Freedom doesn't exist in nature, force does, also domination, and oppression.Of course mileage differs from species to species. Hence freedom is very much a human construct. No problem with that. However freedom even though enlightened cannot exist in vacuum, it faces the harsh truth of nature. The truth of brute force.
It follows a society can remain free only as long as it can defend its freedom. This condition when society is free finds expression in concept of sovereignty . Therefore it follows if one wishes to remain free he should be willing to defend this sovereignty. This willingness goes beyond merely paying taxes and following laws. One must remain vigilant against any corrosion of the strength, this responsibility must be borne by one and all.
With freedom comes responsibility, and if this misquote grieves* the soul of venerable Uncle Ben, then this is price that must be paid.
* To understand please visit prodigious dunali.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Freedom doesn't exist in nature, force does, also domination, and oppression.Of course mileage differs from species to species. Hence freedom is very much a human construct. No problem with that. However freedom even though enlightened cannot exist in vacuum, it faces the harsh truth of nature. The truth of brute force.
You have taken to orkut like KGPians take to Shakeela movies*.
However it dismays me to note that many of your have described yourself of Asian ethnicity.
Sadly this is not true. In US, which is the origin of orkut, Asians refer to people hailing from Far Aast Asia and South East Asia. We Indians unfortunately are East Indians. We have to thank Columbus for this.
* They do this. Usually by their third years, Ennui gets by then.
OK, so I have no idea whether free will really exists or not. Further I don't think I can confound on this issue, so I don't talk about. However ignorance has never stopped Jagadguru from expressing himself and express he does. So far it is the usual divine argument, but suddenly who else but our Desi John Galt enters the fray.
Now as I understand, to prove free will, you have to prove there is an agent, independent of the neural processes (which are biological and hence chemical in nature), and of a conscious nature, which affects the human actions or (perhaps) more accurately affects the human judgement.
Also as far as my understanding goes, this concept has remained central historically to christian theology as well as jurisprudence.
But so far no amount of observation has succeeded in finding that independent agent.
This failure has been cited by the opponents of free will as absence of free will, instead suggesting that human actions can be reduced to chemical reactions, and accusing proponents of free will of attempting to except human from natural laws.
Therefore the task for proponents is cut out, they have to either discover an independent agent, or else a serious flaw in assumption of biological reductionism. But as is usual with the case of our hero he introduces quantum mechanics to support free will, to which I can only say WTF !
Again my knowledge of quantum mechanics is sketchy, but as far as I know, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty in observation, which I suppose will put a spanner in determining chain of cause and effect. But even if it is true, it is woefully insufficient to establish presence of any independent agent.
If I were trying to BS, I would have gone with system theory, it seems like to hold more promise.The irony is that both our protagonists are accusing each other of being "theists". I ask, is it possible to be any more wannabe ?
I think that Ayn Rand should be prohibited to teenagers. I mean think of it, hormonal changes, insecurity, a time for transition, why aggravate that with pseudo-philosophy.
And asnwer to the question in title is, to buy a ticket for ring side and enjoy.
I realized, I don't really support free markets, for the simple reason that I have no idea what free market really means. I am just a lapsed socialist.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
While participating in discussion on governance, one statement that one frequently encounters is the argument that "Constitution is a tool and hence can be discarded and another adapted to suit the circumstances".
This trivializes importance of constitution in that that it devolves authority of constitution to that of an instrument through which state/legislature/executive exercise their authority, another related error is the belief that legislature by virtue of constituted by popular mandate also represents the sovereignty.
This is grievous mistake. In a Democratic republic the sovereignty lies with public, not with any institution even if it is elected by popular vote. The institutions derive their authority from constitution, and hence are sub-ordinate to the documents, which limits the authority vested in them.
Hence unlike the muddled metaphor, constitution is just not your garden shed variety tool. A proper analogy a framework. In fact this is much more apt, in that factors affecting constitution can be divided into two broad categories, just like framework, and have functional similarity.
First is the objectives that we want to achieve, and second is the existing condition of the nation.
First can not be achieved without considering the second, and the constitution and therefore the actual balance of powers will reflect the divergence or convergence between the two. As the prevalent customs change, the constitution too may needed to be changed. However even the power to alter constitution must be subjected to even more strict check than the power vested to legislate or govern.
