brazil,India which would have likely thrown up Kung fu, Capoeira and Gatka .

[ramana]

http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=2304

Hope floats
Rural and new urban voters will ultimately save India from the venal governing class, avers Gautam Sen.

London, 4 June 2012: Structural and sociological factors are major reasons for the far-reaching socio-economic debacle India has ended within its sixty-fifth year of independence. I have argued earlier that the adoption of a parliamentary system of government was a huge error of judgement. A more insulated, presidential form, would have allowed balancing of diverse sectarian demands under the overarching umbrella of a national vote, constraining accentuation of deeply-rooted faultlines in Indian society. The parliamentary system has given full play to every socio-political division and real or imagined grievance instead of allowing them to be addressed with a combination of measured policy assuagement by rulers and accommodation by the ruled.

{Not really. Its petty small time leaders who cast big shadows that are the problem. Parlimentary systems provides voice for the marginalized so they feel part of the system. In Presidential big brother system, its winner takes all and with the avarice of Indian elite they would not be constrained.}

The attempt to resolve every perceived injustice completely, which must inevitably eventually result in endless bloodshed, is in grave danger of being achieved in India. Its long-suffering, meek people have now developed a taste for wilful truculence and its self-seeking educated has filed for moral and intellectual bankruptcy, forgetting self-restraint and sacrifices are imperative for nationhood. India's ruling national elites themselves are well on the way to abandoning all pretence of governing their fissiparous country and are engaged in shameless personal enrichment. In this hapless melee a deeper dynamic is nevertheless in play and understanding it might provide a better grasp of the likely fate of India.

The political elites of India, including its vast bureaucracy, have become somewhat detached from purposive governance that seeks to achieve national societal goals essentially on their intrinsic merits. Huge spending targets are not evidence of goal-oriented purpose when they are unable to connect effectively with implementation. They indicate a certain inertia and imprisonment by past choices that listlessly and powerfully propel movement without real direction. A clue to this reality is provided by the disjuncture between a Planning Commission, unable to provide direction, and reckless foreign spending by its most senior official. He might have paused to reflect on the dire poverty of most of its citizens, whose interests are supposedly the organization's raison d'etre, since his political bosses constantly resort to Mahatma Gandhi's pious injunctions on self-restraint.

India's governing classes may be grimly rational in behaving with egregiously self-serving abandon, stealing and lying. Offered an uncertain future as rulers, though highly privileged and rewarded, and unable to truly impact on policy outcomes, this was always a likely scenario. Indeed, idealism is driven out quickly and any misguided souls entertaining aspirations to assist the nation advance are likely to fall by the wayside. In time, opportunists and crooks have come to dominate Indian political life and plunder the country, as the shocking statistics on the criminal backgrounds of legislators underline. In the final stages of decay, few upright politicians remain to curb the damage that relentless looting and dishonesty precipitates. And that seems to be the stage India has reached under UPA 2, ironically led by a man initially celebrated for his shining rectitude. The exaggerated analysis above is necessary to illustrate the inference that India has acquired pronounced symptoms of having become, in essence, a predatory state. Such a predilection is usually a matter of degree and the Indian polity has slid dramatically towards the end of the spectrum characterised by predation of late.

The second dimension relates to economic entrepreneurs large and small having two contrasting types of relationships with India's governing elites, on a spectrum that ranges from collusion in joint plunder to obligations to bribe in order to operate as economic agents. Although both relationships can prevail concurrently, the consistent position on the spectrum is likely to depend on size, with the larger conspiring conjointly for mutual gain. Smaller players are consigned to the end that mostly necessitates bribing the governing classes, directly and indirectly (money bribes and excessive charges for services like transportation and energy, etc.), to operate.

Some formally constituted private economic enterprises are in fact owned, indirectly at arms length, by members of the governing class themselves. These profiteer massively by obtaining lucrative government contracts and siphoning off major nationally-owned resources like land and mines. Other essentially private economic operators benefit from similar larceny, but many also position themselves strategically in the marketplace through licensing and other privileges granted by political benefactors. It enables them to extract vast revenues from consumers through entrepreneurial activities, which they share with the governing class. The extent of economic growth is a spin-off from this operational reality and the critical cross-over point that determines its rate is the forbearance of the governing class in plunder because excesses lower the growth rate.

The third dimension of India's political interstices is occupied by external protagonists. They pursue their short and long-term goals with greater freedom as the Indian state atrophies and the governing class is preoccupied with individual political survival and personal enrichment. The external agents within India include a vast number of social NGOs and economic entities. The former are often anything but innocuous charities seeking to relieve poverty and promote empowerment, as they purport. In fact, many engage in cajoling and bribing politicians and the government in order to operate freely and achieve sinister objectives. Their activities range from longer-term goals like religious conversion to create extra-territorial loyalties, of which the Koondankulum episode is one poignant example, to suborning governments to win contracts and influence policy decisions. Manipulating economic policy decisions creates highly profitable opportunities entailing lucrative contracts awarded by state enterprises and policies that allow dubious investment vehicles like Participatory Notes.

More worryingly, in recent years, important national policy perspectives seem inexplicably poised to discard long-held certainties, without adducing compelling arguments for them. There are grounds for suspicion that such puzzling behaviour is a product of the susceptibility of the ruling elite, many of whom harbour criminal backgrounds, to blackmail by well-informed external players and their dedicated Indian associates. Blackmail has become a hugely significant problem in the Indian polity, endangering its very survival.

The hapless majority of India comprises the fourth dimension of its polity, facing awesome impending outcomes of which they are perhaps only vaguely aware. There is nothing to be said of a largely purchased Indian media which foxtrots to the tune of assorted venal paymasters while avowing improbable high purpose and concern for the ordinary citizens of India.

Unfortunately, the vast anonymous masses are vulnerable to mobilization by prize rascals who have developed pushing the right buttons of instinctive prejudice and resentment into an art form. Yet, there are gratifying signs that they do not unfailingly deliver the desired goods. A majority of the criminals who had put themselves forward at the recent Uttar Pradesh assembly elections were rejected and the crass hate-mongering earlier of Nitish Kumar's opponents in Bihar also suffered ignominious setback. Perhaps the dire necessity of daily survival eventually sanitizes the mind, even if false promises initially confound judgement.

It may also be anticipated that the ordinary voter across the length and breadth of India, struggling to find their daily roti or rice, will deliver a resounding verdict on the serial revelations of incredible corruption that ultimately rob them of the basics of survival. Middle class India itself doesn't yet count, partly because many don't vote though they seem to have a pretty shrewd idea of what is happening to their country. Their numbers are growing rapidly, with India's urban population predicted to exceed 600 million by 2030. The diverse constituents of urban India share an understanding that reasonable governance is essential for tolerable living, as Gujarat's voters have repeatedly reaffirmed by voting for Narendra Modi. They and rural voters, with whom the majority of these recent migrants to urban India have much in common, may be the saving of India. Together, they will be in a position to choose a government they deserve and its genuine nationalist credentials will surely be a pregnant issue.

Dr Gautam Sen taught Political Economy at the London School of Economics and Politics.

