Rebooting Hindutva

Disclaimer 1: While as a cultural nationalist, I am very much interested in resurgence of India & Hinduism (both being inseparable in my view). The topic is too vast for a single post, as well as too complicated for a single person.

Disclaimer 2: When I say Hindutva, I do not refer to original theory propounded by Savarkar, having never read, but on Hindutva, the political movement, which accompanied Ram Janam Bhoomi movement in 80's 

Note: Throughout the post, whenever I use "we", "us" it is for cultural nationalists.

A Clear Eyed Assessment Of Hindutva

Where we are

In the wake of Narendra Modi's convincing victory, it's easy for us to be complacent, that is why it is a sobering realization that this victory was not about Hindutva, hell it was not even about Nationalism, cultural or otherwise. It was, to cut a long story short, about acche din.

In fact why just stop at this election. Hindutva (again not referring to Savarkar, but the popular movement) has not scaled well. After its decimation in 1984 BJP was resurrected by Hindutva, not only getting most number of electoral support till then in its history (incl its previous avatar as BJS), but also becoming the focal point around which politics contours will take shape. 

That however changed after demolition of Disputed structure in 1992, while BJP did try to revive the movement both locally in UP and nationally, but could never regain the earlier traction, that along with difficulty in attracting allies (as well as hostile secular-establishment) ensured BJP put it in backburner.

All of this is a repeat of what I wrote in the immediate aftermath of BJP's defeat in 2009 elections. (If it is any comfort, these elections are not a mandate for Center-Right either)

Be that as it may, it doesn't leave us at enviable position. A deceptive ascendancy and frail majority after continued hegemony of sec-lib establishment, (with ABV government nary a intervening blip), we are in state of disorientation, both electorally as well as intellectually.

Electorally, for while there still is a core constituency for Hindutva (however, vaguely defined and understood) it is, at best marginal  In fact, if we can afford to be candid to ourselves for a moment, as far are electoral calculations are concerned, not only we might be irrelevant for large swathes of electoral map, we might also be at disadvantage due to "secular" polarization

Beyond the core constituency of course we have a broad spectrum of sympathisers, however for them Hindutva is seldom the first priority, further antics of Hindutva organizations (vandalism & violence) frequently alienate even the sympathisers.

Related to this (even if not apparent) is question of our intellectual bearings. What does contemporary Hindutva stand for ? 370 UCC, Ram Mandir ? Is there nothing more to Hindutva?

At risk of earning ire of fellow Hindutva Vadis, let me suggest, Hindutva as it exists at presents is not much more than a confused cacophony of slogans. It is true that there is real passion behind slogans, but in absence of direction, the passion will degenerate into lumpen behavior.

And then there is question of elections. We can't persuade voters to our side, if our side doesn't have any message or if we ourselves are confused.

Hindutva, could and should, be more than that. This post and this blogger are hardly the right medium to do justice to such a humongous project. However let me suggest that at the least Hindutva should be a civilizational project, meant to rejuvenate our atrophied motherland.

With that context, here is what I think should guide evolution of Hindutva.

1. Independence from Government - I am no doctrinarian libertarian, however there are valid reasons to be wary of government interference,  both general (corruption in proximity of power) and specific (the more we empower government in religious matters, the more likely it is that it will be used by sec-lib establishment to undermine Hinduism and Hindu Dharma )

2. Creation Of Institutions - We must build institutions to support and nurture Hindu Dharma through, documentation, instruction, dissemination, discussion and ideation. These institutions can be conventional as well as unconventional.

3 Creation Of Ecosystem - The institutions created should aim to be as comprehensible as possible wrt all the facets of civilizational project such as spirituality, history, politics, civics, philosophy etc through interdisciplinary exchange.

4. Cultivation of  knowledgeable and motivated supporter. Who can engage and contribute meaningfully in this project.

5. Integration with the existing social institutions, networks and frameworks. We might not know what Hindutva is at this point, but we know what it is not It is not an attempt to recreate the civilization from scratch or upend the existing order for some utopian scheme. Rather it is an attempt to gradually and incrementally heal, nourish and strengthen our motherland.

6. Securing the capital to finance- Last but not the least, such a civilizational effort will need considerable amount of capital to sustain, which is only possible if we also have businessmen and traders, industrialists and financiers onboard this project.

To reiterate what I said few days back on twitter.

"Along with Chatrapati Shivaji, we also need Samarth Guru Ramdas, along with Maharana Pratap, we also need Bhama Shah"

To be continued...

Our Modern Crisis: Death Of Superman

Concluding part to series. Previous posts here and here

The gist of previous posts was

1. As far as man is concerned, evolution transforms from a purely biological phenomena to one transcending social, technological and spiritual dimensions.

2. This evolution, transcendent, tends to cleave a man as  projections on various planes, biological, social, technological and spiritual, more often than not at tension with each other.

3. Proper aim of philosophy, science, religion any system of knowledge created by human endeavour should be to harmonize the multifaceted nature of evolution. This in turn implies the aim should  to keep man's projections in harmony, to project a "becoming" man. Only that much can be expected, anything more should be left up to evolution

The end of our runaway evolutions is at some unknown point in future. when the synthesis of man's projections is complete, and they unite to create a transformed man. All the concepts are preparatory stage for this glorious transformation when out of becoming man, Superman emerges . Even the gods as mighty as they are but intermediate staging something staggering

This idea, of a transformed man, was first proposed by Nietzsche in form of Ubermensch (lit. overman). However, Nietzsche, his vision restricted by receding lights of Christianity and blinding supernova of biological evolution. Consequently, Ubermensch became a material counterpoint to Jesus Christ, a spiritual balm offered by Christianity for material affliction. As a result Ubermensch became a prisoner of biology, condemned to chase sensual pleasures, even if that was not intended by Nietzsche.