With the benefit of hindsight (again), I think it will not be a stretch to conclude that our constituent assembly faltered. (And again) It must be noted that there are no perfect constitutions, few good ones, but a hell lot of messed up ones.
God save us from deep thinking .........
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
short post is prompted by Arun Shourie's latest book : The Parliamentary System )
Sometimes you have to marvel at the misguided priority of Indian polity. We have "secularism" as cornerstone of national discourse, despite the fact that Indic tradition is devoid of rule based on clerical or theological authority (which is what secularism is essentially concerned with). But the issue which is relevant, remains for most part ignored, I am talking about separation (and independence) of legislature and executive, a crucial issue, one which has so far stymied Indian progress.
I don't think at this juncture there can be any two opinions about how a fractured polity hijacked by vested interest groups is causing steady unravelling of the authority and what is much more worse unceasing pandering to demands of these groups and handling out doles are undermining governance.
In my opinion polity can be repaired and restored to its original aim of felicitating conversation for nation building by making legislature and executive independent.
An executive which doesn't depend on fractured legislature can take long term policy views. At the same time legislature, in absence of doles that comes with a dependant executive, will be cleansed of vested interests, and hence can return to its task of legislation.
While deliberating over constitution, the constituent assembly discussed presidential system but opted for British model, probably because it was familiar.
However parliamentary system was intended for a small and uniform electorate. In colonial India the legislature was for most part symbolic with real power vested with viceroys and British government.
With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that Westminster model was never going to succeed in India. We can have a theoretical understanding of the failure by taking into account power dynamics of political institutions.
For a person wising to control executive, there are two scenarios, one is to control the legislature which was the case with Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Another is to appease the disparate factions which electorate as diverse as India will throw up. This is the present scenario with coalitions.
So we see instead of preventing excess, this system actually promotes excess.
It is only by looking at the harm done to India, one can appreciate the practical importance behind separation of power and mutual independence of different branches of state.
A word of caution is appropriate here. The framework of political institutions is important, because it determines the way power is owned and hence exercised. It follows that this framework determines the incentive towards actions which are collective or social in nature.
At a subtle level it also signals or provides feed back to the direction along which the individuals must align his moral view.
Ultimately however success of polity is dependant on the moral character of people.
For example I think that the disaster that was perpetrated by dimwitted policies of Nehru and his daughter couldn't be prevented as most likely they would have continued to control the legislature, however I do believe that due to fundamentally independent nature the deliberative character of legislature would have been retained which would have worked as bulwark against their tyranny.
As Bjarne Stroustrup said, "While C++ can prevent mistakes, it can not prevent frauds."
Although I am not a journalist, I believe that first rule of shoddy journalism must go something like, "If you aspire to dish out a pathetic article, base it on poorly constructed and half baked arguments".
Fortunately we have example
Tarun Vijay on Band-Aid nation*
A nation living on a self-denial mode can never defeat gun runners. A polity that declares Ishrat Jahan innocent even before a police enquiry begins, which allows secessionists in Nagaland to open and run their 'free republic' headquarters and celebrate 'Independence Day' separately, which turns aliens into voters, thrives on a self-obsessed people who remain as engrossed in their routine of earning and dying as they were in the East India Company's babudom.
Strong nations move on their heritage and civilisation, whether it's Russia, China or the United States. They know who they are and who the enemy to their existence is. But here, we have a state which tries to de-recognise its civilisational moors, rather demoralises the patriotic forces ( from Kashmir to Kohima) and sleeps with the foes of our ancestral past so much so that we love to honour the memory of a bigot like Aurangzeb, the ideological 'great grand pa' of today's Taliban, by naming a major road in the Capital after him, but fear to honour Dara Shikoh, the learned scholar of Upanishads and a bridge of love between Muslims and Hindus( Japanese PM Abe quoted him in his address to Indian Parliament recently). Dara Shikoh was jailed and killed by his brother Aurangzeb and his grave lies unheard, uncared for in the precincts of Jama Masjid, New Delhi, where even the fashionable heritage-walkers of the NDMC-Habitat variety do not visit. [TOI]
*I have read this term somewhere earlier, though can't recollect at the moment
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sure UPA is no friend of Muslims, but are Muslims friend of Muslims ?
Note: H. E. is His Eminence
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Not to disturb your beauty sleep, but we have a situation.
Prayers for the dead, the grieving and the hope for peace in Hyderabad, of whose memories I still cherish.
