No subject can be grasped in one shot. It will be understood in small calibrated doses. The dosage depends on the audience. Depending on the receptiveness of the audience, the dosage has to be set.
The problem with radical truth is that people refuse to accept it and psychologically shut out all the info. They refuse to even consider the possibilities and make critical judgement.
However, one should not be afraid and stop from spelling out the 'ultimate' truth. The trick is to introduce the 'extreme' truth, but, not to push the audience to desperation. Just introduce the dynamic and be patient. If the listener is receptive, give some more info. If the listener is not receptive, then allow the info to stew in his mind for some time. Let the person get used to the idea. The first-time listener won't accept it in one go. It will take some time. So, one's job is to introduce the idea into the listener's mind. Its like planting the idea(seed) and let it sprout.
Actually, if one thinks about it, it takes time to accept a new truth that changes the very world view.
The secret to is not to get too 'aggressive' or 'defensive' in real-interactions. One should be ready for the other party to thrash the idea. Let them do that. Then, you can present your side of the story. Don't expect radical changes as soon as you spell out your idea. Be patient.
Sometimes, people cling to a system for vested interests. These people are most hard to 'convince'. And maybe the best course when dealing with such people is to point out their vested interests only.
When the listener listens to it for the first time, one is boggled by this kind of news and simply shuts out all this info. After the listener has gotten over the initial 'shock', then he is ready to listen and analyze the facts.
Generally, hardcore supporters of C-system avoid such discussion. They either try to divert the topic or just end the conversation. They desperately try to change the topic when it becomes too inconvenient. When they try such tactics, then it is better to rest the topic, on that occasion. And take it up later, when the occasion presents itself again.
First thing to understand is what the 'audience' already knows. Then, build upon it.
And the basic point about, propaganda is 'repetition'. One has to keep repeating the message(perhaps, in different forms to suit the occasion).
And yes, BJP or whoever is in public life has great responsibility of releasing the full data about this system and the main players who have been raised on to a pedestal by hagiographers for all these years.
There is so many dirty facts about dynasty that could be de-classified and bring them into mainstream by talking about them. Ex: Chacha and his antics. Quattrochi and his business links with Mainos. Indra's KGB links. so on and on.
NDA did no such thing. Yep, one may claim that NDA was busy with other important issues like 'Education sector(particularly history)'. I feel that NDA failed in tackling these 'important issues' because it did not go after the individuals who were responsible for the rot. Going after the dynasty and the system placed by them would have given space for NDA to work on important issues. NDA should have taken lead on these issues. Instead, NDA's silence allowed the dynasty to get away with it.
Infact, when you try to tell these things to anyone, the first retort by them would be,"if all this is true, then why is BJP/NDA not shouting about this from rooftops?"
In this regard, Subramania Swamy has done a great job. The paid media would have continued to tell that Raul and Madam are a great intellectual who acquired degrees from prestigious foreign universities. But, thanks to SS, one knows that Raul is an academic failure. And Madam has submitted forged certificates.
Even after these revelations being in public domain, BJP did not jump on these. That means, either BJP is too afraid/timid or compromised. Either way, BJP's silence is taken as proof of lack of guilt of the dynasty. In fact, kongis argue that there was nothing wrong in Bofors case because if there was some thing amiss, then NDA regime would have pursued it.
Most people take the silence of the opponent as an admission of failure and assertive posturing as the evidence of some truth. Kongis understand this piskology. Thats why they never go on defensive. They talk about most non-sense theory in most brazen manner(like 26/11 was an inside job- Diggy). The same piskology is also used by EJs and jihadi leaders. And they keep repeating the message. Lot of people get convinced by body language rather than actual content. Of course, one needs thick skin to pull off that methodology.
Personally, I found a method most useful:
You can introduce people to a new idea as exciting info that you came across.
You pass on each tid-bit of info from time to time, as the occasion presents. This, I think, has greater effect than piling all the evidence in one shot. Because, it takes time for people to internalize the facts and digest the various facets of the truth.
Also, you position yourself as someone(almost dispassionately) passing the info. The other thing is to give all the various theories that are floating around. And also mention when a certain theory is unconvincing to you. It is better to mention the theory that is being professed by the 'opponent' and then give the reasons why this theory is untenable.