It was Guru Aurobindo Ghosh who perhaps realized this fundamental concept underlying observable reality in life divine with emergence of supramental being. In doing so, he was synthesizing concept from ancient Hindu thought with Theory of Evolution. This is Superman.

I believe ancients were sub-consciously aware of evolution and Superman. The way they accommodated this awareness into their world view differed from civilization to civilization. Greeks realized this accommodation of evolution in politics, in philosophy and in natural sciences by eudaimonia, but they missed the spiritual, hence missing Superman.

Hindus, in my biased view, had keenest grasp of the evolution and Superman. They accommodated their view by infusing earthly with spiritual and spiritual with earthly. As a consequence the line between faith and world so stark in west, is blurry at best in India.

The Jews had their God but instead of pointing man to Superman, this "insecure, jealous God" imprisoned the man in a prison of covenants and laws, circumscribing his evolution in philosophy, natural science or spirituality. Christianity compromised between Greeks and Jews. Its God reached to man, holding promise for man to flourish philosophically and spiritually. Yet even Christian God was derived from Jewish God  and remained insecure and aware of its incompleteness, in the end Christianity inverted the vision of evolution and Superman, and replaced man as starting point to Superman, with man as end result of fall of man, evolution with original sin, and Superman himself with grace.  It was a rebellion, not of Adam against God, but of Christian God against Superman!

But as inverted as Christian world view was, even though it rebelled against evolution and Superman, it still had the saving grace of a vision of man beyond his biological self, it held a promise, however confounded,  of man's elevation.

Superman survived.

And then renaissance happened.

Like Christianity, it inherited from Greeks as well as Jews (as did it from Christianity itself), however it attempted a different approach at reconciling. It retained that Jewish framework of Laws, but killed the God, it retained Greek science but excluded eudaimonia.

The end result was even more devastating than Christianity. For renaissance man, devoid of promise of evolution,  science, philosophy became end in itself and not the means, their pursuit meant for intellectual pleasure and not evolution. Devoid of God or any means to connect to spiritual self, renaissance man turned inwards, and made himself the end, and instead of evolution there was degeneration, instead of flourishing, there was withering, and instead of Superman. man became Last man

And this is how Superman died.

Frankly, Mr Dhume, I don't give a damn!

(This post contains profane language)


Now, compared to your typically ethically challenged journalist/public intellectual, I have a rather favourable opinion of  Sadanand Dhume, which is why I am sort of nonplussed with where exactly he is going when on eve of 26/11 he reminds  us that many in Pakistan (presumably liberals) were appalled by the attacks.

Excuse me for breaking the rules of decorum, but why am I supposed to give a flying f**k about how appalled the bed-wetting class in LOP is about all  this "unpleasant situation".

For the simple fact is you can take all the dread, consternation, horror, revulsion, indignation and whatever else Pakistani liberals feel about 26/11 and still fall ten rupees short of ten rupees vada pav.

To paraphrase Jennifer Lopez, for liberals, whether of LOP or of India, feelings don't cost a thing. For them all the hand wringing and tch-tching is about signalling kindness in their heart and virtue in their soul to the world in general and their peer in particular.

Pakistani liberals don't care about 26/11 or about terrorism against India.

You don't believe me, do you! Then please tell me, where are morchas by Pakistani liberals demanding an end to state sponsorship of terrorism against India, or demanding punishment against masterminds of the terror attacks. Forget morchas, where are the articles in their liberal respectable publications, newspapers or magazines, offline or online denouncing terrorism against India, unequivocally asking for an end in involvement by Pakistani state.

I will tell you, you wont find any such examples, because there aren't any! And that is not because Pakistani liberals are scared. Not so !  To accuse them of cowardice is to do disservice to them. Pakistani liberals have been vocal critics of Mullahs and Military (ofcourse it helps that they possess no threat to either of them).

The only reasons that I can surmise behind their reluctance is either they don't care, or they consider terrorism a justified response to Indian "occupation" of Kashmir, or an appeasement of Jihadi monster.

Either way, by their silent acquiescence, they have encouraged religious war against Kaffirs by a psychopathic Pakistani state.

If you want to remember 26/11 please remember for what it was just one instance in ongoing jihad against Hindus by a Pakistan which still resents the fact that for all their professions of Islamic piety and purity they are in essence rape child of Islamicized central asian hordes, and that even after thousand years of persecution Hindus refuse to submit to the true faith.

And also remember the true lesson of 26/11

PAKISTAN DELENDA EST.

An absolutely awesome post on Koran burning

if awesomeness is measured with X*

I am sure everyone must be fed up with Uncle Sam coverage, however frankly speaking blogging wise this is a low hanging fruit, so here is what I think about Koran burning gimmick. As you might have guessed I am against it.

a. It is offensive to a lot of good people.

b. Just like minaret ban and outcry over Love Jihad, it is a emotive, and as such distracts from serious threat of global political Islam.

Having said I am underwhelmed by many of the arguments against it. They are

a. It is fascism. No, it is not. It would have be fascist if US govt were burning piles of Korans. An individual burning Koran, while arguably boorish, doesn't fascism make.

b. It will offend Muslims and boost Jihad. It is true. Burning Koran will offend Muslims. You know what else offends Muslims? US in Iraq, US in Afghanistan, US not intervening in Palestine, US intervening in Palestine, Jews in Israel, Jews in Europe, Jews in Planes, Muslims among Christians, Muslim among Hindus, Muslims among Buddhists, Muslims among Secularists, Christian among Muslims, Hindus among Muslims, Buddhist among Muslims, Sikhs among Muslims, Baha'i among Muslims, Ahmadis among Muslims, Shias among Sunnis, Sunnis among Shias, African Muslims Among Arab Muslims. I could really go on, but I hope you must have gotten the picture.