Note: Sagarika Ghose, Barkha Dutt etc, I assume that by now you must have figured out how to force this in your narrative.
Update: BJP swings into action! I don't know what is more infuriating, the fact that BJP has stooped to such lows, or that even after all this, I (and countless other patriotic Indians) have no option except BJP.
Another Update: One of the key events in Foundation when Salvor Hardin proves to the scientist working on Seldon's plan, that Lord Dorwin, representative of dying Galactic empire,
during negotiations exacted concrete promises from them, but promised nothing in return, and his rhetoric amounted to nothing.
Rhetoric amounthing to nothing, Exhibit ,
Update #3: Can Sheela Bhatt be far behind ? MIM a "right of centre" party. Right and Razakars were conservatives.
Update #4: It seems personality of Shivraj Patil is rubbing on his deputy Jaiswal.
"Look mommy, they are soooo mean". Pathetic.
Update #5: Unintended irony. "We'll fight jihadis as we're fighting Maoists, vows YSR"
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Presently I am reading Great Speeches Of Modern India. Of all the speeches so far, those of J.R.D. Tata are particularly impressive. It is difficult not to admire him for courage of conviction, foresight and patriotism (yes the much maligned word). *
The book includes three of his speeches, the first one from 60's, titled "A Myth", in which his passionately argues against a planned economy and restriction on entrepreneurship. Remember those were the glory days of Nehruvian socialism (before his fall in 1962), and such blasphemy from someone whose interest can be harmed by government was a brave deed, requiring integrity of character.
Second speech is from 70's, titled "The Presidential System", where he argues for a presidential system, pointing out the pitfalls for Westminster system and danger of fragmented electorate. This too was against the conformist mentality prevalent in India.
Third speech is an impromptu one which he made in early 90's, the occasion being his flight to celebrate golden jubilee of Air-India, in effect exhorting the youth to be optimistic and adventurous.
Makes a certain "Capitalist by brain and Socialist by heart" look rather puny.
* I can't find online text of the speeches. Will appreciate if anyone can help.
Between Indian libertarians and American.
Consider these three posts on animal cruelty all by American bloggers. Notice the nuance involved and admission of the the complexities that ethics present. For my life, I can't imagine their Indian counterparts having this sort of discussion. Few exceptions aside libertarian (or for that matter even nationalist) discourse in Indian blogosphere is tediously formulaic. As I mentioned in earlier post, India suffers from unabashed imitation and lack of original thinking.
Wilful ignorance is our bane.
And apologies for any Aym Gramd-ism.
Update: As usual the most insightful intervention is by criminals
Jules: I don't eat dog either. (Via)
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' m'f'n' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'? [*]
In an earlier post, I suggested that faith in transcendent entity must exist. My intention was to establish a sort of moral imperative behind faith. However on second thought, I think it goes deeper than that. I think that humans are genetically configured to be believers. What this means is unless there is something abnormal people believe they may call it Yehowah, Allah, Ishwara, spirit. This applies to majority of atheists as well, while they may scoff at any metaphysical explanation behind the conscious, they go to great distance to define a basis for morality, and to justify that in the process invent own set of beliefs which in ultimate analysis are irrational as well.
To summarize, Being begets belief.
Cool, eh ?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Update: This post is prompted by Arun Shourie's latest book : The Parliamentary System
Ten days ago (The incoherent soliloquy)
For some time I have been thinking about leadership, and I thought up of something.
However it is time to sleep, so may tomorrow, or may be not, anyway bonne nuit.
The present day (The post continues ... )
1. I play rather footloose with economics and genetics, if I am incorrect don't hurt me.
2. I believe that leadership can not be a profession. I also believe that there can not be a satisfactory monetary compensation for leadership (based on Adam Smith's 4 criteria for compensation for work).
First some background is in order.The success of a polity and by extension society is dependant on nature of its leadership.Now even a fleeting pursual of Indian story should convince that India has been hampered by a want of effective leadership. Here I should clarify that by effective leadership I just do not mean the control it wields on polity, but also its direction.
From above importance of leadership is obvious, which raises the question whether there are ways to ensure a competent Indian leadership.
Most of the proposals have monetary incentive as the solution. I don't find it persuasive, for the reasons stated here and here, however I do think that compensation (or to be precise lack of it) may act as disincentive.