For example: if a person X says that Taj Mahal is a Hindu monument occupied by the muslims. Then, the first reaction is to think that the X is a nut job. One will not even go into the reasons why X believes Taj Mahal to be a Hindu monument. This was the first round.
But, after some time, when gets used to the idea that X believes in Tejo Mahalaya. When this topic comes again, then one will some obvious questions like: Why do you believe it is Tejo Mahalaya, when everyone and his aunt say that it was built by Shah Jahan, the great lover, for his dear wife?
This ensues a small debate. X may give his reason for believing. It may not convince the person. At best, the person may think that the topic needs more investigation. At worse, the person may think that X believes in a conspiracy. This is the second round.
After some time, one more round may happen. This time, the person is more receptive to the idea, almost sub-consciously. This time, he may also be willing to allow himself to think critically on the issue. And he may also be ready to admit sub-consciously that truthfully he does not know about Taj Mahal. He simply accepted the majority world-view guided by the Govt. and media. He never really made any critical investigation.
After this stage, the person is ready to accept the possibilities, instead of insisting on what he has been taught.
All of this happens in an informal settings.
A: Hey, I came across some thing interesting...
B: what..?
A: I read on the net that Taj Mahal is a Hindu monument, imagine that !!!
B:
net is full of these kind of nut job conspiracies, you should stay away from it.
A: Fine, but it has some interesting points that made sense to me.
B: Really?! Like what...?
A: You know Shah Jahan was a hardcore womanizer with several wives and several more concubines.
B: hmm... of course, he was the emperor. What else do you expect?
A: But, we are told that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal as a symbol of Love for his beloved dead wife. A person having so many wives and concubines, would hardly miss a dead wife and build a monument for her. And where are the monuments for other wives and concubines?
B: Maybe she was his most favourite...
A: I read on the net that Shah Jahan and lusted his own daughter and perhaps, even had committed incest with her. Do you think this man is capable of love? And would he waste lots of money in building a monument for a dead wife, when he had so many other women?
B: Lusted his own daughter?!! I can't believe it. Is it really true?
***(end of round 1)
I found the above style most useful in real life. Also, it is better to let the other person research it himself, instead of providing with all the info. So, directing them to the source(that convinced you) can be useful. Its like,"I went to so and so site and found this info. You can also go to it and read it yourself."
Anyway, I find that the educated(macualytes?) to be most reluctant to consider the possibilities. As opposed to this, the rustic(even if literate) are more ready to consider the various possibilities. One would think that it would be the other way around i.e. the educated would be ready to consider the possibilities instead of insisting on a dogmatic stand. But, it is the other way around.
---
Should Modi react to kongi's 'communal' plans?
Yep, he must react. He cannot allow the kongis to get away with it. Having said that, he can react to them at a time, place and manner of his choosing.
I think kongi system has completely failed and is collapsing. kongi behaviour shows the bankruptcy of any positive and fresh ideas. Modi can capitalize on this.
And if kongis want 2014 elections to be polarized, they are doing it in a self-destructive manner. This bogeyman of 'Hindu terror' will hurt the kongis in elections, if the elections really get polarized.
The polarization will help the kongis only if the 'secular-Hindus' see BJP/Modi as responsible for polarization. But, if these 'secular-hindus' see kongis pursuing a blatantly anti-hindu policies, they may be pushed into hindutva camp. I think kongis are actually pushing many 'secular-hindus' into becoming 'internet-hindus' by their blatant anti-hindu policies. The only hindus who continue to support the kongis are either brain-dead or have vested interests.
It seems to me that Modi has two planks: Hindutva and Development.
He will have to balance them both. Because there are different audience with different appeals. Only development will appeal to some, only hindutva will appeal to some, a combination will appeal to some.
The paid-media wants Modi to ditch Hindutva completely by 'rendering an apology'. That would alienate a section. And this section maybe so enraged that they may even go and vote for the opponents.
Alternatively, kongis may drum up 'communal' plank and try to cover up their dismal track-record on governance. Modi must not allow spot-light to shift from the misrule of kongis and the pathetic condition of India as a consequence.
So, Modi will have to balance both of Hindutva and Development.
or are you back in India. Char cheh ghante mein to hum bhi so jayenge. Ab to Nishachar bhai log aane wale hein.
I know of none ramana garu. Yes they did rely on IAS types, that is true, and that was a mistake. However if any one here was expecting 60 years of C system to be "fixed" within 5 years, surely that is being unreasonable?