It doesn't make much sense to fret over offending Muslim sensibilities, because few ruffled feathers are not root cause of jihad, just like lack of democracy is not the cause, or the poverty, or oil.

The cause behind jihad is the supremacism intrinsic to Islam, unless it is excised be ready for more terrorism.

* where X = number of links

Colbertization of politics.

Let's talk about Uncle Sam a little longer. Stephen Colbert  appeared before US Congressional committee on immigration in his blow-hard O' Reillesque persona (via Hot Air again). In a way this just furthers bolsters the argument that American politics is becoming an extension of personal, in this particular instance a result of excessive self-regard and at the same an acute need for peer approval among the demographic group termed as hipsters. This main characteristic of this phenomenon, let's call it colbertization, is trivialization of serious matters, accompanied with self-assuredness and self-righteousness that only comfort and security of living in United States can bring. In it it is reminiscent of what Heinlein termed as "Bread and Circus democracy",

"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

Why Barkha Dutt hates Hindus ?

Of course here Barkha Dutt is just a stand in for the whole sec-lib establishment, so the question really is why sec-lib establishment hates Hindus. Essentially this question is answered by my previous post, but I would still like to expand on this. To understand the Hinduphobia of the sec-lib establishment, it is important to understand its psychology (hey I am all about the big ‘M’).


Regarding any political establishment four factors come to play. First, it is formed for some noble (as perceived by its members) purpose. Second, no matter how noble the purpose is in reality sooner or later preservation and expansion becomes its one of the main focus, if not the primary focus. This dismaying fact is just inevitable result of human psychology. Third, the assumption behind formation of any such organization, which is the members of organization are better (whether in matter of faith, chivalry, or intellect) than the common populace. Fourth, as the establishment favors the conformity, the unstated assumption to judge any member is zealousness with which he adheres to the specific dogma of the establishment. These four factors, assumption of nobility, assumption of superiority, will to power and pressure to conform profoundly affect the self identification of the individual members of the establishment, essentially engendering what I like to call "second foundation complex", sort of vanguard to shepherd the unwashed masses, the only force standing between barbarism and civilization, and the engine to carry out the great commission. 


To add to these general characteristic, we have the circumstances peculiar to sec-lib establishment. Basically sec-lib establishment is an alien organism within the host body. The establishment predominantly constitutes of the deracinated Indians, intellectually and spiritually Macaulay's children. Historically they self identify not with their Indian brethren, but with the British colonizers. Brought up in an environment where the western and the modern is appreciated, and Indian and the traditional is sneered upon, they develop a western and irreligious outlook which outside the immediate circle of the peers is at odds with the a deeply spiritual and traditional country.


This contradiction presents an existential dilemma to the establishment, much like Islamic rulers of Delhi, they feel besieged by the surrounding Indic civilization. Subconsciously they realize that Hinduism is the core of Indic civilization. They also realize that it is our traditions with all their quirks and follies which are an obstacle to their vision of a irreligious and westernized future. This threat of being subsumed by something which they consider far inferior to themselves, and the frustration at being unable to convert unwashed heathen masses to their superior and enlightened outlook are what ultimately drives their hostility to the Hinduism.


It is important to realize their game plan. All their self righteous outrage about Gujarat riots, or Mumbai riots, or Shri Rama Sena, or Discrimination against Muslims is just smokescreen. Their aim ultimately is to annihilate the Indic civilization.




And they will not stop.


Unless we finish off them first.

Wave Particle Theory Of Politics II

(From where we left )


Now it is my contention that failure of Indian state is a result of our inability to resolve the tension between Individual and Citizen. Let's see why is that so.

Of the two roles Individual is naturally predominating. This is because, self interest is more deeply ingrained in human genes. In order to bring the balance between the two, cultural training to suppress selfish instinct and reinforce altruist one is required. I believe that we have simply failed to form a culture which imparts such training.

There are quite a few reasons for this. First around six decades under totalitarian rule of Gandhi-Nehru dynasty have spawned a culture of scarcity, thus ensuring that even any natural altruistic instinct is eradicated, result, at social level, it is everyman for himself.

Second factor is the mechanism whereby cooperation and by extension altruism is strengthened. This mechanism is the affinity that an individual has towards others. Now this affinity is strongest among members from the same gene pool, next to genes, it is dependent of shared culture, religion, language and decreases as the social interaction decreases. The other factor affecting affinity is the power differential among members. All things remaining constant greater the power difference, which is reflected in social status, lesser the affinity. Thus people with same social status have greater affinity among themselves than among unequal status.

This has unhappy implication for Indian democracy. As a consequence of caste system even at local level Indian society is highly stratified and hierarchical, this is why while there is affinity within the caste group, the affinity between two different caste group is much weaker. Add to this caste hierarchy and historical social inequality in form of caste discrimination due to it, and the result is a society is where  there is a high level of distrust and more important resentment and anger among different castes groups situated in the same locality.

This combined with the first factor has two consequences first the more benign one unless the underlying conditions change politically Indians will continue free loading, the more alarming concern however is the struggle for resources between different caste groups is leading to a powder keg situation where all that is required for conflagration is a small provocation, which may make phrase a million mutinies literally true.

The Wave-Particle Theory Of Politics - I

(Or why Youngistan is bad news)

Good evening (or a bad one, I don't care either way). Those of you who visit this blog to actually read it (instead of looking for Tanushree Datta's photos) might have noticed one theme, among many, of the political posts, viz. while Indian entrepreneurs have succeeded, Indian state has been a massive colossal failure. Now while this observation, call it contradiction or paradox or whatever you like, has its epigrammatic moment, it has kind of bothered me, but it's only been recently that I understood why. The way it is put, it gives the impression that Indian state and the Indian entrepreneur are distinct, an obviously misleading impression, as the Indian state represents (or is supposed to represent, at any rate) Indian people! Taking this to conclusion it's the failure of state is actually that of Indians.