[ramana]

Declassified IB record revealing Netaji's USSR escape plan.

So most likely that was the hold Moscow had on INC.

They could release the Kraken in case INC doesn't behave.

[brihaspati]

Gautam Sen draws attention to a favourite topic of mine - the systemic procedures to entangle future leaders into doing things that would allow them to be blackmailed, and unless such blackmailing elements are secured - the leader will not be able to "rise".

This was perhaps most strongly - a British innovation, but we need to have a serious thought, scoially as to how to deal with the problem. One of the major forces behind blackmailing is the creation or supposition of hard values, against which people can be made to appear fallen. Hard values are typically - when politically used - based on sexual or monetary issues. Those theologies most concerned with power, such as the ME derived ones, devote an exceptionally large space to "sexual" and "monetary" crimes.

The primary reason here is no abstract concept of morality - but because the basic urge of social jealousy can be used to mobilize against a man or a woman who can be portrayed as getting "extra enjoyments" denied to the majority - again denied by the "hard values" on sexuality and money. Thus the ME religions evolved extra stress on sexual and monetary "crimes" [crimes against religion forwarded hard values] as a means of social control, and creating a power base for the theologians without taking any responsibilities for economy or state. By making these "hard issues", the theologians ensure that most people would not be able to keep within boundaries set, and thus would be psychologically manipulable and the theologians could enjoy enormous power by being selective about on whom and how much the hard values would be applied. Its a stick that can be used to beat even the rashtra with. Maybe the ME religions became so popular in Europe and the empires becauseof this very feature.

The Brits applied the technique on India too for exactly the same reason. That many of their "hard values" were completely misfit for Indian society is amply clear in the 19th century so-called imperial legal reforms for India.

We should start thinking as to whether what we dance so much about as signs of "falling" - should really be kept as Indian "values" at all, or look at whether Indian traditions before the advent of ME imperialist religions, were more "liberal" than we currently have adopted from the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic intrusions. Note that in Indian philosophical attitudes, there were other values which were equally important besides sexuality: basic humanism, for example non deceptive attitudes in war as laid out in Mahabharata.

In MBH, even the "good guys" have to suffer for saying even "white lies" and even a descent of the "supreme" cannot escape responsibility or punishment for deception/hurting innocents, while ambiguous genders or cross-dressing are tolerated. Compared to that no punishment but divine sanction for such "crimes" by founders/preachers of ME memes, no problem in deceptively attacking or killing or enslaving but a big, big problem in sexuality as in transexuality or crossdressing.

We might need to rethink these alien concepts introduced into Indian thinking - and which are most useful in constructing the blackmail processes that subverts our leadership selection processes.

[ramana]

People were wondering how did the Indians who fought the British became so docile and sychphants

The Real Indira


Pioneer Book Review

Kanchan Gupta:

Indira Gandhi:

Tryst With Power

Author: Nayantara Sahgal
Publisher: Penguin, Rs399

Little was known about the persona behind the public face of a ruthless ruler and a cunning politician that Indira Gandhi was seen to be. Sahgal provided a glimpse of that persona, says Kanchan Gupta

When it was first published in the wake of Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, Nayantara Sahgal’s finely crafted ‘psycho profile’ of her cousin was quite a rage. It received rave reviews and was much talked about. It’s not often that family tells all about family, and though Mrs Gandhi had become a household name long before she embarked upon the dangerous course of suspending fundamental rights and civil liberties to preserve her hold over power, little was known about the persona behind the public face of a ruthless ruler and a cunning politician. Nayantara Sahgal provided a glimpse of that persona.

Three decades later, when Penguin decided to republish Indira Gandhi: Tryst with Power, I had expected similar interest would be generated — all said and done, Mrs Gandhi remains the most charismatic as well as most enigmatic leader of post-Independence India. Yet, the book, whose text has been revised and updated to bring the study of Mrs Gandhi’s politics, has elicited little response, which is a pity and a shame.

There could be three reasons for this. Twenty-eight years after her tragic assassination, Mrs Gandhi has been all but forgotten and evokes neither interest nor intrigue. Indians who have come of age in recent years have no memory of the woman who was admired and loathed, at home and abroad, in equal measure and who, in her own way, fashioned a post-Nehru Indian society, politics and economy whose features, no matter how hard the effort to erase them, continue to block change and reform.

A second reason could be that with Sonia Gandhi dominating the mindscape of middle India — amazingly if not coincidentally, she too is admired and loathed though perhaps not in equal measure, the latter outweighing the first, at home — it is only natural that popular interest in the original and one-and-only Mrs Gandhi should have waned. Not surprisingly, flatterers who flourished under Mrs Gandhi’s tutelage have latched on to the inheritor of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’s political legacy and lavish praise on her in the same obsequious manner that fetched them despise in 1975-77.

But there was more to Mrs Gandhi than the Emergency that put on display her contempt for democracy and its institutions — despotism and tyranny seemed far more preferable to her than the messy affair of upholding freedoms and liberties. In fact, the Emergency came much after she had demonstrated her disregard for democratic politics and governance in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution. It could be argued that if morning shows the day, Mrs Gandhi’s role in the dismissal of India’s first Communist Government headed by EMS Namboodiripad in 1960, when the power she wielded was insignificant compared to what she came to wield in the 1970s, showed her attitude towards democracy.

There is, of course, the third reason why the book has failed to become the talking point it was in 1977: In this age of instant books that titillate the 20-somethings, a perceptive study of Mrs Gandhi’s psycho profile is unlikely to find many takers. Sadly, Nayantara Sahgal, the brilliant recluse who never flogged her family connections to promote herself as a writer, is now remembered only by those who remember her mother too. And not many people remember Jawaharlal Nehru’s feisty sister Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit to whom goes the credit of famously describing her niece as the “only man in her Cabinet”.

If Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit knew her niece sufficiently well to have described her so aptly, Nayantara Sahgal knew her cousin well enough to pen this revealing and riveting account of Mrs Gandhi’s politics which took shape as a paper for a conference on ‘Leadership in South Asia’ and then took the form of a book. As Nayantara Sahgal told Tehelka recently: “It is not a biography, but a study of her political style, based on my observation of political trends, and my own knowledge of her.”

And what does that knowledge principally say about Mrs Gandhi? “Her inconsistency showed up in her different approaches to domestic and foreign policy. For example, she fought a war to establish a democratically-elected Government in Bangladesh, while at home — long before the Emergency — democracy was set back drastically with her demand for committed civil servants, her attempt to bring the Press under Government control, and the high centralisation that damaged the federal system. Inner-party democracy in the Congress also suffered for want of discussion,” says Nayantara Sahgal in that interview, “History does not need to be ‘kind’. It needs to evaluate. I’m yet to see an objective evaluation of her place in history.”

Till that objective evaluation happens — which is a near impossibility given our obsession with the reality show called Indian Idolatory — we must make do with Nayantara Sahgal’s book in which the chronicler is at once far removed as well as intimately involved with the subject of her study. I could be horribly wrong, though. Aunt and niece, cousin and cousin, may have believed they knew each other, but if truth be told, nobody can say with any degree of certitude that he or she knew the real Mrs Gandhi. She was neither ‘Durga’ nor ‘Demon’ — those are lazy labels for someone who could out do Mephistopheles in what he did best with a beguiling smile on her face.

