Wrong parallel

I am a bit busy but just wanted to comment on this article. While I do agree with the basic thrust of the article, which is the religious character of the so called independence movement, the parallel between agitation by Hindus of  Jammu and by Muslim League is historically incorrect.

The reason Partition took place was not because Muslims feared for their lives and safety in united India, but, in short, because of democracy. Democracy meant electoral supremacy of Hindus, which meant that Hindus rather than Muslims would have an upper hand in power.

Such an arrangement was unacceptable to Muslim League, a coalition of Muslim intellectuals, gentry and clerics. Congress, in contrast, protested that such concerns were misplaced as there were no reasons to believe that Hindus would ever constitute a monolithic bloc. But to Muslim League even a distant possibility for such an eventuality was unimaginable.

Again, it was not for safety. To Muslim establishment, for any arrangement to be acceptable, a parity between Hindus and Muslims was must at minimum. The reason for this is not very hard to discern either, for them they were a superior people, not also by virtue of history of conquest over Hindus, but also because they were the followers of true faith, as opposed to the kaffirs. Congress couldn't agree to it, because this would have opened a Pandora's box. Result was Partition and resulting carnage.

In contrast, Hindus in J&K have considerable grievances. They, as the example of Kashmiri Pundits shows, have reason to worry for their safety. They also have, justified, resentment against Valley hegemony and discrimination by center for appeasing the separatists.

Therefore there is no justification to compare the two cases.

Updated:  There is of course this little bit of historical revisionism whereby RSS/Hindu MahaSabha/Veer Savarkar are elevated to co-villainy of  partition along with Muslim League, whereas the truth, and one which would have been clear enough if only our historical narrative were not a monopoly of secular fascists and if  Hindus were not so disgustingly Dhimmi, is that  a) they were marginal players and b) they didn't have same opinions reg. Partition although I have come to the same conclusion as Veer Savarkar now.

Confessions

1. At risk of horrifying some of you, I have to admit that I haven never watched Seinfeld before, and while I have just begun watching it, I *gasp* prefer general optimism of Friends over nihilism of Seinfeld.

2. I haven't seen Gone with the wind, or Casablanca, even though I have them on my hard disk since last year. Meanwhile I have gone and seen complete season of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I don't regret it either.

3. I was underwhelmed with Shawshank Redemption. Still it was better than in case of Forrest Gump, which I found annoyingly cloying. Also Tom Hanks looks kind of retarded.

I am back to livemint

This is a horrible horrible article. I request Ritwik to tear it apart, otherwise I will be doing it later

(Ok the post continues below)

You know some time back when I was watching Tashan, that unspeakable crime against anything in this world,which is sensible, I had a nagging feeling. There was something disconcertingly familiar. Suddenly I realized, what the  horror reminded me of. Yes you are right, livemint, or to be more precise a sartorial version of livement in that it sought to cover lack of story with wardrobe much in the same way livemint covers lack of content with out of context economic jargon. The above article is latest transgression against intellectual clarity.

To start with is the rather specious assertion that  stray dogs are public property, benefiting those who feed them but nuisance to general public, in other words an example of negative externalities.

First, I doubt that stray dogs are surviving because they are fed by dog loving people (although to be sure people do feed them), but primarily as as scavengers and secondarily as predators of pest (rats etc). This needs substantiation by data, but I am pretty sure that I am correct.
Second, now economics is hardly my strong point, but surely calling stray dogs public property surely borders on misapplication of  concept of property.*

Then comes the brainwave of auctioning of stray dogs to individuals, which is all well and good, but what happens if no one decides to buy the dogs, what is to be done with the remaining of them. And since this is what going to happen eventually (I mean can you really see people buying stray dogs, for God's sake), in other words, we are back where we started.

But the most egregious serious error (and yet most common in libertarian circles) is the assertion that animal rights is an oxymoron, because only humans can have rights because it flows from right to own self.
Excuse me, where does this right to own come from ? Did it exist from beginning of time, when neither sky nor earth existed ? Or was it brought over from Galt's gunch by Ayn Rand ?
The reality, if these libertarians were honest enough to admit, that rights don't exist prior to society. Society came before and takes precedence over individuals, and any rights, whether accorded to human or animals are matter of social conventions **. Now one can say that for him only humans have rights and not the animals, but it is also one social convention among many and not any natural law which in my opinion is nothing but an exercise in sophistry***.