This raises further question, viz. why have Indians failed to establish functional democracy (as opposed to what exists which can be best characterized as cargo cult democracy). There is no single factor to explain this. Yet one factor, significant enough, has been the inability (and as a consequence failure to frame specific institutions of state to address it) to understand the dual role of an individual in a democracy.

Before that a minor digression to explain the title. In classical physics matter and energy are considered to be distinct phenomena with particle a characteristic of matter and wave a characteristic of energy. Quantum physics shattered this picture, tuned out matter and energy are different aspects of the same phenomena, with wave actually representing probability distribtuion of locating particle in space.

In the same way a man has two roles in all forms of democratic society, one as an individual, the other as citizen.

It is expected that man as individual will work for himself, if we want to be retentive about it, the technical description for such behavior is optimization of self defined utility function. Now entrepreneur as an individual seeks to maximize his well being,  the way he does this is by creating value, which ultimately benefits others, however the main objective remains self interest.

This can be contrasted with man's role as citizen. Citizen is better understood as a part of the social experiment, and therefore it is his responsibility to ensure that all the social institutions, ( including state) function to ensure the welfare and prosperity of the society as whole. Again if one wishes to be retentive about it, this roughly means the optimization of aggregated utility functions.

One more digression is required here. The use of "self defined" may suggest that the utility functions are arbitrary, and that is true if one goes by logic alone. However historical evidence and our experience suggest otherwise. Not being a credentialed expert I can only speculate that for a healthy society the utility function somewhat resemble the Maslow's hierarchy*.   Here healthy society means any society which, in addition to the previous qualification, is fit enough to survive in present and also in future, the time scale being civilizational. This then suggests aggregation of individual utility function must be combined with an utility function which applies to the society as a whole. Again this is just my speculation, but this will mean addition of religion and philosophy to Maslow's hierarchy.

It is not difficult to see that there is inherent contradiction between these two roles, with Individual being a self centric role and Citizen an altruistic one. The resolution of the tension between these two roles is the key to a functioning democratic society.


(To Be Continued ...)


* Yes I am hooked on  Maslow's hierarchy. Hey don't judge me at least I don't snort Data unlike Data Nazi.

Friday Double Bill - I, Of Ground Zero Mosque

A very good evening (or a very good whatever the hell your time zone is), to all the comatose readers of this blog (as evidenced by tepid response to previous post). In this edition of  LaS (i.e. Life and Something ), we will discuss the controversy surrounding, depending on who you ask, Ground zero mosque or Park51 community center, proposed in the hymietown. On second thoughts discussion is a very ambitious term, mostly because I don’t have much to say as opposed to, say greatbong. So let me make a brief remark. I don’t have strong opinion about the mosque one way or other, this is because I have no emotional stake in this particular situation, I am not an American much less a New Yorker, neither any of my near or dear ones met their ends on Ground Zero. It is possible people opposing the Mosque are really emotionally aggrieved, it is also possible that they are not enamored of Islam, a possibility which is further supported by the fact this opposition is not limited to the particular case but to any mosque in general. Now I can understand if Americans are wary of Islam, however my view regarding this remains as stated in earlier posts. If Islam is a problem to USA, denying legal rights of citizens is not going to solve it. Having said that what I find really puzzling, no make that mind boggling, is the insistence by supporter of Mosque that it actually is a step for tolerance and understanding. Now this may sound uncharitable, but the matter of fact is 9/11 was perpetrated in name of Islam, considering this, how in God’s name, construction of a mosque near to Ground zero is going to promote understanding! At best this is a case of tone-deafness, at worst however this may seem like pissing on grave of victims to many people who otherwise may not be intolerant to Islam. I suppose constructing a mosque is permitted by the law of the land, however to insist that mosque is a symbol of respect and harmony and to demand that other defer to this viewpoint is nothing short of sanction of the victim.

Paradigm Shift

Related posts 1,2,3

This is related to the previous post, and something about which I have thought now and then. That governance in India leaves much to be desired is quite an understatement. This reason this happened is accident of history depending about how we define the initial state. However while it is an interesting and relevant discussion, let's restrict our focus to what we can do about it. A short answer to this is in democracy we get the government we deserve (and before people object that it is a cliche, understand that cliches are nothing but truth made tedious by familiarity). A more detailed explanation follows. Our political system as it exists today, can be best understood in terms of  patron - client model with government acting as a patron, dispensing favors to interest groups who are its client  at the expense of others, the ending is similar to that in the parable of the monkey and the cats. If Indians wish to prosper that present arrangement must be superseded by a better one. Now I have not yet arrived at precise details of such an arrangement but broadly speaking it should be an ownership model, where the accepted political culture observes the right of ownership, it means by and large citizens understand that the proper, or dharmic, way for prosperity is by  their own ingenuity and entrepreneurship, and not by extorting wealth from fellow citizens. How to reach from present condition to desirable condition should inform our politics as well as policy decisions.

Partition And The Indian Project.

To no one’s surprise, Arun Shourie has boldly gone where no Indian politician has ventured before, namely finding something to commend about Partition, a sentiment, which though will find many supporter among the riff raff of the nets, hardly finds any taker in the respectable society.

The justification is something like this, since idea of Ummah conflicts with the idea of India (a premise I agree with), it would have been impossible for an un-partitioned India to exist as a stable political entity much less emerge as a prosperous and influential nation, the partition prevented this from happening by containing Ummah to manageable level.