The reviewer is a senior journalist based in Delhi

There you go. The Emergency imposition literally changed their mindset in the modern period and showed it was profitable or faida to be subservient to the first family.

[Manish_Sharma]

Maybe the question should've been put here:

Who can be said to be a national leader?

1. Vajpayee ----- Never won a state for BJP, only remained dilli-billi MP
2. Sharad Pawar --------- Known as maharashtra strongman
3. Lalu Yadav -------remains known as ex-bihar CM, winning on yadav+muslim votebank*
4. Mulayam Yadav-------remains known as ex-UP CM, winning on yadav+muslim votebank
5. Mayawati-------ex-UP chief minister, who is standing up cadre in other states too.....
6. Modi--------Gujarat CM for last 1 decade
7. Nitish Kumar----------Bihar CM
8. Achyutanandan--------Ex-Kerala CM
9. Mamta Banerjee------Bengal CM + ex-rail mantri
10. Periyar-------- Thinker & starter of Dravid movement, remained postless like Thakre
11. Karunanidhi----------ex-CM of TN
12. MGR--------Ex-CM TN, who kept power away from Karunanidhi as long as he lived.
13. N T Ramarao-----------Rooted out Congress from AP and remained CM for many years.
14. Narsimha Rao------like Vajpayee but was in Cabinet for many years.
15. Naidu----------lost the legacy of NTR to reddy.
16. Advani--------again a dilli-billi
17. Jaylalita----Current CM of TN
18. Naveen Patnaik------Current CM of Orissa
19. Buddha Deb Bhattacharya-----Ex-CM of Bengal.


Now who amongst these can be called a national leader? Is being a minister in central cabinet the criteria? Or winning a state and being its CM for many years?
How is a national leader defined?

* At least on two occasions I have heard Lalu say during his speeches in Lok Sabha "I belong to a cast which never lies" but nobody protested!

[Sushupti]

[RoyG]

Former PM IK Gujral passed away.

[ramana]

X-Post....

Swapan Da talks about Dilli-Billis and their existential battle against Modi.Ofcourse he is being civil and suave about Windbag. Reality is known to everyone.

Why Limo Libs hate Modi

Swapan Dasgupta

First, it will be clear whether or not the electorate of Gujarat continues to retain faith in the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi. With a 70 per cent turnout (in Phase 1 of the poll), a spirited election campaign that was centred on the State Government’s performance over 11 years, and little chance of a hung Assembly, the answer to this question should be unambiguous.
The second issue will touch on the future of Indian politics. If the BJP is successful in meeting the combined onslaught of the liberal intelligentsia, the mainstream media, the local leadership of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Gujarat Parivartan Party, the Central Government and the local Congress, there will be compelling pressure on the National Democratic Alliance (which, naturally, includes the BJP) to discard the absurd idea of ‘collective leadership’ and anoint Modi as its prime ministerial candidate for the next general election.

I use the phrase ‘compelling pressure’ with some pre-mediation because I am almost certain that the process of declaring Modi the first among equals will not be without hiccups. Such a momentous step in a polity where succession planning is both non-existent and bereft of institutional structures is never without hiccups. Assuming Modi passes the December 20 test, the coming months will be delight for the media as a multitude of veterans, rivals and unnamed ‘sources’ will air their misgivings of such an ‘extreme’ step.

There will invariably be questions raised about Modi’s suitability to move from local to national politics-as if participation in State politics automatically negates a politician’s ability to play in a larger arena. There will be doubts raised over Modi’s temperament: can a man used to being the supreme boss of a one-party Government adapt to the infuriating complexities of coalition politics? There will also be the Nagpur question: will the RSS leadership allow such a towering individual to put the parent organisation in the shade? And, finally, there will be the inevitable Muslim question: can India be ruled by a man whose very name is anathema to the Muslim minority, at least outside Gujarat?

None of these posers can be brushed aside as irrelevant. No doubt the issues will be raised by people who have been opposed to Modi for the past 10 years and who are still hopeful that a ‘silent undercurrent’ will stop the Chief Minister’s juggernaut in Gujarat itself. But they are powerful people who wield considerable clout in the Establishment of what Modi derisively calls the ‘Delhi Sultanate’. For them, Modi is not merely someone they disagree with; he is an enemy. They would rather countenance the indefinite continuation of Gandhi-Vadra rule and the perpetuation of cronyism than imagine an India in the hands of an outlander from Vadnagar. Modi threatens their ‘idea of India’.

What we have witnessed and perhaps will continue to witness till the last voter in the next general election has pressed the EVM button is a form of class war. It is a war not about economic philosophies or even about something as nebulous as modernity. Looked at from every conceivable angle, the Gujarat over which Modi has presided for the past 11 years is a showcase for resurgent India. Nor is there any fear that Modi will pave the way for some perverse, backward-looking and insular society. Trade, technology and even globalisation have been central to the Gujarati mind, a reason why that society never took very kindly to the Nehruvian way.

No, the class war centres on the exercise of power, control and clout. A small example may suffice. Last week, a group of influential media people-known in rarefied circles as the Limousine Liberals-travelled to Gujarat, courtesy an international investment house, to do a spot of election tourism. In the recent past they travelled to Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal to observe the ‘real India’. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the Limo Libs are always given an audience by the leaders of the main parties. In Gujarat, the Congress rolled out the red carpet for them and I am informed (but am yet to verify) that the party’s heir apparent also found time to exchange notes with the group. The only exception was Modi. He encountered them at one of his public rallies, acknowledged them with a polite Namaste and went about his main business.
It is not for me to say whether Modi missed an opportunity to charm those outside his natural constituency-they are itching to be wooed-or whether he thought that spending time with those who are intractably opposed to him the individual is a waste of time. The point is that the likes of the Limo Libs are inherently ill at ease with a man who challenges the existing power structure without inhibition and with aggression.

This is where Modi differs from a Atal Behari Vajpayee. Despite being the so-called “right man in the wrong party”, Vajpayee sought to co-opt a section of the Establishment and I have no doubt that his cultivated ambiguity and Brahminical pedigree came in quite hand. Modi by contrast has always banked on pressure from below to get his way. His politics is based on raw energy. This is what the upholders of the status quo find frightening and unbearable.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... -modi.html

Is Bharat facing an Andrew Jackson moment?

[ramana]

X-Post....



SL Bhyrappa on Distorting History: A Personal Account (Part 1)


During the year 1969 – 70 the Central Government under Mrs. Indira Gandhi established a committee under the Chairmanship of G.Parthasarathy, a diplomat close to Nehru-Gandhi family. Its task was to integrate the nation through education. At that time I was a reader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and was selected as one of the five members of the committee. In our first meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, as Chairman of the committee explained the purpose of our committee in typically diplomatic language: “It is our duty not to sow the seeds of thorns in the minds of the growing children which will grow up as barriers to national integration. Such thorns are found mostly in the history courses. Occasionally we can find them in language and social science courses also. We have to weed them out. We have to include only such thoughts that go towards inculcating the concept of national integration firmly in the minds of our children. This committee carries this great responsibility.”

