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...

QUOTES: BREAD AND CIRCUS DEMOCRACY

(Originally posted at CRI)

“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.”

To Sail Beyond the Sunset

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

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.

Sadanand Dhume can be my wingman any time

All right, may be I am being over enthusiastic, if that be the case pardon me, because he is one of those rarest of rare public intellectual who knows and writes what is wrong with the Pakistan. Now you can read the article yourself, but it can be summarized as following.

Even among those who recognize that Pakistan is in general pain in nether regions, the blame of the unpleasant situation is placed squarely upon Zia-Ul-Haq. Now this is true to a certain extent, he was, without doubt, a fanatic. But to say that Pakistan began its long slide towards frenzy of fanaticism during his regime, is a wholly mistaken notion. Pakistan has proceeded on its journey irrespective of the religious zeal of its ruler. Indeed it was a socialist and moderate Muslim Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who declared Ahmadayya sect unIslamic , it was much before Zia that Pakistani leadership attempted to wrestle Kashmir by fanning flames of fanaticism (which ultimately almost succeeded two decades later as a fallout of rise of Mujahideens).

Nor this ended with Zia. Post Zia, terrorism has been state policy of Pakistan, irrespective of the leader at helm, this includes now departed Benazir Bhutto, moderate daughter of a moderate father.

Therefore problem is not Zia, it is Pakistan. The raison d'etre for Pakistan was the view of leadership, both political as well as religious, of Indian Muslims that Islam is fundamentally irreconcilable with Indic tradition.

The self destructive behavior that Pakistan has indulged in since its founding is nothing but an attempt to purge itself of impurity.

This is the summary of Dhume's article. However while he correctly diagnosis the pathology which plagues Pakistan, his prescription is incorrect. Dhume recommends replacing cultural DNA of Pakistan. However that is impossible because you can not change DNA without changing the beast. If Islam were to be replaced as Pakistan's foundation, there will be nothing to distinguish Pakistan from India, and in due course Pakistan will be re-assimilated within India. The Pakistani leadership realizes this and hence its constant attempt to destroy India.

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.

More Ideas

Some more ideas for movies

# Epic based on battle of the ten kings

# Comics based on Ashwathama titled Immortals. Guest appearance by Bhagwan Hanuman.

# Historical fiction based on the only Yadava warrior to survive destruction of Dwarka, who fights in Trojan War.

Yes, I have nothing to write about.

Watching the watchmen

Spoilers

Having watched Watchmen some time ago, the review I criticized in an earlier post seems even more misplaced now than it seemed at that time. Anyway I don't like the movie, which means less than nothing considering I didn't like Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey for that matter. I have some standard to maintain after all. Now it has something to do with the fact that I haven't read Watchmen the graphic novel by Alan Moore, which is held by many comics aficionados to be a ground breaking work of  its genre.However it is generally understood that any adaptation has to strike a balance between appealing to the following of original work by staying true to it and bringing in audience not introduced with the work. While Zack Snyder is faithfully to the novel he fails to hold the attention of larger audience,  which in my view irrevocably dooms this thinking man's superhero movie.

First of movie's short coming is Snyder slavish adherence to the text while failing to capture of the essence of the novel. Reminiscent of his earlier adaptation of Frank Miller's 300, he copies almost the novel panel by panel. However in doing that he fails to effectively capture the dystopian  theme of  the novel, the story of watchmen being secondary and in effect enforcing this narrative. Instead the movie is slow and feels dragging on forever. Even the visuals disappoint, failing to impart a gritty, noirish feel, done admirably in dark knight for instance.

However for me the main shortcoming is the novel itself. The novel written during the tense period of cold war is itself outdated having US as the clear winner. This is however least of its problems.

The novel for most part is nothing but a parade of American liberal cliches and bogeymen. The novels depicts Nixon as President having abrogated the term limits, and it is implied, subverted the institutions, effectively dictator of US.

Now it is not my case that Nixon was a honorable man, for he was not, but as cynical as it may sound, his greatest crime was not Watergate but hostility to  media, resulting from fear psychosis. Watergate while not exactly something which will commend Nixon to posterity, was hardly a deviation as far as political skulduggery is concerned, similar practices being regularly employed from Johnson administration going as far as back to FDR.

 Similarly Nixon didn't harbor any ambition of abrogating term limits and anointed Caesar, that dishonor ironically belongs to liberal Messiah predating the current Messiah, FDR, ironically it was only due to his breaking the convention of two terms that term limits were introduced.

To add to this, it is implied that JFK's assassination was a government's conspiracy, the right wing elements within the government being the perpeterators. Of course the inconvenient truth is that JFK was felled, as Jackie Kennedy frustratingly remarked, by a silly little communist.

Most infuriating however is the moral ambivalence. US for all its flaws has been a force for good in contrast to  Communist regimes which have perpetrated immeasurable misery and death. It is clear for all its self righteousness, left uses liberty in much the same sense as it uses fascism.

Tying loose ends

Minor update at the end.


While writing the post on partition, I forgot to include some relevant info which I am including in this post.
But first I will like to summarize the post, as I think it is very much likely that the length of the post might have obscured the theme, which is the conventional view of moderate Muslims as Pro-India and fundamentalist Muslims as pro-Partition is not necessarily borne out by the historical facts.

One such inconvenient fact is the role, respectively of Barelvis and Deobandis with respect to partition. Deobandis are usually considered to be orthodox Islamic school with emphasis on Islamic jurisprudence such as   Shariah and Hadith. In contrast Barelvis are considered relatively unorthodox with a significant incorporation of Islamic experience in India, specifically Sufi traditions. Historically Deobandis have been considered more of conservative/traditionalist and Barelvis reformist/modernists. Yet their role during partition were diametrically opposite to what conventional view would dictate, while Deobandis sided with Congress and opposed partition, Barelvis were in general agreement with Muslim League *

Then there is something I want to address. Rohit, in one of our conversations, remarked that my hypothesis can not explain the fact why Muslims in such a large number chose to stay behind in India. Actually I think one need not even my hypothesis to explain the fact.