Which is the reason I thought that perhaps an understanding of evolution of leadership as a social trait may help us gain insight into the problem.
Now almost all animal societies are organized hierarchy with the individual at top having the control over the group, the nature of control and hierarchy ultimately decided by how various instincts,broadly categorized as selfish or altruist for social animals, are resolved. Here it must be kept into mind that ultimately these instincts are controlled by genetic makeup. The key point here is almost all societies involves some or other form of reciprocal altruism or co-operation.
Seen from point of view described above, authority or leadership has a social utility. Authority has two aspects. First is by exerting control, stability and order is maintained in a hierarchical society. This can be more or less observed in all societies. Here it should be kept in mind that authority may depend on various criteria, for example while in Elephant society it is the experience which counts, for Lion it is the strength.
Of more interest to us, is the second aspect of the leadership, usually observed in pack hunters , directing the actions of group to achieve a particular objective. In other words, leader is the motive force behind the group.Since human has evolved as a pack hunter, therefore we can evaluate the leadership in human society in terms of pack behaviour.
Now here it is crucial to understand while authority has a social utility, it also benefits the individual and this is the initiative for leadership for animal hierarchy.
However taken with premises of the earlier posts , it turns out there is no individual incentive in a democratic system for leadership, what is worse there is a strong incentive for misuse of authority and subversion of system for own profit. In effect leadership becomes act of altruism.
That there is no incentive for leadership, is a rather depressing conclusion.
This is not to say that voluntary altruism is absent, far from it. However altruism is a potent force only in emergency situations. Which is why India was enslaved, we witnessed supreme sacrifice of Mahatama Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose. However we can not depend on extraordinary altruism in ordinary day to day life, and therefore can not expect robust political or social institutions on altruism.
Neither is discarding democracy any solution. It is true that a hierarchical polity may be a more natural state of things, it is certainly not a desirable one. First, such polities with the power struggle among different groups will be inherently weaker and anarchic than democratic ones.
Second, an asymmetry of power means abuse and exploitation of weaker groups both in the sense of economic as well as social, in fact it will be worse than the asymmetry in animal societies because our social institutions vest the authority with monopoly of power, which is not the case in animal societies.
Here it should also be understood that it is instinctive for humans to respond to leadership and authority. While it is desirable that individuals are informed to participate in social arbitration, the incentives for such a behavior are weaker, a case of rational ignorance. In contrast, humans response to leadership is much stronger. In other words, there are stars and there are groupies and both need each other.
The unpalatable conclusion that I can draw is the problem of leadership doesn't have any perfect solution. However we can take measures which do affect the leadership in long term.
One is to establish concept of civic virtue as a cornerstone of society, related also promote ownership of society through concept of citizen, and hook up allegiance to community with individual identity.
Second is to ensure that magnitude of altruism that is required remains minimal, which implies that power must be as decentralized as particular circumstances permit.
Most important is to recognize that leaders are highly ambitious and motivated individuals, therefore the best way to improve the quality of leadership is to create a culture of excellence, re-orient the world view of society and its polity such that success is valued, and where ambition is a virtue not a vice. Where strength and drive is something which is cherished and not shirked.
We have, through a combination of lacunae and erroneous beliefs lead us into a state where the hallmark of prevalent culture is mediocrity and unabashed imitation, and a society which has morbid reverence bordering on cult-worship for emasculated.
This also means we have to put an end to the "politicians are our servants" tripe. No they are not. They are leaders, they wield the authority because of their ambition and drive. I find such delusion most annoying.
As this country, which is a political union of eternal conscious, strives towards a better the only entity which can stop her is her people. We can not fail our quest for which divine has appointed us.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Related post 
Also read Varnam's excellent series on Macaulay , , , 
I have a question. Is there any lower bar for being an "intellectual" India or it is any Tom Dick or Jerry who finds himself at the right place start inflicting his (questionable) wisdom on hoi polloi.
The particular Jerry that is in my mind, a self-professed Macaulay's Man, is attempting to play contrarian. Only he ends up a first rate idiotarian. (link courtesy shameless plagiarist)
To summarise our man wants us to assure that as good as our Independence (or freedom) is, first Raj was not really bad and second us, the eternal noble savages, should be grateful for the benevolence of our former masters.
Now a clarification is in order, a distinction must be made between the question that whether or not Raj was inevitable and the question that whether was beneficial.