PS: My view regarding stray dogs is to prefer methods which do not involve any killing, but if it is unavoidable, I will prefer elimination of stray dogs over human suffering. In a way outlined in a previous post.

* I am note sure about this. Surely one can argue, if one wishes to, that the community does own stray dogs, but I believe it is hard to make case that stray dogs can be exchanged, or are a part of economic activity, except perhaps in some rare circumstances.

** I believe what I have said is nothing short of sacrilegious in Indian blog-sphere, but as I have said earlier I find talk of natural rights tedious. This is not to say that I dismiss the idea of rights but a) I arrive at human rights from position of consequentialism and b) I don't buy in the idea that freedom is the necessary and sufficient condition for human progress.

*** I believe Ritwik holds view favoring natural rights interpretation. Though I am not convinced with it, still I will like to hear it from him.

How Democracy Works - Interest groups, free agents, externalities etc.

I have been meaning to comment on this post  (and its follow up) by DataNazi, which ostensibly on Nuclear deal, is actually commentary on Indian democracy. I have somewhat similar take. The chain of reasoning whereby I arrived at it is as following.

1. On the one hand is the behavior of  individual in a society. In individual capacity, humans have a tendency to act in self interest. They can also act in a way which is altruist, but the altruistic behavior is in general much weaker than self interest in context of individual, having  any appreciable effect only if present as a cultural, (and therefore in context of collective) norm.
However the problem with actions solely based on self interest is that it leads to uncontrolled competition leading to conflict, and breakdown of governance.

2. On the other hand is the return to the individual in participatory democracy. I don't have the link, but I think it is well established that effect of individual voting in a particular way is negligible to the result.

These two condition present challenges for democracy to function in any meaningful way. First condition challenges the capability to provide stability, whereas the second condition challenges the ability to deliver the goods.

These two challenges can be resolved by an existing phenomenon in human society, identity groups. Human, given a large, and heterogeneous, sample space, tend to coalesce as identity groups. This process of coalescing takes place along, to coin a phrase similar to phase boundaries, identity boundaries, the specific boundaries being ever fluid, present form depending on the past history as well as immediate power dynamics, when I say I include both social as well as economic perspective.

Therefore, how well a democracy is capable of delivering, is a function of how the power struggle between identity groups is resolved*, in other words the (dynamic) equilibrium state**.

Now here my analysis differs from DataNazi. He classifies the voters as interest groups and free agents, with (according to him) interest groups working for their narrow interest, and free agents for the interest of larger group, further from the reading of the posts, one gets the impression that interest groups are taken to be mainly social, that is based on caste or religion (though he does give example of big farmers as interest group, for some reason he excludes bureaucracy from the definition). I disagree with both the criteria.

First interest groups can be economic as well as social in nature. Caste/language/religion/ethnicity are examples of purely social interest groups, whereas class/occupation are examples of economic. In reality the interest groups are bound to project both into social as well as economic spheres.

Second, his distinction between free agents and interest groups, and recommending more free agents (though there is some confusion, as in follow up he calls pay commission an exercise to mop up free agents, calling in question desirability of free agents). He also introduces concept of rivalrous vs. non rivalrous economic resources, in order to understand the difference between interest groups and free agents. However  I will formulate it differently.

The key to understand is while all groups act according to their respective group interests, the important point to consider is effect of their actions on the whole. If the net effect of action on the whole is positive we call it positive externalities, and in the opposite case, negative. As a general rule the actions with positive effects are co-operative in nature, whereas those with negative ones are coercive or conflictive in nature. From the above we conclude that democratic systems deliver or succeed when the group interaction is set up such that it promotes positive externalities while suppressing  negative externalities, whereas inability to do so results in failure of the state and with it of the community.