The other four members were nodding respectfully. But I said, “Sir, I am unable to understand your words. Will you please explain with a few illustrations?” The Chairman responded: “Ghazni Mohammed looted the Somnath Temple, Aurangzeb built mosques by demolishing the temples in Kashi and Mathura, he collected jizya— is it possible to build a strong India under the present circumstances by conveying such useless facts? What purpose do they serve, other than generating hatred?”

“But are they not historical truths?” I persisted.

“Plenty of truths are there. Using these truths judiciously is the wise way to teach history,” he retorted. The remaining four members simply nodded their heads saying “Yes, yes.” But I was not prepared to let him off.

“You yourself gave examples of Kashi and Mathura. Even today, lakhs of pilgrims from all corners of the country visit these places every year. They can see for themselves the huge mosques built using the walls, pillars and columns that once belonged to demolished temples. They can also see a recently built cow shed like shack in a corner, behind the mosque, that serves as their temple. All these pilgrims are distressed to witness such awful structures. They describe the plight of their temples to their relatives after they return home. Can this create national integration? You can hide such history in the school texts. But can we hide such facts when these children go on excursions and see the truth for themselves? Researchers have listed more than thirty thousand such ruined temples in India. Can we hide them all? . . . . .”

Mr. Parthasarthy interrupted me and asked: “You are a professor of Philosphy. Can you please tell us what is the purpose of history?”

“Nobody can define the purpose of history. We do not know how the things will shape up because of the development of science and technology in the future. Some western thinkers might call it the philosophy of history. But such thoughts are futile. Our discussion here should be— what is the purpose of teaching history? History is seeking out the truths about our past events, learning about ancient human lives by studying the inscriptions, records, literary works, relics, artifacts etc. We should learn also not to commit the same blunders that our predecessors committed. We have to imbibe the noble qualities that they adopted; historical truths help us to learn all these things.”

“What if this search for truth hurts the feelings of the minority? Can we divide society? Can we sow the seeds of poison?” He tried to stop me with these questions.

“Sir, the categorization on the lines of majority and minority would itself be dividing the society, or at least a step towards dividing the society. This idea of ‘seeds of poison’ is prejudiced. Why should the minority think of Gazni Mohammed and Aurangzeb as their own people and heroes? Mughal kingdom was destroyed by the religious bigotry of Aurangzeb. It was at its height in Akbar’s time because his policy of tolerance led to religious and social harmony. Can’t we teach such lessons to children without offending the historical truths? Before teaching the lessons to be learnt from the history, should we not explain the historical truths? This idea of hiding true history is driven politics. This trend will not last long. Whether they are minority or majority, if the education does not impart the character to face the truth with emotional maturity, such education is meaningless and also dangerous.” I replied.

Parthasarathy agreed. He said he appreciated my scholarship and the ability to think clearly. During the lunch break he called me aside, indicated his closeness to me by placing his hand on my shoulders. He then said with a winning smile: “What you say is correct academically. You go and write an article about what you said. But when the government formulates a policy covering the whole nation, it has to consider the interests of all the people. Intellectually pure principles do not serve any purpose.”

Next day when we met, I struck to my stand. I argued that history that is not based on truth is futile and dangerous. I did not budge even when Parthasarathy showed his irritation on his face. The morning session closed without arriving at any conclusion. Parthasarathy did not speak to me again. We met again after a fortnight. The committee had been re-structured, without me. In my place was a lecturer in history by name Arjun Dev known for his leftist leanings. The revised text books of science and social studies published by NCERT and the new lessons that were introduced in these texts were written under his guidance. These are the books which were prescribed as texts in the Congress and Communist ruled states or they guided the text book writers in these States.

Later, I (Bhyrappa) commented on this in a speech I gave at Alwas Nudisiri, in October 2005:

In the NCERT books for XI standard, the Ancient India part is written by the Marxist historian R.S. Sharma and the Medieval India part is by Satish Chandra, also a Marxist. When examined, one can observe that how members belonging to this group had a scheme to brainwash the minds of growing children. According to them Ashoka preached to respect even (stress is mine) Brahmins by advocating the quality of tolerance. He had banned the ritual of sacrificing the animals and birds. When the performance of yagnas was stopped due to this ban, Brahmins lost their share of dakshina (cash gifts) and their livelihood was affected. The Maurya empire disintegrated after Ashoka and many parts of this kingdom came under the rule of Brahmins.

How childish can one be— to claim that a highly influential religion that had spread all over India and even beyond declined because dissatisfied Brahmins were deprived of their dakshina (cash gifts)? Their other claim is that Muslims demolished temples to loot the riches and wealth accumulated in these temples. This explanation is supposed to rationalize their actions. In some other context they may even say the looting may be according to the laws of Shariat which again paints the events as legally sanctioned. [Sic: Churches in India own huge tracts of prime land. By this logic, it is perfectly legitimate to take this land and use it for other purposes! Editor.]

Actually, Buddhism did not disappear from India after Ashoka. The truth was told by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a Buddhist himself. In the section, the decline and fall of Buddhism (Writings and Speeches volume III, Government of Maharashtra 1987 pp 229-38) he noted that after Muslim invaders destroyed the universities of Nalanda, Vikramasheela, Jagaddala, Odanthapura etc., followed by brutal killings of the Buddhist monks, forced the survivors to escape to Nepal, Tibet and other neighboring countries to save their lives. As he wrote, “The roots of Buddhism were axed. Islam killed Buddhism by killing priestly class of Buddhism. This is the worst catastrophe suffered by Buddhism in India.”


Like the Devil quoting scripture, Marxists quote Ambedkar whenever it is convenient for them to denigrate Hinduism, but ignore his inconvenient words like “the decline of Buddhism in India is due to the terrifying actions of Muslims.” R.S. Sharma the author of NCERT text on Ancient India, New Delhi, 1992 p 112 writes, “Buddha viharas attracted Turkish invaders because of their wealth. They were the special greedy targets for the invaders. Turks killed many Buddhist monks. Despite these killings, many monks escaped to Nepal and Tibet.”

Who were these Turks? Hindus? Here the clever Marxist Sharma has hidden the fact that these ‘Turks’ were Muslims who destroyed these religious places as dictated by Sharia (Islamic Law). He tries to hide this fact by calling Muslims of Turkey with only the tribal name Turkish. At the same time they (he and others) write that Buddhism declined during Ashoka’s reign because of Brahmins who were deprived of their dakshina (monetary gifts). One should appreciate their sophistry— hiding the truth about Turks being Muslims, but creating the falsehood that Brahmins deprived of dakshina were responsible for the decline of Buddhism after Ashoka. Latin rhetoricians called such a tactic suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.

Eagerly await his second part.

I looked for his book "Parva" in Hyderabad in English edition. It was sold out for five years!