To the former question my answer would be, at that particular point of history, the domination of India by European powers (and perhaps even colonization) was more or less inevitable.
However inevitable is not beneficial by a long stretch.
Back to the article, it is replete with one ridiculous statement after another.He attempts to establish equivalence between British Emprie with Mughal Empire. Now admittedly there are multiple view points about Mughal Empire. However all said and done Mughals ruled very much from India, hence they have irrefutable Indian identity.
This was not the case with British Empire with the power center seven seas across.Next assertion is that many prominent Indians appreciated Raj. Actually it would be more accurate to say they appreciated certain qualities of British. Of course it is a mystery that why should appreciation of some nation, howsoever great, imply appreciation of being enslaved by that nation and approval of loss of dignity which being subject to foreign ruler entails.
There were other reasons for appreciation, the emerging middle class was impressed by the ideal supposedly enshrined in British culture, and hoped that it was possible for Indians to advance by being in good books of the master. They, just like our man Jerry, were admirer of British, however even they were soon to realize that their loyalty and petitions meant nothing, and there was a huge gap between what English professed and what they actually did.
He repeats his mistake crediting Raj with exploration of Indian History. True the role of British in Indian history is significant, however this must be attributed to individuals and not to Raj which was in garb of bringing civilization to barbarians was enterprise to profit by exploiting Indians. This distinction must be made no one can deny the role of Individuals but to conflate it with Raj to balance its oppression is a grievous mistake.
Then with a flourish he expresses gratitude for Shakespeare to Indians. Which just like before somehow balances the oppression of Indians.
But this is nothing he is grateful to British for forcing English on us and thus ensuring our future. And the favourite, "British gave us railways". More on it later.
Our man reluctantly concludes that British discriminated against "Natives", but blames "pseudo-scientific" theories for that, not surprising considering his level of ignorance, because this pseudo-science (eugenics etc) was rationalization for Imperialism and racial suppression, not the other way round. English, since the beginning, always felt themselves to be superior from their subjects, which while hardly unnatural, is certainly unenlightened.
Thankfully at this point our man is exhausted of inanity and concludes with a requiem for the Raj.
However he is not the only one in his delusion, there is small number of Indians who share this delusion of benevolent Raj.At risk of repeating myself I will stress necessity of distinguishing between individual(s) who did contribute towards progress of India and Raj which was a system created with a certain objective.
First mistake is the belief that without colonization western science couldn't have been introduced. People who assert this believe that alternative course of history would have been an insular India. Even a basic awareness of Indian history would demonstrate the error of this position. Indian history is always marked by exchange, of idea, art and technology with outside world, through ways violent (i.e. invasion) as well as peaceful (trade) , without involving colonization. The western science was such a potent and radical development that to me its communication to India without colonization is more or less a certainty.
Second mistake (related to first one) is to overestimate contribution of Raj for transfer of the infrastructure and the technology. I do believe that just like science technology could have been transferred without the colonization. What is also not realized is that colonization had a large economic penalty. Through excessive taxation and coercive laws Indian farmers and craftsmen were reduced to penury, and Indian industries were ruined. Any transfer of technology must be judged against the cost involved, which, I believe, in this case exceeds the benefit.
To give example the seeds of enlightenment were transferred to west without colonization. Similarly Japan progressed without being enslaved or even without the benefit of English.
On the other every country which was colonized by the British had the "benefit" of
Third and serious than previous two is to believe that it was colonialism which created India. India has existed culturally and spiritually, in form of civilization since millennial, even administratively a significant part of her was united under various dynasties. What happened under British rule was evolution of political consciousness, the realization for political unity, and this not because British were anxious to create Indian identity, far from it, but rather a reaction to systematic exploitation and degradation of India by the system put in place by British.
Similar is the belief about democracy and judiciary. The idea behind modern body polity would have been transferred even without the trauma of being colony.
However the most serious mistake is to overlook the damage slavery inflicted to Indian psyche. This damage can not be calculated in monetary terms yet it easily overshadows the previous ones. Indian intellect withered under barrage of British indoctrination, which instilled a feeling of contempt and dismissal in it towards its identity and root, and a feeling of inferiority towards its master. A mind which is enslaved can not question or inquire. An identity which is in denial is incapable of taking stride. A civilization with an emasculated and enfeebled intellectual class can not formulate ideas which are essential for its sustenance and growth. It is here where colonialism did the most harm. Our intellectual career has been marked by the uncritical acceptance and internalization of western wisdom. It is a routine for our intelligentsia to distort reality and embellish facts to suit the narrative. The tragedy of India is that spirit of serious contemplation and inquiry is lacking,that even today its intellect is imprisoned in walls of its own making, which is denial of a organic Indian identity and servility to west. The material poverty is a direct consequence of poverty of ideas, of intellectual rigor mortis.