Related to above is the fact that very frequently the democratic systems act as a feedback loop, in that systems with net negative promote conflict which strengthens conflict based negative identities***, ultimately causing the system failure, whereas systems with net positive promote cooperation which strengthens positive identities. In general it is possible for a stable system to switch between negative and positive cycles.
Here I will like to note that the feedback effect in both the cases is not same with conflict feedbacks more effective that cooperation feedbacks. ****

Hence the desirable course is

a) Indian democracy at present is configured in such a way that the result in a negative system with feedback. In order to succeed, suitable changes must be effected so that system switches to positive. Easier said than done. (Will try to address this point later)

b) This above is possibly only if we can forge group(s) based on the identity(ies) which promote positive externalities.


* In the previous post I listed following social conditions for meaningful democracy.

a) The various competing groups (based on differing identities) are matching in the power

b) There should exist at minimum tradition of co-operation to not only participate in democratic process, but also for democratic state to govern, this requires consensus on, in other words common assumptions about, certain issues where the whole take precedence, at least politically, over the constituent (and competing) groups.

** Just to be clear the equilibrium state is variant and will change as the competing forces continuously adjust themselves.

*** Here I am identifying conflict with negative, and cooperation with positive this many not be always true.

**** Why the asymmetry ? My best guess is conflict is a more basic response, and hence stronger, to man than cooperation.

What a despicable scumbag

So, according to the libertarian dunce.

India = British Empire.
Kashmir = India
Gilani = Mahatma Gandhi.
Manmohan Singh = Winston Churchill (How, I wish)

Well what else can one expect from such a narcissistic jerk. Seriously I hope his love is reciprocated by some Jihadi, his life is a disgrace to memory of his dear departed mother. Anyway file this away as why I find libertarians as despicable as socialists, and why I have nothing but contempt for center of right non sense.

E pluribus unum

The fallen one responds to Swaminathan Aiyar and Turd with the beard ( aka Vir singhavi), explaining why allowing Kashmir to secede is a bad idea. For the most part the post is tolerable enough, however it is in summarizing his argument that fallen one blunders.

The reality is this: To ensure the well-being of people in the region, including those of its neighbours, India as a whole, and not just Jammu & Kashmir, needs to place a premium on individual freedoms on the one hand, and on tolerance on the other

I am sorry but this is same old secular non-sense. We can not dream of the well being, the freedom, the tolerance unless India is united, politically as well as culturally. And that is the biggest question what is the idea behind India. Curiously this is always left unanswered for some strange reason. This failure to address the question render the rest of the exercise about Kashmir moot.

Having said that, let me admit here that a careful reading of the above post makes one discern the secular assumption behind India, that is, utilitarian, with utility function comprising of individual freedom, prosperity in some way. In this it is similar to what former blogger (and present greedy capitalist pig) Ritwik wrote here *, however a little more candidness on the part of secularists will be most appreciated.

PS. As regarding Kashmir, I say keep Jammu and Ladakh to ourselves, divide Kashmir between ourselves and Jihadis, expel Hurriyat, Muftis and Abdullahs from India, and if the independent Kashmir makes some nuisance or tries to merge with Pakistan. bomb the ingrates to stone age. Or whatever barbar says.

* That post was a part of arguments between us which started with this post. I still have to counter Ritwik's arguments. I will reply to it one of these days , but briefly while in general I find much to agree with consequentialism (a superset of Utilitarianism) , I don't think it answers question of national identity, or even the dynamics of human societies, leave alone philosophical quandaries.

Democracy & India

(From annals of forgotten posts)

Ravi recently wrote couple of posts on democracy, whose premises I am not sure I completely agree with.

Let's take the later post first.

According to Ravi democracy is better for the ruling class because it reduces the possibility of a violent change in the regimen. I don't know really, but I doubt that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Allende or any number of democratically elected leaders who met their maker in violent takeover by one or other faction will agree with that, in fact they might have strongly disagreed with the argument, if not for the fact that they are dead.

"Now, now", I hear you objecting, "The manner in which the above became departed was hardly democratic. If the manner were democratic, they would still be on this earth waging long war against Hindu India/Imperialist America".