[Atri]

[ramana]

S.L. Bhyrappa's part 2

SL Bhyrappa on Distorting History – Marxist Monopoly Part 2

-----
Introduced and edited by Navaratna Rajaram, Contributing Editor, Folks Magazine

Editor’s Note: In his previous column S.L. Bhyrappa recounted his experience while serving on a government appointed committee that used ‘national integration’ as pretext for propagating a version of history that whitewashed the unpleasant aspects of Islamic rule in India. He gave also his view of the methodology and subterfuge followed by some of India’s prominent historians. In the present article Bhyrappa expresses his views on the writing of history in India since Independence. What is given here is not a near verbatim translation but a summary of his views prepared by the contributing editor.

Background: Muslim rulers of India have left behind voluminous records of their deeds and misdeeds. Beginning with the semi-legendary Chachnama that gives a garbled account of the Arab invasion of Sind, and going well into the 19th century of the Nawabs of Oudh and what was left of the Mughals. We have many court chronicles of rulers great and small covering almost a thousand years. Most of them are in Persian with a few in Turkic dialects (like Babar’s autobiography in the Chagtai dialect). A significant number of these were translated into English by H.M. Elliot with the editorial help of John Dowson. It has been in continuously in print as The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians ever since was published by Truebner of London in eight volumes in 1867 – 77. An on-line version is available at: http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main ... 0%26ct%3D0

Most of these are written in the Persian court chronicle style so some caution is advisable in reading them. They are by no means objective accounts of the rulers they describe. Hindu records are few and far between, but rich in inscriptions. There could be several reasons for this paucity of Hindu literary records. To begin with, the massive destruction of Hindu and Buddhist centers of learning at the hands of Muslim invaders. To take just one example, in 1781 Tipu Sultan of Mysore burnt down the royal library containing manuscripts going back to the 14th century. And Tipu ruled for less than twenty years. Second, dislocation of the hereditary character of professionals like local administrators that did not need elaborate documentation.

This has led to a general thesis that Indians (meaning Hindus) lacked any sense of history. This appears to be hasty and exaggerated. We have a mature and objective history like the Kashmirian Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (c. 1150 AD) that could not have grown out of a historiographical vacuum. Kalhana uses sources like coins and inscriptions that scholars began to study only in the 18th century. Also, he does not write like a court chronicler but an objective historian often critical of kings and rulers. Nonetheless we have to live with the fact literary records for the Hindu period are not voluminous.

What follows is a summary of Bhyrappa’s views supplemented by Editor’s comments.

European period

British scholars who started writing Indian history on the lines of European history have introduced us to a basically sound method. But theirs was motivated scholarship, for they had an axe to grind— to make their rule acceptable to the natives. First they established that Indian culture is rooted in the Vedic culture. (There was never any dispute about this.) Then they introduced a convenient falsehood. They claimed that the creators of this culture are Aryans who they asserted were not Indians but outsiders from Eurasia. This was the beginning of the Aryan invasion theory which claims that they established themselves by destroying the local (native) civilization.

[Sic: These natives were supposed to have been ‘Dravidian’ speakers driven south by the Aryan invaders. The person most responsible for this was the missionary Robert Caldwell, Bishop of Tirunelveli. Later, in the 1820s when Indian archaeologists Daya Ram Sahni and Rakhal Das Bannerji working under John Marshall discovered Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro of the Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilization, these were labeled as ‘Dravidian’ without any evidence let alone proof. We now know they belong to the Late Vedic Age (c. 3000 – 2000 BC), or just after the Mahabharata War (c. 3100 BC).

There is no record of or even hint of this Aryan invasion— it is just conjecture which its supporters insist on calling a theory. It has persisted only because the rulers who created them—first the British, and then their disciples and Marxists—were in control of history writing as we shall soon see. Incidentally these so-called Aryan invaders were the only ones that have left no records. All the invaders who came later have left records. These include Persians, Scythians (Shakas), Huns (Huna), all of whom have left extensive literary and inscriptional records. Last of the invaders were the Muslims. Editor]

As Bhyrappa notes, the British claimed: only after all these invaders, we (British) came. Therefore if we are not natives of this country, you too are not natives of this land because your Aryan ancestors came from Eurasia and brought with them the Sanskrit language and the Vedas. The British introduced and strengthened this argument in the universities, media and also in the minds of the English educated people. According to them the Rigveda the religious text of the Aryans was composed when they were outside India. That means the basic religion of Indians was originated from a foreign land.

This argument effectively severed the spiritual relationship between the land and its people—India and Indians—that had sustained them for thousands of years. So India or Bharatavarsha was not the Punya-bhumi of Indians, even of Hindus because the roots of their religion and culture lay outside India. Their ancestors, the Aryans were outside invaders who brought their language, religion and culture.

This is essentially the view reflected in the influential work Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru. It became also the way of influential historians after Independence seeking power and patronage. Karl Marx also said the same thing— India has no history, but only a record of successive invaders. This suited Nehru as well as Marxist historians that followed. The one important scholar to reject the Aryan invasion and the foreign origin of the Vedas was Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, but Indian historians had nothing to gain by following him.

English educated Indians were grappling with this alien feeling for about 100 years, and persisted with it even after India became free. This sowed the seeds of hatred and racial hostility between Aryans who were said to be outsiders and the supposedly native Dravidians. It is easy to create hatred and hostility. But it is very difficult to come out of such feelings even after it is shown that the reasons quoted in support of these arguments were proved wrong. Although later research has shown all this to be false, nobody has yet written a complete history of India from the Indian point of view. [ Sic: See how Catholics have clung to their beliefs even after science has discredited them and history has exposed its horrors like the Inquisition and the genocide of Native Americans. Editor]

K.M. Munshi and the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

The eminent scholar and national leader Kanhailal Munshi, who founded the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan had planned to produce a complete history of India from an Indian perspective. He invited the distinguished historian R.C. Majumdar to be the editor of a multi-volume series later to become famous as History and Culture of the Indian People. Majumdar agreed but demanded and obtained complete freedom with regard to the selection of writers and the content. Munshi being a scholar himself agreed.

It is the outstanding product of historical scholarship of post independence India. While it is in need of revision, especially the first volume on the Vedic Age, the scholarship, integrity and thoroughness that went into its writing cannot be questioned. Even the revisions have become necessary because of new discoveries relating to Harappan archaeology, population genetics, collapse of the Aryan invasion and the identification of Harappans as Vedic people. The authors, especially Majumdar did not hesitate to take unpopular positions. For example he denied that the 1857 uprising was really India’s first War of Independence. He wrote: “The so-called First National War of Independence is neither the First, nor National nor a War of Independence.”

[Sic: It is interesting to compare this with Ramachandra Guha’s recent India After Gandhi covering the post-Independence period. Chronologically it should be the successor to the final volume (‘Struggle for Freedom’) of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan magnum opus. But in style and spirit it is more in tune with the Persian court chronicles of Medieval India. The court it serves is needless to say the Nehru-Gandhi family. Editor]

National Book Trust, a government body had proposed to translate these volumes into all the Indian languages. But the proposal was shot down by the ICHR (Indian Council for Historical Research) because it had come and the control of Marxists like S.Gopal, Tapan Roy Choudhary, Satish Chandra, Romilla Thapar, R.S. Sharma and others; the committee that ruled against it was made up entirely of Marxists. Further, the committee came up with an alternative list of books for the translation into Indian languages. All these books were written by either these members of the committee or by their fellow Marxist comrades. Their list included five books of ICHR president R.S. Sharma, three books of S. Gopal (the son of scholar philosopher S. Radhakrishnan) , three of Romilla Thapar, two of Bipin Chandra, two of books by Irfan Habib, two books of his father Mohammed Habib, one by Satish Chandra, and the books of E.M.S. Namboodripad, the senior leader of Communist Party of India and their ilk. But there was not a single book of Lokamanya Tilak, Jadunath Sarkar or R.C. Majumdar.