My own thoughts about Partition are far from settled. While I more or less agree with the idea of containing Ummah, I am not satisfied with the results. While Ummah in divided India is not as strong force as it would have been in united India, it is still a significant, and to be frank, a corrosive force. This dilemma has no easy answers.

One can of course concoct scheme for transferring Muslim population to Pakistan and Bangladesh (as was suggested by Dr. Amberdkar during partition) but as much as some people might like it, the scheme is less than impracticable.

This leaves us with only two options, one let Ummah fester within the host body and resign ourselves to inevitable results which is disintegration of India. Or if this is not acceptable then assimilate Ummah within India. Therein lays the problem. The reason it is more or less impossible to assimilate Ummah is the same behind the facts that Ummah manages to be a corrosive force even in post partition India, and Indian polity is getting increasingly fragmented along lingual, regional and caste lines, viz. abysmal failure of Hindus/Indians to define their identity. Sure there have been instances in democratic India where a non trivial percentage of the Hindus/Indian have voted as Hindus/Indians, but these instances always been sporadic and almost as emotional, whereas for Hindu/Indian identity to have a meaning, such a political project must anchored in philosophical thought and executed with intellectual vigor.

The process by which such an identity can be formed is too complicated either to be covered in a single post, or to be expounded by a single person (that is I).

However it is possible to describe what minimal conditions end result of such a project must satisfy. I will expand upon this in later posts (Hint: It has to do with the fact I have used “Hindu” along with “India”)

B Raman: Secular Apologist For Islam

I say, why B Raman had to spoil the whole thing! Well, if you must know, TOI came with a brainwave for peace in our lifetime, alliteratively titled “Aman Ki Asha”.  They hope to realize this by, wait for it, people to people contact, which have been tried for, let’s see, some gazillion times. It is difficult to see why this reenactment of cosmopolitan self preening will be different from previous ones unless the goal of this charade is to sell the copies.

It is then B Raman enters and in few paragraphs deftly demolishes the argument, or rather thought, behind the whole charade viz. it is just mutual misunderstanding which is the root cause behind the tension. He states, correctly, that Pakistan is one of the most mistrusted nations as far as terrorism is concerned.

This is the perfect point from which B Raman could have entered and explained the pathology of Pakistan, at this point however he is gripped by a fear that he will cross Laxman Rekha of secularism. As a result he does what all secularists do when they find themselves in this situation, start issuing apology for Islam, such as the problem with Pakistan is its distorted interpretation of Islam not found anywhere else in Ummah.

Really! This is quite surprising because I can think of quite a few countries (read all the countries) which have this “distorted interpretation” of Islam.

In the same manner, as far as cruelty and barbarity go, Pakistan is the norm rather than the exception in the universal Islamic brotherhood. Also, while Pakistan may headquarters of jihadi terrorism, its outlets are everywhere in Ummah through franchise, so even in that Pakistan is hardly the exception that Raman makes it out to be.

But most ridiculous is the presumption by kaffir such as B Raman that they can instruct LOP (Land of Pure) on the soundness of their doctrine. This is as absurd as me suggesting Tamizhans not to sneakily put DAMNED black peppers in the vadai.

There is a relatively straightforward simple explanation for this phenomenon. So imprisoned are secularists to the notion the all religions are equal (whether equally good or equally bad), they simply ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is one more indicator how secularism has morphed from an ideology to article of faith, a pernicious one at that.

PS. It is unlikely, but one might give it a benign twist. Secularists realize that Islam is the problem, but realize that admitting it publicly will make matters worse. Hence the noble lie of distorted Islam. Problem with this is their actions do not suggest that they realize the problem.

PPS. B Raman is right in a way. As far as India is concerned Pakistan is different from Ummah, but that is not a matter of doctrine but rather that of origin. Existence of a kaffir (even if dhimmi) India is a testimony of, first failure of Pakistan to obliterate shirk  from Indian subcontinent and second thriving while even as Pakistan self destructs thus invalidating the premise of superiority of  the deen.

Fear and loathing in Switzerland

We will be talking about 3 idiots but first let's see what is my problem with Swiss minaret ban. Now all crypto Hindu fascists are more or less gloating over the ban and I think that's wrong. Before I state my problem though I think it should not be controversial to admit that this ban is motivated by an apprehension of Islam. This is not to accuse Swiss people of Islamophobia.


Islamophobia is a term frequently deployed by our Sec-Lib overlords to browbeat anyone critical of Islam, which is ridiculous as strictly speaking phobia is irrational fear of something, whereas there are at the least more than a few reasons for Swiss (or for that matter anyone, including Muslims) to be wary of Islam. The only purpose for terming any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia is to frame the criticism as a psychological affliction and therefore not worthy of reasoned response. This is a typical example of the how Sec-Lib establishment frames the narrative.


So apprehension of Islam is not my problem. My problem rather is this ban is just a reflexive response which doesn’t actually do anything to address the concern. Present situation in Europe has arisen because of their asinine immigration policy. Almost all European countries have a minority population which is ethnically distinct, socially depressed and culturally disconnected from the rest of population. These differences, hard to reconcile over in any case, turn to impossible hurdles in case of Europe due to two factors. One, specific to Europe nation states, is the gradual erosion of common culture first as a result of secularism and later socialism. In absence of any foundation, European nations are losing their relevance as political or social unit, only surviving owing to the fact that they are mostly mono ethnic, and Pax Americana. However this state of inertia is challenged by the second factor which is supremacist nature of Islam. 


These two factors combined are the origins behind tensions in Europe, and to address the European problem these factors must be addressed boldly. The ban on Minarets in no way addresses these factors. In fact, it makes the situation worse because it deludes Europeans into believing that they are confronting the problem as the situation becomes increasingly precarious. 