Which, exactly, happens to be my objection, a system of governance can only be tested by its results and not how it is supposed to work in theory, if democratically elected leaders are overthrown in violent coups, it means the existing power dynamics made democracy unsuitable to begin with.

Which brings me to the more important point. People mistake effect for cause and over stress the importance of democracy. Historically it was not that establishment of democracy was the beginning of the great social transformation such as greater freedom or individuhalism but that democracy, along with freedom, was the end result of accrual of incremental changes gradually brought over by interaction and conflict between existing social forces in presence of technological advances.

This is not to say that democracy doesn't have any effect, but in general, like any social or technological event the change has a feedback effect, and to proposing a simplistic model of democracy as a sufficient cause for peace, or prosperity is simply erroneous.

Now coming to the former post, again I suspect that the post confuses specific structure of state with  underlying social dynamics. Democracy is a particular form of governance whose existence is subjected to social dynamics.

Now any detailed analysis of the dynamics for the specific case will be too lengthy for this post, but briefly democracy can exist when a) The various competing groups (based on differing identities) are matching in the power and b) There should exist at minimum tradition of co-operation to not only participate in democratic process, but also for democratic state to govern, this requires consensus on, in other words common assumptions about, certain issues where the whole take precedence, at least politically, over the constituent (and competing) groups.

Now India fulfills the first condition, however second condition is tricky, while historically we Indians share same cultural and civilizational space, we have not yet been able to form a political identity. As long as Nehru-Gandhi family was focal point of Indian politics, it was possible for Indian democracy to function.

However, having spent their political capital over years, the erstwhile first family is reduced in its influence.
As result that we find, with the beginning of coalition era, our democratic system in chaos and disorder.

Whether Indian democracy can survive, or even Indian republic will exist will depend on the ability of Indians to forge political unity.

My take on confidence vote

Yeah, I know it's bit late, but who cares !
 
Shorter version: Nothing much has changed.

I will try to explain the above, but first please go through what others have written on it, here is Rohit, Sakshi, Sandeep and Yossarian.

Now this may seem counter intuitive. After all this win has been hailed as the great watershed moment in Indian politics, when the puppet of Italian lady finally became Kinng, the disconnect of our journalists from reality is so acute that they are making the utterly nonsensical suggestion of restart of economic reforms by present government.

However what is necessary to understand here is that what Congress won was battle for PR. Which is unsurprising considering how ELM is desperate to cover up for Manmohan Singh and his mistress Our Lady of 10 Janpath. And it should be clear to anyone who followed debacle of NDA in 2004, that PR superiority doesn't make for electoral victories, this is the reality of contemporary  Indian  politics.

Which is why I believe that opinion in my previous post still stands with few minor adjustments, in case Congress decides to fight on platform of reforms (India shining redux), at best it may improve upon its previous tally marginally*, at worst it will realize just like BJP, that time is not yet ripe for pro-growth as political platform. BJP remains confused with no clear direction, there is no way it can win**.

But the biggest gainer to me seems to be Behenji, contrary to what Rohit thinks. Having followed her political career since early 90's with a mix of fascination and disgust, I can say two things for sure, one that underestimate her at own peril, two she thinks long term and punches way above her weight. Which is why, what seems to Rohit a failure, to me seems to be flawless execution of her long term strategy***.

* What I mean is, it is possible that Congress may be able to attract middle class voters to its fold (though it is highly suspect), problem is it doesn't have its winning coalition, which is why any gain is bound at best to be marginal, and this is best case analysis, discounting inflation, high oil prices etc. Ultimately what works is a) Ability to cobble a winnable coalition of identities agreeing to work together and b) Ability to rouse this coalition sufficiently to vote on election day.DataNazi recently wrote a post related to this, am thinking of discussing that.

** Which doesn't mean that Congress can't lose. In fact, I think this election will be repeat of 2004, except that this time Congress will be the loser.

*** Again this is subject to Mayawati performance in Lok Sabha elections, and ability to gain acceptability among the political classes. Much hinges on UP of course, but she can help her cause by a) Undermining Congress (This by the way will help BJP), and b) Cultivating pan-Indian appeal (By appealing to Dalit pride).
Her performance will of course enhance her reputation and acceptability, she can also forge an understanding with left (I am sure that left will be happy to take offer in order to stay relevant.)