Dear Jerry and his ilk forget, civilization is not founded on cost arbitrage, it is founded on free spirit.
Friday, August 17, 2007
(And we obey)
Since I started blogging Mr Pai has always been one of my favourite bloggers, his extensive commentary on matters of national interest has helped me (and many others) gain valuable insight. I hold him in high esteem. Or used to hold until today.
Jagadguru has proved convincingly in his usual measured tone, how Mr Pai is a right wing moron for criticizing caste based reservations.
Frankly speaking even imagining contesting his holiness is ludicurous. His argument is divine, his authority is unquestioned.
What it comes to is, Mr Pai has diverted from his Dharma, and at this rate he can never attain Moksha. However if he is ready to mend his ways and desist from any "stupid right wing free market fundamentalist" conduct, Jagadguru is compassionate and can bestow kripa on him.
Bottomline is Mr Pai must repent.
PS. Today for the first time I was going through Jagadguru's archives, what struck me was his liberal use of "right wing". It seems that our desi John Galt is inspired by his divine fondling.
PPS Now that I have realized depravity of Mr Pai, the question that I would like to ask, when he professes his fondness for Biryani, does he include KB ?
PPPS Oh, and I still maintain that anyone who comments on Jagadguru's blog should be prohibited from breeding.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Why the hell was this fool not aborted ? What a clueless retard !
What's with these male womynists anyway? Why are they such pathetic wannabes ?
From now I am a fan of Chandramukhi Chautala officially.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
A happy Independence Day to you all.
You know I do believe that we don't deserve to be free or sovereign, and I do believe that the experiment called Indian Republic will be short lived as far as history goes. I also believe that generations who inherit this fragmented, divided land will toil in misery and bondage.
In that respect we are lucky. We didn't pay anything for freedom, and yet we enjoy its fruits.
There are some free lunches after all.
Anyway we shouldn't fret over future. As Carvaka said, borrow money and drink ghee, who is going to bother after death.
A useless anecdote, At Crossword, a popular chain of book stores, they put Linda Goodman under philosophy. Which may or may not explain the general state of things in India.
Meanwhile being Hindutva fascist, rendition of this communal song is mandatory. Some history.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Just when we thought that Sagarika Ghosh had taken unassailable lead as the purveyor of meaning-less journalism, Bacchi Karkaria strikes back. Really even after raking my brain, I don't know what to make of this.
Menopause at 60. 60 is the new 40. Menopause is "Me-no-pause". Hey Bhagwan! Weep people weep.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
As Swapan Dasgupta aptly puts it what happened in Hyderabad is a comeback of Razakars. Now I am not sure that those who write about Hindutva fascists have any idea about Razakars, or they will even bother about looking up wiki or google it (not that it is going to make much of a difference, after all everything can be blamed on Hindus).
Let me state it here I support actions of MIM. As I have said earlier, in the interest of
Muslim appeasement secularism, if Indian Muslims want to be ruled under Sharia they should be allowed to do so, since Taslima Nasreen is Muslim and she has committed blasphemy, she must be prosecuted under Sharia.
Also Read: Sandeep, BarbarIndians
Saturday, August 11, 2007
I. Am. Astounded.
It is one thing to be assailed by the sight of Shivams, D' Souzas, and Jagadguru furiously pleasuring themselves, but how did this thing got in a newspaper, even if it is a lefty one ?
Thursday, August 09, 2007
I have absolutely no idea what punya I, no make it Indians, might have created in previous lives, but surely it must be the aggregate of those deeds that this land has been blessed with Jagadguru. And now, we, his humble devotees can not only read his divine words, doubtlessly inspired by Saraswati, but also listen to his graceful speech and behold his visage dripping of profundity. Surely, by merely watching him argue how BJP will nuke the crap out of Islamic countries (including Tunisia I presume) should enable even a mere mortal to master AshtSidhhi.