Faithful, besieged

So this is post I promised about, supposedly a brief examination of historical causes behind partition. As usual it is going to be long and incoherent, and people are better off not reading it. You have been forewarned. 

I think it should come as no surprise I am no fan of Harry Potter. To be sure, the series had promise in the beginning, but as it progressed it became a casualty of its own hype. That and I really don't need "snogging" mentioned in literature.Even then I found Lord Voldemort and his death eaters interesting. Lord Voldemort  and death eaters are of course allusion to Hitler and Nazi. Hitler like Voldemort was obsessed with blood purity and just like Voldemort was a half-blood, Hitler was rumored to be part Jewish.

Now this is fictional, but there is a psychological basis for their seemingly contradictory.
Consider an ambitious young man who more than anything craves social status and peer approval. As it happens the only way available to him to achieve his desire is by belonging to a particular group identity.
Unfortunately for him, his association with the group is not strong sufficiently for his liking. Then, if our young man is neurotic enough, it is possible that he will become a zealot for enforcing the group exclusivity.

Coming to Partition, the villains, as is insinuated by minders of secularism, were fanatics of Muslim league led by Jinnah on one side, and Hindu Mahasabha on the other side. This is, to put it mildly, hogwash. Notwithstanding its politcs, Hindu Mahasabha was always a fringe player and as such not a priority for Muslim league. No, their bile and venom was reserved for wily Hindu Bania aka Mahatma Gandhi and Congress under him. So far from Hindu Mahasabha, it was Congress which was the culprit or at the least protagonist during partition.

 Moving to other side, while it is true that Muslim league is guilty of preticipating partition, it was far from a party of wide eyed Mullahs. In fact, in a way it reflected Congress in that it was a coalition of landlords, middle class professionals and intellectuals. But what is even more remarkable about the movement for separate Muslim homeland is its leading lights.

First Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He was a reformer and modernist. His commitment to western and liberals ideals was such that not only he freely consumed alcohol and pork he also advocated same for Muslims so that they can emulate the British. He also contributed significantly towards establishing modern educational institutions for Indian Muslims (Aligarh Muslim University being foremost) and at one time he was a strong advocate of Hindu Muslim unity. Yet later in his life he became one of the prominent proponents for a distinct Muslim political identity, a  position which were to directly lead to formation of Muslim league.

Next comes Aga Khan, Imam of Ismailis, a moderate sect within Shia Islam. He in addition to to religious education, also received modern European education in best of British universities. Later on, he made significant contribution towards establishment of social and economic development. And yet, he was one of the founders of Muslim league.

Following him is Allama Iqbal a descendant of Sapru Kashmiri Brahmins, who like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aga Khan, received western education in European institutions, and besides being a renowned lawyer was an accomplished philosopher and poet. Like others he too began as a patriot who not only stood for an undivided India but also prided himself on Indian heritage (Remember he was the man who gave us Saare Jahan Se Accha). Yet he was to make a turn around in a very short time, and set off on a course which ended up where he is acclaimed as spiritual founder and thinker of Pakistan.

The last exhibit is of course Jinnah. For sake of completion, let's recapitulate. Jinnah, belonging to Khoja Ismaili sect (we will come back to this later) educated in England, possessing a sharp intellect, a western outlook, a man who enjoyed his whiskey and pork, and not his Islam, a man who had no use for religion in public life, a man who was hailed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a man who doggedly opposed Muslim league and proclaimed respect for Ten incarnations of Vishnu. And yet the same man turned into a demagogue pouring incessant vitriol on Hindus, provoking passion, and setting India ablaze.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list of the leaders of Pakistan movement, but I am sure by now you must have noticed something curious. In all the cases we have Indian Muslims, of considerable intellect and education, moderate in their world view, belonging either to more moderate sects or of recent Hindu ancestry, all initially patriots, paving the way for Pakistan.

As Goldfinger remarked, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action

Now then, if there is a pattern, what is the reason behind it. I have come to believe that the reason is anxiety. To be specific anxiety of identity.

Of the many infractions against reason that Dr Amartaya Sen has committed to this date, none is more flagrant than his characterization of identity as a buffet from which individual can pick any one at his will. Now this may be true of certain western nations at present but it is not true everywhere, what is more important that historically  it has hardly ever been the case.

To be sure, left to himself, a common man of the street whether a Hindu, or a Muslim, will like go on with his life. He has not much use for identity. This is what our enlightened masters mean when they claim, Muslims and Hindus, or Pakistanis and Indians are not much different. Therein lies the problem. Common man, whatever his creed, is never left alone, rather his interactions in the larger social setting are determined by his group association which is acceptable to the society for that particular setting.This holds true even if his interaction is not a part of larger group effort.

The question then arises, what is that mechanism whereby group associations form, reinforce and wither away. What follows is not a not particularly well formed explanation. Group identity are self-enforcing phenomenon, which roughly means group association determines social privileges, obligations and hierarchies, which subsequently  define the cultural assumptions and social norms governing the dynamics of the social interactions. It is the result of these interactions with respect to evolutionary fitness which acts as a feedback to reinforce the group association.

Next we come to the role of individuals. It is my belief that the common man as such doesn't influence the workings of group identity, instead as I wrote earlier, historically speaking his action is dictated by the group identity to a large extent. However, if we make the assumption that the response of common man to factors is not random or arbitrary but limited by some basic rules of human psychology, in that case the masses acting in sync do impact the society, as evidenced by popular movements.On the other hand uncommon men also known as thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals etc, have ability to influence group identity at individual level.