[Sic: This kind of complete monopoly is what one expects in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union, not in a supposedly democratic country like India. But in many respects India remains a feudal state whose institutions are controlled by court favorites. There is also a financial angle to this. These were prescribed in schools and colleges and sold in large numbers yielding hefty royalties to the authors. All this is discussed by Arun Shourie in his book Eminent Historians. This will be the subject of a future column. Editor]

Nehru and Marxist dominance

At the time of Independence, Gandhi’s influence on the Indian public had begun to wane. The Partition and the horrors it had inflicted on the people of North India had made him highly unpopular. (His assassination by Godse greatly helped his elevation to sainthood.) Nehru was never a follower of Gandhi or Gandhian thought with its Indian roots. By temperament and upbringing Nehru was an Englishman, but with great admiration for the communism of Russia and also China. After he came to power he sidelined leaders that were close to Gandhi. The death of Patel removed his major rival. The disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose also proved highly convenient. [Sic: At the time of Independence the most popular leader in India was neither Gandhi nor Nehru, but Subhas Bose. He was also younger than Nehru. Editor]

After sidelining the veterans, Nehru cultivated and supported Communists like V.K. Krishna Menon, K.N. Panikkar (Indian ambassador to China who proved more helpful to China than to India) and the like. Under their influence Nehru surrendered Tibet to China while getting nothing in return— not even a boundary agreement. He also signed the now discredited Panch Sheel Agreement with Mao. He neglected the defense of the India-China border because Communists like Menon told him China would never attack India because India was also socialist! The result was that India was humiliated by China in the 1962 border war.

In the meantime communists (Marxists) had occupied the Indian intellectual space. Nehru had a scheme to divide Hindus and to please the Muslims for his political survival. It was the same strategy that British used to continue their regime in this country. Only he called it ‘Secularism’ which really means unrelated to religion— that is to say of this world or laukik. But in Nehruvian terms it meant favoring Muslims and Christians over Hindus. Nehru even introduced Haj Bill in 1959, to provide government subsidies for Muslim pilgrims. The distinguished lawyer and judge M.C. Chagla has written that when he wanted to stand for election to the Lok Sabha, Nehru asked him stand from Aurangabad because Chagla was a Muslim and Aurangabad had a large Muslim population, even though Chagla had lived all his life in Mumbai!

So Nehru was responsible for vote bank politics as well as distortion of history. (In his books he glorified Islamic vandals like Babar and even Mohammed of Ghazni as tolerant.) Indira Gandhi who succeeded him had only one aim— holding on to power at any cost. She eliminated the old guard, and allowed the Communists in. The Communists knew very well that they were in no position to occupy the seat of power directly, so they devised a plan so that at least they would be influential both politically and intellectually. So they supported Indira Gandhi who rewarded them by allowing them to enter and occupy the posts in the universities, media, ICHR, NCERT and others. It still continues.

Communist Russia also put pressure on India to tread this path. Nehru and his daughter had become so close to Russia that they were not in a position to oppose her strongly, especially after the 1962 China debacle. Communists adopted the tactics they had learnt from the dictatorial models of Russia and China to gain compete control after occupying the seats of power in the intellectual life of the country. This helped them when the UPA government controlled by Sonia Gandhi came to power, the Communists were in a position to destabilize the government. Also, the built in anti-Hindu bias of Sonia Gandhi and her court ensured continuance of the same policies.

In the years since the UPA came to power (2004) it has become clear that Sonia Gandhi’s loyalty and attachment to her family and friends (like Ottavio Quattrocchi) greatly exceeds her loyalty to her adopted country, if she has any at all. She has ensured her hold over power by installing Manmohan Singh as PM and Pratibha Patil as President, neither of whom has any popular base and not elected. She and her family members have no educational qualifications to understand what is going on in the intellectual field. They neither understand nor care if history is distorted, as long as their dynasty is glorified above all others. This their sycophants and the media are ever ready to do.

This is facilitated by a servile media, especially the English language media and the elite which treat Sonia Gandhi with kid gloves. Perhaps it is the residual colonial influence and inferiority complex towards Whites still lingering. Perhaps as Sri Aurobindo said, India needs a second Freedom Movement to become completely free. That is yet to happen.

[Agnimitra]

S.L. Bhyrappa's part 2

SL Bhyrappa on Distorting History – Marxist Monopoly Part 2

-----
Introduced and edited by Navaratna Rajaram, Contributing Editor, Folks Magazine
Hindu records are few and far between, but rich in inscriptions. There could be several reasons for this paucity of Hindu literary records. To begin with, the massive destruction of Hindu and Buddhist centers of learning at the hands of Muslim invaders. To take just one example, in 1781 Tipu Sultan of Mysore burnt down the royal library containing manuscripts going back to the 14th century. And Tipu ruled for less than twenty years. Second, dislocation of the hereditary character of professionals like local administrators that did not need elaborate documentation.

I see, so the hereditary caste-monopolies on certain professions was a very intelligent way of Indic civilization to obviate "elaborate documentation". The patriotic Indic intelligentsia eliminated the need for elaborate documentation, and the evil invaders destroyed all historical documentation altogether onlee. Tut tut, too bad the communists and dalits can't see the virtues of that great ancient system - which must be justified and defended by all protectors of Indic civilization.

[RamaY]

^ why do you think the entire western thought process is so scared of caste system?

Wait till the time when caste triumphs religion (as they believe it).

[Agnimitra]

^^ RamaY ji, humans bond with one another based on both biological and ideological shared heritage. No need to pit the one against the other. Similarly, no need to lock down aspects of socio-political order based on one or the other. Its that simple.

I would beware false dichotomies. Westerners are artificially pitting caste against religion, and some Hindus want to react and play the same game and justify caste-rigidity.

Caste may triumph religion in the shrinking civilizations. In India I believe religion/Dharmic ideology will triumph caste. The expansion of socio-economic space will facilitate that, but is not the main cause of that.

[RamaY]

Fair enough if you want to call SD a religion. But please remember, it is this religion that gave casteism.

Caste system spreads to new branches in the growing populations. The point here is the fact that the individual cannot disassociate himself unless he becomes Sam-nyasi. Until then caste stays with him.

When SD becomes the dominating and ruling standard of the society, caste becomes one with SD.

[Agnimitra]

^^ See RamaY ji, a statement like 'this religion (SD) gave casteism' is highly controversial. We can continue this discussion on an appropriate GDF thread if you wish.