You can watch him and then drop dead here.
... for gender equality.
On the other hand beards should be banned for aesthetics.
This is plagiarised, I don't know from where but it is. Can you, gentle reader, imagine street car having humour, or not being lame ? Heck, he even managed to think up of a pun (dhoti bomb, get it dhoti bomb). The case is as open and shut as it can be. He is lifting the stuff from somewhere, or he is smoking the stuff he should not be smoking. Whatever it is, I will find it. Blogging may suffer, but at this point blogging doesn't matter at all, truth must prevail. May Jagadguru give me the power.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Atheism comes in two flavour, strong and weak.
I admit these categories don't make that much of a sense to me, but nevertheless these categories do exist.
Speaking of things that do not make sense to me, why is his eminence so riled anyway. His "unbelief" shaken lately ? Reader(s) kindly illuminate.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Arun Shourie depresses, which is why his works don't go well with viral fever.
That aside, what is wrong with having Arun Shourie as PM ? He for one, has more guts than present disgrace, and I don't think anyone can doubt his integrity.
Ofcourse he is not secular enough, but secularism is over-rated anyway.
Update: Of course whom a blogger supports is inconsequential as is the blogger. But isn't blogging about fun n feeling ?
Friday, August 03, 2007
I find granularity interesting. How well a system works is dependant on how granular it is. Typically there is optimum limit for granularity. A system too-coarse or too-fine grained, will not give the desired output, in worst cases it may even crash.
To decide granularity, theory and even observations are of limited help. Right size, is a question of instinct, a gut feeling so as to say.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
As I have confessed don't I am not exactly an expert on American politics. However I am ardent bhakta of Jagadguru, and by his inspiration, I can now answer who is the right candidate to vote.
First let me explain the criteria, in times of Jefferson candidates were decided by the principles and political maneuvering. However in a post Web 2.0 world the candidacy must be decided by pillow fights between girls in their underwear.
Now based on that enlightened principle, I present the three videos.
Now all of them have their merits. But religiously adhering to TIT analysis, I have come to conclusion that Hillary Auntie is the best candidate.
Reason 1. Lesbian overtone of the video, showing the progressive and inclusive side.
Reason 2. French Maid, guys ! How can any male not covet what is kinky.
The last post brought up something which I have been meaning to ask y'all.
Now I think you will agree that The Talented Mr Pai loves his mango.
Also without doubt he is much more eligible than Matt Damon or Chris Gaines.
So the question is, will he be able to win over Mango. Or horror, even he can't have the mango !
Oh, to be Mangao !
Watch the clip below carefully, do some TIT (Thinking it through) analysis, and answer.
As a Hindutva fascist thug it is most distressing for me to directly contradict fellow thug (and also RC), but in this case one can not but agree with Talented Mr Pai.[*]
However first let me point out the issue involved here. Yes apology by Australia to Haneef would be nice. Also since Haneef had Indian passport, same thing holds for Indian government.
But apology to Haneef or Indian government is not the main issue here. Main issue remain fairness and appearance of it. State has monopoly over use of force. If state wishes, and if it is within law, it can restrict freedom, or incarcerate citizens. This monopoly means that this power should always be discharged fairly and any hint of political vendetta, or worse cover up should never arise. Sure for terrorism we may have to enact restrictive or intrusive laws, but the conduct should always be above board, and motive beyond accusation.
Unfortunately fair conduct has been sorely missing from this incident. There is no question that considering the circumstances, sudden departure of Haneef was highly suspicious. However the investigation was bungled, to say the least, and from evidence gathering, the whole focus shifted to cover up and scoring political points. This is a real big egg in face.
The purpose of this is not merely to expound on conduct of state, there is a relevant aspect to it. Islamic terrorism is less of a physical war and more of information war. Those fighting terrorism are hampered by the denial and falsification of bleeding heart liberalism. In order to maintain narrative of multiculturalism and moral equivalence (from which the liberalism derive sustenance and authority) , liberals are trying their utmost to confound the situation. Incidences like above are nothing but a weapon in liberal propaganda. Such occurrence must be prevented from happening.
PS. Note I am not arguing that this will alienate Muslims. I have come to believe that Muslim intellectuals (radicals and so called moderates alike) are too enamoured with this narrative of victimization at hands of West/Christian/Jew/Hindu, that nothing others can do, is going to appease their demands or redress the grievance.