But men, both common as well as uncommon, are guided by a much stronger force, of history. For much of, well history, humanity has flow in its silent yet inexorable currents, and though the thinkers pretend otherwise, even they are not unaffected by it. As George Orwell famously remarked, Those who control the past, control the future. A corollary of this for present context is those who control the identity, control the present/

So where am I going with this. Well the whole digression about identity was to introduce what was in my view the real reason about partition. Which is the historically there has been conflict between Islamic and Indian identities. Now before I proceed, let me do away with some possible objections, I do not think it is accurate to say that everyday co-existence of average Hindus and Muslim is marked with strife and violence, either now or historically (Though I will add that historically even the relations between common Hindus and Muslims have not been entirely peaceful. Hindu-Muslim riots, after all are not something which started after demolition of Babri Masjid). Neither I am implying that Muslims are un-Indian. My intention rather is, that Indian Muslims are claimed by both Indian identity as well as Islamic identity. This is different from other such cases because other linguistic or cultural identities are subset of Indian identity, whereas Islamic identity has an existence and history independent of Indian identity, and as I will attempt to show,by discussing about Islamic experience in India, at conflict with Indian identity.

For Secular class anxious to whitewash the history, Islamic experience in India is mostly a fable about swirling Dervishes and qawwali singing Sufis. That and Akbar the great. In my view a single word more accurately captures the experience of Islam in sub-continent. That word is Urdu. Urdu, derived from Turkic language, means encampment.

Islam was mainly introduced to India, as a consequence of invasions spanning centuries by Muslim invaders, initially from Arab and later on from Central Asia. Now India has been invaded since time memorial by barbarians and nomads from beyond Sindhu. However Islamic invasions were different. Surely the series of Islamic like previous invasions were meant for both loot as well as conquest, but in addition to that, the invaders this time carried the word of Allah as revealed to Prophet Muhammad, seal of Prophets, and zealously guarded by Ulema. They were united in communion with every Muslim of the world in Ummah as bearers of the truth, and foreshadowing the annihilation of Incas and Aztecs by conquistadors,  obligated by religious injunction to bring the kaffirs to righteous path.

The invading zealots sought to spread the true faith by the terror of sword. Templed were desecrated, Murtis were destroyed, Kaffirs were compelled to embrace Islam on the pain of a torment and death. However as the conquerors set to rule the conquered land, the compulsions of the geopolitics and the governance tempered their zeal to multiply the believers. Sure, they wanted the glory of Islam to spread, but they also had to maintain the alliances with Hindu Kings and they could not oppress their subjects too much lest they start rebelling. So instead of sword they took recourse to coercive taxes and laws for the dhimmis. Slowly Islam in  India came to an uneasy arrangement, the rulers didn't try too hard to convert the idolaters, and Islam occupied the seat of power. However this arrangement was an extremely fragile, as this was considered deviation from the righteous path by Ulemas and the more fervent of the ruling class. The result was this arrangement was breached by the zealots who launched frequents campaigns to show the infidels error of their ways and the inevitable rebellion by the oppressed subjects.

Here it should be noted that this was no different from what happened with the Zorastrianism or Buddhism when Muslims invaded Iran or Afghanistan. However one crucial difference between Hinduism and the two religions was that both the religions depended heavily on priests and monks as opposed to Hinduism which was more folk based. Which is why even when its institutions were annihilated (you can count North Indian Temples belonging to pre-Islamic era on your fingers) it managed to survive.

This went on for well over a millennium, and as the sword and the jiziya slowly converted heathens, Islamic identity that formed was that of a superior creed by virtue of power as well as faith. It was this identity which the Muslim elites as well as clergy with. However since Hindus were always the majority, and Islamic identity couldn't reconcile with this, it retreated behind wall of powers. Thus Islamic identity also assumed characterstics of encampment. Urdu, in other words.

This arrangement began to unravel in the 18th century first with the decline of Mughal dynasty and arrival of British. Hindus, so far reduced to secondary citizens, began to take advantage of the western education to re-occupy position in the government, in addition to even further securing the advantage in trade. With education there also emerged a class of middle class professionals with interest in sciences and renewed curiosity about their Hindu identity. This combined with the freedom for expression of religion available to them after deprivation of several centuries saw a new vigor in the religion and giving rise to Hindu revival movements of 19th century.

In contrast was Muslim experience, they didn't take advantage of the opportunities available to them, owing to hubris of being ruler as well as certain of superiority of faith. The loss of power, the advance of  the formerly inferior Hindus over their former superiors, and even more important resurgence of Hindu religion  had a severe effect on the psyche of Muslim elite. To the former rulers it felt as if Allah had abandoned his believers by failing to safeguard their honor from suffering the indignity of  jostling with the inferior kaffirs for living. It was this crisis which caused a crack in the foundation, which was assumption of superiority over kaffirs, of the Islamic identity.

Islamic identity could never recover from this. This crisis was made more severe by the breach of the wall of power which separated Islamic identity from the majority identity. For the first time in history Muslim elites felt threat to Islamic identity on account of its being subsumed into the Indian identity, especially since Hinduism is much more encompassing, inclusive, adaptive and tolerant than Islam, or for that matter any other Abrahamic creed. Camp was no longer secure for the Islamic identity anymore.

Since Muslim elites could no longer count on assumption of superiority afforded to them by power nor were able to reconcile with a resurgent Hinduism, and further since they felt besieged by Hinduism enveloping them in the society, they increasingly assumed  an adversarial role to define themselves. As a result gradually Islamic identity transformed into a negationitist one in the sense it was defined by negation and rejection of Hindu identity rather than by a positive statement relating to historical or cultural context.

This is what I believe was more fundamental reason for Hindu-Muslim tensions and ultimately partition.
And once Pakistan was formed on basis of Islamic identity, its tragic destiny was also decided. For in defining their identity in negation to Hindu identity, Muslim elites had made themselves dependent on their adversary. When the partition eliminated the adversary, the Pakistan intellectuals sought to define themselves either by associating even more strongly with Ummah in a Voldemortian fashion, and at the same time taking a strong adversarial position to India. This is the reason I don't think any reconcilation between India and Pakistan is possible.