Healthy inter-caste transmission of all factors of life is the symptom of SD becoming the ruling standard of society. Sannyasa is to dissociate from any kind of partisan spirit.

"Caste becomes one with SD" may be an end phenomenon of a re-balancing of physical and metaphysical forces, but by no means is it to be considered a strategic goal that must be legislated, evaluated, "encouraged", or enforced.

Strategic leadership for the future of India must be attentive to the functional relationships between naturally occurring entities within the Indian polity - that includes castes, sects, ecology, etc. The relationships must be cleared of conflicts, and be optimized based on a service mentality. Instead of focusing on relationships and function, it must not become obsessed with structure.

[devesh]

for future strategic leadership, we need future leaders who are trained in the present. they need the right kind of seeds which can later germinate.

for India, the challenge is multi-fold because we have to start from scratch. the secular regime has done a good job of denuding the Hindus of their Hindutva. and the 100 years of Colonial education before that was the foundation on which the secular regime based its education.

so, often times, even while engaging with intelligent people, you will get stuck at the most basic level. the most basic ideas seem almost alien to our educated/literate people.

the notion that Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism is "different" from the Abrahamic religions should be obvious to anyone who gives even a cursory glance at the two systems. but the same concept, so obvious it would seem, is almost incomprehensible to the literate Indians. "All is same; difference is maya" is a very strongly embedded feeling among our people.

to combat it, we need a "course module" that can effectively teach them the differences, and the need to encourage and nourish those differences.

even if it is all in English, it's fine. it's a compromise that might be necessary for now. it will be up to us to also plant the right information about making sure that the indigenous languages survive. and it will be up to future generations to take up the task of a unifying linguistic scheme which can act as the common medium of communication for people from various corners of Bharat.

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

When Brihaspati ji used to say a few year back, that younger lot will be confrontational & force things, I couldn't believe him. I thought it was loosing battle as youngsters are highly westernised, just don't bother & don't vote. Now with an explosive growth of internet, things are changing.


Some examples:

1. https://twitter.com/daddy_san/status/285128436660453376
Oculus (@daddy_san)
12/29/12 1:01 PM

Haha! A friend was on the same flight as Abhijit Mukherjee. Apparently the passengers chanted "PAINTED AND DENTED", embarrassing him a lot.


2. https://twitter.com/madhukishwar/status ... 4605674496

Madhu Kishwar (@madhukishwar)
12/30/12 7:22 AM
@imsachinraut Rahul G's Spain holiday subject of taunts at Jantar Mantar as for eg slogan: Hoo haa hoo haa, Rahul Gandhi chooha


3. https://twitter.com/swapan55/status/285366517976154112

Swapan Dasgupta (@swapan55)
12/30/12 4:47 AM
Why Our Young MPs can't face the new, self-confident and insolent India. Some thoughts on the Delhi protests.
http://www.swapan55.com/2012/12/why-you ... india.html

-----------

Now to news from an journalist who has excellent connections with security establishment. IB has now a full fledged setup with lots of equipment, technology and smart people hired to just focus on 'Right wing internet' and to 'track' them.
----------------

I have been told from reliable sources that:

One 'Policy Wonk' from Bangalore is acting as an 'consultant' to Govt and helping it to prepare the 'lists' of Right wing Hindus.

Another 'Think Tanki' 'Pragmatic_' person seems to be involved with the Youth Icon on various stuff.

[brihaspati]

^^^Raise the idea in the same speculative tactic that regime sponsored historians or intellectuals use :

"is it possible that the 'think-tanki'/'wonks' 'pragamtics_' are possibly being paid with Islamist petro dollars? Is it possible anyone making such lists - gov or otherwise is actually being advised by the same forces that drew up lists of intellectuals to be liquidated on the eve of fall of Dhaka in 1971? So whoever knows these wonks, or are related to them - should start thinking that such people did not even spare their own relatives in their mad rush to lick foreign boots"

[brihaspati]

The youth are not necessarily reacting from the "Hindu" "right wing" viewpoint. At least as yet. What they are reacting from - is what I used to call in my grass green days - as "deintegration". This is a phase of alienation, realization that their regime/gov/power/state is actually primarily concerned with holding on to power and not really interested in progress and sharing that power with upcoming generations. Its a loss of trust and dis-identification stage - with the regime. A similar process happened in the youth psyche in India in the 1920's.

Different groups tried things out in different ways - and youthful energy redirected naturally primarily into confrontation and show of muscle. This was the period when MKG and his group decided to seriously take up the eager "youth" "leaders-in-waiting" as a cooption means of this tide.

What the regime and perhaps moles within the congrez and connected biz interests worked out was a thorough "listing" of potential leaders, and how "hair/ear pullable" they were. Perhaps they were ranked in terms of controllability and personal weaknesses or character flaws, and the ones likely to remain "loyal" were selected for public promotion.

This is the main purpose behind such "listing" at the moment. Its an old Britisjh technique - and only those deemed indigestible will be sought to be controlled/liquidated/eliminated. It also shows that the institutions have maintained their contact with old masters outside uninterrupted and the two regimes collaborate in dealing with their internal opposition.

[ramana]

X-Post....

venug ji,

till about 9750 posts I did not say a single negative word against the INC on BRF. It is a national institution and I did not want to say things to undermine it.

Even after 26/11 and the dossier tamasha, I thought, well hands were tied, there were strategic considerations, perhaps the long view, perhaps some chanakyaniti somewhere invisible to us outside the inner circle.

But after the beheading and Salman Khursheed's non-response, that it will pass, and after Sushil Kumar Shinde's words about Hindu Terror, I've had to change my position of staying above Indian politics.

But the question is why is INC drinking the secular kola so much to undermine Hindu majority and Bharatiya concept? what is it gaining and what is it losing if it lets Nation be Hindu yet let allow religious freedom? is it the lure of ghaddi?

I think it has a lot to do with Chacha's own Islamic antecedents. There are some theories about his Islamic ancestry. Then there are theories about Iron Lady's Muslim husband. Then there was the Catholic input in the form of the current Viceroy. Even the daughter was married into a Christian family.

Considering this influx of Islamic and Christian identities into the dynasty and the suspicion that it was Islamic to begin with, I am not surprised at the strong but hidden anti-Hindu agenda. If the origins are Islamic, then not even a shred of sympathy is to be expected for Bharatiya Civilization.

In India, the big challenge is the 83% Hindu majority, so one can understand why the Islamics and Christianists would form an alliance.

and a cartoon that goes with it.....

What Indian National Congress (INC) has become is "Islamists N Christianists" party.....

About a hundred years ago a bunch of Birts founded INC as a way to corral the political asiprations of the Indian people newly Westernising after the 1857 War. Now we see again non Indian ideologies taking over the INC for their own purposes.

[ramana]

Something very close to what I posted this morning:

quote="RajeshA" But after the beheading and Salman Khursheed's non-response, that it will pass, and after Sushil Kumar Shinde's words about Hindu Terror, I've had to change my position of staying above Indian politics.
--------------------
quote

But the question is why is INC drinking the secular kola so much to undermine Hindu majority and Bharatiya concept? what is it gaining and what is it losing if it lets Nation be Hindu yet let allow religious freedom? is it the lure of ghaddi? /quote
------------------
I think it has a lot to do with Chacha's own Islamic antecedents. There are some theories about his Islamic ancestry. Then there are theories about Iron Lady's Muslim husband. Then there was the Catholic input in the form of the current Viceroy. Even the daughter was married into a Christian family.