I Coulda Been Somebody

Story of India ! Happy (Belated) Independence Day.

The perils of secular triangulation

I have been meaning to comment on these two articles. These are remarkable because they mark some of the rare occasions when someone from secular liberal establishment breaks off from the norm and makes an admission, even if grudging (and the above articles are reluctant, I regret to say), either  of exceptionalism of Indic civilization and her history, or of the conflict between Hindu and Muslims which is existential in nature.

First the article by Ashish Nandy (courtesy Rohit). Now even though he is a figure much reviled by us nationalists, I think unlike others he should be engaged in debate. In the article he rightly mocks the idea that Indians need to be indoctrinated with secularism for living in communal amity, something which has been the norm of Indic religious experience, if only our liberal overlords did bother to notice, (of course having been indoctrinated in missionary schools they can't be expected to, but that is a different matter). I do have two objections to it however. Firstly, there is still a reluctance to elucidate, namely , it is Hinduism which is the soul of Indic civilization, and history of India is inseparable from history of Hinduism. Secondly, as I have written earlier, tolerance, and inclusiveness is not the highest virtue a civilization can aspire for, and certainly not one that should be adhered to fanatically at all time without regards to cost, sure in the general scheme of things, being tolerant and respectful is a great enabler of social interaction and progress. However there are times, and situations, when tolerance is not only useless but impediment in doing what is right. So while India has been tolerant, it is not its highest virtue nor the ultimate goal she sought.

The article by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is also interesting in that it admits that the agitation over Amarnath is very much communal in nature, in fact, he goes further, correctly, in his explanation and reveals the great taboo. That partition was very much about conflicting identities (or nationalities he puts), and therefore any conversation without taking conflict and its history into account is for any practical purposes worthless. However even here he is reluctant to go whole hog and name the conflict identities,because doing so will establish a) That there is an Islamic identity which has influenced masses of Muslims from various parts of the globe, impacting events, in past as well as contemporary  world and b)  More importantly there is Indian identity which is independent of, and much more vast, than present shibboleth of secularism, which has directed actions of people living across this land since times immemorial. .

Finally the refusal of secular establishment to accept the truth and power of India must be recognized for what it is, a sort of schizophrenia, driven by their self loathing due to lifetime of indoctrination, the establishment seeks post-identity society. Since this is impossible to achieve, at least in this age of civilization, what it finds is stagnation leading to dissolution of India. Nihilism by chance.

No it's not them, it's us

I will be frank, I have never seriously put much faith in "us vs.them" and it is not because I care for movies about dyslexic kids.

Here is what I think. Prior to partition the obduracy of Muslim intelligentsia was unmanageable. After the partition, however, it was possible to ensure that there is no re-occurrence of the problem in future. We  could have decided, the boundaries for political and cultural discourse, outside of which any conversation would be deemed unacceptable to the main stream. In other words, we could have defined our nationhood. But we didn't. Why ? Because India has been cursed with feebleness. Not merely of intellect, but also of faith in herself, of belief in her history. Her spirit is emaciated. We feel this malaise but unable to cure ourselves take recourse to placebo of high minded rhetoric. For us secularism is the sedative of a exhausted nation, liberalism  as anesthetic for a tortured civilization.

Which is why, India is thwarted by conflicting identities and loyalties, why even thought partition should have vanquished them Mullahs still rule the roost. This is also the reason why even if there were no Ulemas, or even Muslims, the result will be same.

I don't think you meant what you wrote

Pramodji writes

Between the communal Congress and the fascist BJP, Indian voters have little to choose from

Err, calling BJP fascist is too nutty even for some one who pines for Ron Paul. Unless of course it is Orwell's definition we are using.

Question On Asimov.