As far as Indian Muslims are concerned, I think they can still be reconciled to broader Indian identity, provided they recognize, and make peace with, the Hindu core of Indian identity and disregard Ummah and Ulema.

Positioning Hindutva

I would write in detail on "Secularism vs Hindutva" later, meanwhile reposting my comment on Swapan Da's post .

I believe what Oldtimer wrote by Oldtimer is certainly one of the the most articulate and coherent rebuttal not only of the article as well as the clique of centre- right.

I will just like to add a bit of my thoughts on this. I believe the first point (i.e. of Hindu identity) is what many secularists advocate discarding in favor of a vague adherence to secularism. This would be a mistake.

Even though both Hindutva and Secularism are vague terms, to me the essential argument behind Hindutva is that Hinduism* forms the core of Indian identity and which is why it must be treated uniquely of all the other religions as far as civilizational perspective is concerned.

I would note here that civilization is different from state. Further I do not advocate any discrimination among citizens on basis of religion, only an imperative to recognize distinction between different traditions (how to apply this recognition in matters not abstract is admittedly not an easy task).

Secularism, on the other hand, shorn of all flowery platitude and saccharine rhetoric is a refusal to recognize Hinduism ** as the mainstay of Indic civilization, which leads first to disavowal of our history and civilization and ultimately de-recognition of group identity and tradition as the prime mover behind social instincts and responses.

This is as impoverishing and emasculating of society spiritually, intellectually and morally, as other Utopian ideologies such as Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Objectivism (or even its lesser cousin libertarianism).

* Perhaps using Dharmic tradition instead of Hinduism would be less contentious and more palatable, however I use Hinduism because a. it is the most prevalent tradition at present (and to a lesser extent historically) b. Once the other traditions detach themselves from Hinduism they lose their vigour and enlightenment (The unpleasant business in Vienna being a recent example)

Verdict

Secularism 1, India whatever you want to believe.

Anyway it seems that the nightmare scenario for BJP has come true. I do find the verdict a bit surprising though BJP was clear underdog and no one expected stellar outcome. Gandhi dynasty has made successful transition to next generation and there is no leader in BJP to match stamina and agility of Congress led by Prince. Here is my admission, I always considered Prince to be a moron, as it happens whether by design or by happy accident Prince is going to get credit for revival of Congress's fortunes in UP.

Anyhow I think it is more or less curtains for BJP. The road to recovery for BJP is arduous not just because of the effort required but because of the unity of the purpose and willing to think none of which BJP seems capable of. Long story shot BJP is stymied on the one hand by sycophants whose only aim is to secure access to power and can not see beyond Delhi and on the other hand by RSS aparatchiks for whom politics is reduced to matter of symbolic gestures. Which is why when in crisis BJP resorts to Varun Gandhi like tactics. Expect RSS to blame defeat on BJP not being pure enough or forceful enough.

Nietzsche and Nihilism

All right,  I was thinking of writing another illuminating post to lift the ignorant toiling masses,  but that can wait for a brief comment on this post which commits the error of conflating Nietzsche with nihilism. This is a common error, yet one which arises not due to confusion regarding Nietzsche's works but due to deliberate mis-characterization by a generation of philosophers of diverse schools antagonistic to his idea.

The fundamental problem is that Nietzsche was not a Nihilist, rather he warned against the collapse of society in an orgy of Nihilism.

Nietzsche is popularly known for his critique of Christianity, however while he wrote devastating polemics against Christianity, most notably The Antichrist, his main preoccupations were attacking prevailing weltanschauung  in post Enlightenment Europe which can be broadly characterized as secular and rational, and

His argument essentially was that any philosophical system having discarded belief in existence of a God (or to be more specific Christian God), can not continue to assume a moral framework, which is founded upon the premise of existence of such God. This argument is best captured in his famous proclamation, "God is dead" .

His concern, as he wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, went further than the logical flaw in secular philosophy of Kant or Hegel . He worried, correctly in my view, that, having removed  "veil of God", civilized man may end up annihilating himself out of despair of the futility of existence*. Thus his admonitions about gazing into abyss and fighting the monsters .

He realized that post-Christianity Europe robbed of its purpose in form of Christian Eschatology , must be supplied with a new purpose, a new teleology so as to speak. Nietzsche accomplished this by appropriating Schopenhauer 's "will to live" (which was influenced by Vedanta and Buddhism , as was the norm for German Romanticists looking for world-view alternative to Christianity). In this he employed "theory of natural selection" , which since its introduction had revolutionized the philosophical landscape and held promise as alternative to traditional religion. Nietzsche fused the two to propose will to power. Explored in The Gay Science , Beyond Good and Evil , and Ecce Homo, his philosophy found full expression in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There he introduced the concept of Ubermensch, which was the final goal of civilized man.

At the time he wrote the book, it didn't get many followers but by the turn of 20th century this idea gained wide currency owing to translations and reprints. This idea distorted through antisemitic literature appealed to Adolf Hitler combined this with pseudo scientific race theory to conceive of Aryan race which was to rule the world. Rest is a rather unfortunate history. One effect of this was Nietzsche became persona non Grata as far as philosophy was concerned.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to dismiss his concept of "becoming" . However his critique of secular and rational world view remains as relevant. This incidentally was my purpose for baiting earlier. Too bad it ended in non sequitur .

* This was not something unique to Nietzsche. This concern for nihilism is reflected in works of Fyodor Dostoevsky such as The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment

Discuss

Hinduism is autistic.

Aphorism: History

We can't change our history.

Aphorism (Reason India Can Not Fight Terrorism)

India has been secularized.