Considering this influx of Islamic and Christian identities into the dynasty and the suspicion that it was Islamic to begin with, I am not surprised at the strong but hidden anti-Hindu agenda. If the origins are Islamic, then not even a shred of sympathy is to be expected for Bharatiya Civilization.

In India, the big challenge is the 83% Hindu majority, so one can understand why the Islamics and Christianists would form an alliance./quote
--------------

It is the social changes in India. INC is working on a new alliance with foreigners (Pak) .
This is just like in 1880 when INC was formed with foriegners (British Labor) and they formed alliance with foriegners.

[RamaY]

All these days we used to think the leadership problem in India has to do with the generation of leadership that is born before Independence and still alive and active. This is the generation that kept its romantic world view of Hindustan-Pakistan bhai-bhai and genetic and cultural bonding across borders and so on.

If we are to see the new generation of leaders, especially in following areas
- Congress System (INC and other political parties that can support it thru alliances)
- Mainstream Media
- Intellectuals and Academia
- Business Houses
- Anti-establishment revolutions (Maoists, Islamic and Christian terrorism)

The new generation is worse than the older generation imagine this
- Congress System: Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Robert Vadra, Manish Tiwari, Renuka Chaudari etc types, Akhilesh Yadav, YSJ, Stalin, Omar Abdullah, and so on...
- Mainstream Media: Burkha Dutts, Sagarika Ghosh, Nidhi Razdans, Rajdeep Sardesai, and so on...
- Intellectuals and Academia: Kancha Ilaiahs, Arundhati Roys, Professor Kodanda Rams etc.,
- Business Houses: DLFs, Lanko groups, EMAAR grous, Gali Brothers, and so on...
- Anti-establishment revolutions (Maoists, Islamic and Christian terrorism)


The new crop has an evolved world view where they want to use the ruse of secularism, economic progress, modernity, global-village, Saffron-terror etc to undermine the idea of Bharat geographically, culturally, and politically.

[Atri]

This may not be his style, but like Atri ji said, a lot of mechanisms are used to get Yuddhister to the throne. The idea is to not throw you best card into the winds on a prayer and a hope.

That is the nature of politics, a straight forward Kesariya after drinking opium is gallant in the extreme, but we can not afford it anymore. We have no men to lose.

Shivaji tactics are what we need. (Atri-ji would say post Shivaji tactics)

Funny that you brought in Shivaji..

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p911202

Indra gave Karna a shakti which was unanswerable (this is the impending global crisis post 2014). Now, no matter who, when this shakti is unleashed, no one, not even Shri Krishna with his sudarshana can withstand.. Whole point of MBH was to put Yudhishthira on throne and bring about systemic changes in the way Dharma functioned (or malfunctioned). The global players (DIEnasty included) have screwed up the economy, created shitloads of debt and this is going to hit west back. They averted this in 2008 for time being. But signs are beginning to show in EU. One has to look at this Boston Blast from that perspective - to create a motive to start a new war and keep the "demand" going without people asking uncomfortable questions about where the money came from and where it went.. Most of EU nations are now printing money. They are in buffer and so far so good. But buffer is running out. Unless this dodgy debt is not settled, it is going to raise its ugly head. In other words, this is the Indra's Shakti. No Tod...

Now, I do not know whether NM is the Yudhishthira who will bring about change OR whether he is the Arjuna who is shielding the real Yudhishthira. But whoever he is, he is not expendable as Ghatotkacha.. It is possible that the real Yudhishthira has not even arrived on national scene yet. But battle waits for none. DIEnasty has played its role in creating similar situation in India - Thanks to NREGA, multiple scams all over (koi ginti nahi), other free-loading schemes, appeasement politics. We have our own dodgy debt which will raise its head.

He who is in power will incur the wrath of people when Indra's shakti strikes. Couple that with Jihadis from AFPAK pouring in J&K and rest of India after USA decreases its presence from AFG and taliban enters in agreement with kabul - they will be doing what they do best. Brace for multiple exploding pressure-cookers, multiple Owaisi like speeches and multiple Azad-Maidan like rallies and multiple Assam like cleansings.

Now, all this is bad karma of DIEnasty and their international handlers. Indic janta is only beginning to realize how they have been taken for a ride by DIEnasty. It will dawn upon them even more then. I want DIEnasty to be in power and seen responsible for this mess by Janta. If NM is in power (or even NDA), this rage will be of no use - it will cancel itself out. I do not want that wave to cancel itself out. I have been saying this on forum for past 2-3 years. BJP does not want to be in power for some reason. It dawns upon me now that perhaps this is the reason. They are passing the parcel, because they can hear it ticking..

What if NM becomes a PM and then shakti strikes. True to his dharma, NM will take stringent steps, try and shield India (and I think he will do so successfully) bring economy back on track and then there is 2004 moment again where people pissed off due to stringent measures, vote NDA out and DIEnasty (or UPA) is back with its populist promises. IOW, most of NM's energy would be spent on fighting off this shakti and still remain standing to introduce systemic changes without loosing popular mandate and keeping allies together. OTOH, if he cannot withstand the shakti, then it will be doom for nationalists. Apeksha-Bhanga (disappointment) is one of those emotions which brings about bitterest responses.

If, OTOH, RahulG or his MMS is in power when shakti strikes, the wrath of people will be faced by DIEnasty. NM will come riding on this wrath-wave without public associating him with downfall and without needing to care about loosing public mandate, for he will be projected as repairman and not the one who broke the country. Public has short memory. They were praising MMS for his leadership when India was growing 9% forgetting the fact that it was ABV and his govt which brought economy on fast-track. MMS simply ate the fruits of tree sown and nurtured by ABV and squandered it off in 123, NREGA, scams and other stupid things..

If recession strikes before general elections in India, NDA should declare NM as PM candidate. If not, they should wait until it strikes and then declare NM for PM.. Meanwhile let him do what he is doing (giving speeches in various parts of India and forcing people to focus on real issues, presenting a contrast between GJ and rest of India). If recession does not strike before general elections, 2013-14, then find someone who will buy time and make sure DIEnasty is weakened and yet is seen accountable for ill-deeds. I think 1996 like scenario will repeat itself and there will be elections within year or year and half after 2014.

[RajeshA]

Atri garu,

NaMo brought Gujarat back after the Earthquake! NaMo says he knows how to fill up the potholes!

Yes there is going to be a train-crash because INC has cut the breaks, but who else can stop the train.

[ramana]

A picture is worth a thousand words

Isn't it enough reason to dislodge UPA for next 30 years?

MMS is matching sub-Saharan Africa's poverty numbers.

[ramana]

MMS govt is JLN govt redux in many ways: corruption, grand rhetoric, Nehruvian growth rates, and insecurity. Under JLN India got attacked by both TSP and China. MMS also shares the same honor.