This post by Megan McArdle on American urban spaces reminds me of Earth and Spacer series*. Now I have always thought that when Asimov wrote about Spacers he was actually talking about Americans what with their preoccupation with privacy and personal space. My question is whom did the Earthmen represent ? Generic third worlders ? Chinese ? Indians ? **

* Wiki classifies the trilogy as Robot Series, I don't agree. Story wise, the trilogy can be better seen as precursor to Empire/Foundation series. Of course that was accomplished by  writing  two of the lamest books of Foundation series, which just goes on to prove that Asimov sold his soul to the Man of Publishing House.


** It can't be Russians for sure as Asimov visualized the future with Americans and Russians as under united.
And for the record, I don't think it could have been Indians either, I doubt Asimov (or for that matter Heinlein) thought much of Indians.

Blame Hindus

You know who is to blame for this Jammu uprising ? Hindus, of course. Because Muslims are always the victims.
Hence Kashmir unrest was "secular" , ostensibly for federalism, while Jammu unrest is communal, because we can't have Hindus getting uppity, can we ?

Keeping that in mind it is somewhat of respite to this Hindu to read this stinging article by Ashok Malik on ELM's instinctive bias against Hindus.

I must admit this naked bias did surprise me, though I should have seen it coming. Somehow I assumed that five year of secular liberal rule might have lessened the Hinduphobia of pimps of secularism ELM, but I forgot that this contempt and hatred for Hindus is not merely a matter of political power play, this goes deeper, this is a malaise that afflicts the secular spirit, a mind seduced by annihilation of identity, and end of history, with nihilism as the only conclusion. The God might be dead but eschatology lives on.

On terrorism

I started writing this as a short post intended to this post by GB, however since this post by FiTW and this article by Saubhik Chakravarti are also relevant to the issue at hand, so I broadened the scope.

It is almost unnecessary to state that terrorism is a complex issue involving various interdependent causes or factors having a feedback affect on each other. Now  I do concur that there are many factors involved which can be addressed and mitigated by considering as law and order problem. Specifically to bring results following at least are required  a. a federal agency with an unambiguous and centralized command and adequate resources, for intelligence, and investigation (as mentioned by GB) as well as clear and simple communication channel with various domestic and international agencies. b. Law(s) to facilitate intelligence, investigation, and prosecution without hindrance, this can be achieved by re-enacting POTA and other laws.

However the scope of these steps as far as terrorism is limited. To be precise, these steps are concerned with disrupting the supply chain of terrorism by dismantling the necessary infrastructure whether communication wise or logistics wise. What these can not address are the issues which go deeper than mere infrastructure, to be more specific, source of terrorism.

First take the more obvious. "Moral support" from "land of pure". So far this has been the major source for terrorism (although there is speculation that this might be changing). If counter-terrorism efforts have to have any meaning threat from Pakistan must be neutralized. As I have written many times earlier also, there are three approaches to accomplish that.

First, diplomacy. I hope I am not being too hasty in claiming that it has failed. Of course that it has failed should not stop secular liberal establishment from touting it time to time as a breakthrough or BJP from trying to imitate it looking for elusive acceptability from the establishment, but rest of us can move on. Second, in words of Don Vito Corleone,  is to reason with them, by delivering political equivalent of horse's head at Pakistan's feet. This may be difficult, but certainly doable, and importantly, the only way to achieve immediate results. In long term however, Pakistan will continue to weaken India by any way possible, and hence it is necessary that it be dismembered. But that is just my inner Hindutva Fascist speaking.

Now we come to the perplexing part, because while Pakistan is external threat, there is undeniable evidence that terrorism is being fomented from within the country as well. Muslims find themselves increasingly ghettoized, a problem largely of their own making, one which has been going since partition. A significant, and ever increasing, percentage of Indian Muslims are being indoctrinated in Madarassas resulting in increasing fundamentalism and radicalization. The community remains beholden to leaders who promise favors or mostly just a collective face against kaffirs, and to Ulemas deeply rooted in Islamic theology and a historical sense of  creedal superiority who ensure that Muslims remain chained in past, with only interaction in present as perpetual victims of either duplicity of kaffirs, or treachery of time. This is not helped by the secular liberal establishment for whom Muslim community is a convenient prop to burnish its credential as savior of oppressed.


No wonder then this radicalization along with resentment and grievance* over injustice works to inculcate sympathy for the terrorism among the community, with a few individuals actively turning to terrorism.

This is a cause for concern, and also the main reason why it should never be concerned as merely law and order, which basically means that it is a matter of random individual breaking laws for their personal and unrelated gains. However as FiTW points out this is hardly the case. The ultimate aim of terrorist is clear, even if cliched, to destroy this country.

This is also the reason that Saubhik Chakrabarti is way off the mark, surprisingly so, as he is very much the part of secular liberal establishment, any conversation on radicalization can not happen, indeed will not be allowed to happen as there is simply too much at stake, for Maulvis as well as establishment, to maintain the fiction of Muslim as lamb to be perpetually defended from big bad Hindutva wolf. In fact the very notion of Indian Secularism hinges upon the insistence at absolute equality between Hindus and Muslims irrespective of the time. Any contrary evidence is either ignored, embellished or dismissed as irrelevant.

* So am I saying there are no genuine grievances as opposed to manufactured ones. I think there are, but that subject will have to wait for another post.

Paris Hilton video (Like totally hawt)

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Yeah, I am that desperate.

Bonus!  Angelina Jolie's twins

Fighting terrorism

Excellent

Hey, this is OK. After all they are misguided youths, and anyway why should one care fr one or two kaffirs.

Update:  Ban RSS, demands Congress.  Good, go for the root cause.

Please explain

TSWITW (courtesy )* writes

When you see the map, it becomes radically apparent just how firmly Britain was the root of the Industrial revolution.  With the lone exception of Japan, the darkest places on the map are either next to Britain, or former British colonies.  And aside from Saudi Arabia and Chile, all the growth seems to spread outward from those Anglosphere points of infection.  Nowhere, not even Saudi Arabia, has the income density of Western Europe and North America.

Now here are the maps. First question is how did she reach the conclusions she did. Because frankly speaking I don't have a clue. Second question is prosperity of neighbours really a good argument, no make it any argument , for roots of Industrial revolution

Jo waada kiya woh nibhana padega (reprise)

*

Response from Land of pure. "Sure, why not. We are all cool, like Fonzie (Until next round of fireworks)".

PS. For old time sake.

PPS. For the record, I don't think, BJP would have responded any better. They are,in insightful, even if slightly out of cotext, words of Ronen Sen, bunch of headless chickens.

Final insult

What could be the final insult for a feminist atheist ?

Update: Answer in comments.

I don't know

but what has India got to do with Philadelphia Convention.Oh, forgot this is how sophomores think they can impress people, either that or there is some serious inbreeding going down there in Mylapore.

The same old game

You know, I understand that there are some Indian Muslims out there who want to restore the trust and credibility.
I am not sure being lying weasel and playing victim to distract from terrorism is really going to help though.

When told to elaborate, he said, "In our opinion, it was done by the opponents of (Gujarat Chief Minister) Narendra Modi [Images]. They want to make him unpopular. So far Modi has always been saying he has given security to the people of Gujarat, but these blasts have exposed him. And everyone knows who benefits if Modi is under attack."

Five days after 24 live bombs were found in Surat, Muslims in the diamond city are in a state of shock. They feel their city is under attack by someone who wants to create communal disturbances. They fear that the combing operations by the police will lead to the arrest of innocent Muslims.
Without naming anyone, Hanif says, "We all know there are leaders in Narendra Modi's party who want him out. You see, parliamentary elections will be held next year and if the Bharatiya Janata Party wins in a big way in Gujarat, the credit will go to Modi. And he is the most popular leader in the BJP after L K Advani [Images]. His rivals don't want him to become very powerful post the 2009 elections."

Now I don't know about you, but I am seriously pissed off. Seriously, stop playing games. Hindus are stupid, just not as stupid as some in secular liberals and Muslims think.
Anyway if it is some consolation, it is still less repulsive and bizarre than what Sushma Swaraj said.

Leave Barack Alone

Dedicated to the Obama fanboy (No not aegophile, ask Respected Ma'am)

Update: What is messiah without a religion.