Simply put, for League leaders demand for Pakistan was just a bargaining chip to extract maximum concession from Congress. They had hoped, that by raising by communal passion for Pakistan, they could corner Congress leaders into conceding their demands for an ill conceived arrangement superficially resembling federalism. This gambit backfired, and Muslim League ended up with what Jinnah termed as a moth eaten Pakistan. For most of the League leaders Pakistan should have included Hyderabad, Lucknow and Delhi, traditional centers of Indo-Islamic culture and power. However for most of the Muslims residing in what is currently Republic of India, leaving their home for Pakistan was never a real option.

That said, it should be noted making sense of Identity is always perplexing with different intrepreations according to different vantage points. Specifically and reiterating what I wrote in the previous posts, different individuals have diverse influences on the identity. A plebeian unless he is in sync with others of same class has minimal effect on identity, whereas a social elite, either because of his wealth or because of his intellect,  has disproportionately larger influence over the identity. Why is that? Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the answer.

For elites not concerned with fulfillment of basic are naturally more inclined towards identity. Which is why "common man doesn't care about X", although superficially appealing is nonsensical as far as human psychology is concerned.

"But wait", Some might say, "If common man is not concerned with identity, then your point doesn't stand". This is a misreading of what I am trying to convey. Common man doesn't influence the identity to a great extent, but he is influenced by the identity which he shares with the elite.

This is what happened in case of Partition. For a common Muslim, identity was not a major issue, but for an elite a united India meant sub-ordination of Islamic identity to Hindu identity which was a reversal from history where Islamic identity ruled over Hindu identity and thus a matter of distress and insecurity.

This is why the movement for Partition started not in Muslim majority provinces but Gangetic Plains including Bengal, over which Muslims, even though in minority, had ruled for so many centuries.

Initially Muslim League had limited success with masses, even though Khilafat movement was preparing ground for eventual communal polarization. One dirty secret of Congress, in order to undercut Jinnah who was Shia, it actively fueled Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, foreshadowing Sikh terrorism. Also it is interesting to note that Maulana Azad was much more orthodox in his religious outlook than Jinnah. This explains the drubbing Muslim League received in 1937. However within a decade the situation was reversed, much of it due to the Ulema. 

After this, only the matter of Mahatma Gandhi's politics remains, which I will touch in another post.

Update: In fact I am confident that this hypothesis can be applied to global Islamic terrorism as well.

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.

Jaswant Affairs - Partition Debate (Updated)

Previous post 

Politics aside, the book by Jaswant Singh besides getting him kicked out of BJP also provoked a spirited debate on Jinnah and the Partition itself. In this the occasion is eerily similar to the earlier one where a debate of similar nature was provoked by Advani's remarks during his Pakistan visit.

Now as someone who believes that history plays an extremely important in a nation's destiny and one who rues the neglect shown by Indians to their history, I can only welcome the debate.

Before stating my own views it is helpful to summarize various arguments in this debate, almost all of them implicitly assuming that partition was a unmitigated disaster in theory and also in implementation. Most widely held notion of them all is that Jinnah was the villain and architect of the partition. In addition to that extremist politics of Hindu organization (viz. Hindu Mahasabha and Sangh) are blamed for the communal polarization which led to partition.Yet another opinion holds ego clash between Nehru and Jinnah responsible for the partition.

There is some truth in all of these notions. Jinnah was the visible face of Muslim league since the 1930's and was responsible for its revival after the debacle post 1937. It was he who demanded partition. Similarly  any attempt to arrive at compromise failed due to the the differences between Nehru and Jinnah. Yet it is my opinion that as visible and pronounced these reasons may seem, they are just proximate causes hiding a much more profound reality and one which pertains to Hindu-Muslim relations.

Coming to the subject of controversy, ie Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the reason there is so much consternation and confusion about his role is that by any assessment there seem to be two and diameterically opposite Jinnah. One is a secular, whiskey swilling, pork eating liberal with a western world view and minimal familiarity with Islam who wanted a undivided India. Other is a rabid demagogue, stoking communal passion by evoking  before Muslim masses specter of living in a Hindu India. It is hard to reconcile these two attitudes, which is why some people (including Jaswant Singh) while admitting his culpability in partition, have taken recourse to explain it away as a result of his being outmaneuvered by the Congress and blinded by his own ego.

Now there is truth to this. It is true that early in his political carrier Jinnah was a Nationalist and later turned into a demagogue. It is also true to a certain extent this transformation can be attributed to Nehru. However a true patriot wouldn't have turned against his motherland just because of his ego.Which is why I don't think that Jinnah was ever in heart a true patriot, and judging by his methods even truly liberal.

Further as it turns out Nehru was hardly the main cause behind his transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide.  The reason which transformed Jinnah was also the reason that transformed Indian freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi.

Prior to arrival of Mahatma Gandhi at scene Indian freedom movement was primarily an elitist concern, comprising of either landed gentry, nouveau rich industrialist and middle class professionals. The prevailing consensus was that it was possible to secure independence working from within Colonial framework. It was believed that as Indians demonstrated capability to self govern in accordance with British interests, the British masters will gradually grant more and more autonomy to their subjects eventually setting them free. The main difference which existed between different factions was about the extent to which the demand for more autonomy should be pushed with one group not in favor of rocking the boat too much while the other group even though more aggressive in its demands, grudgingly accepted the existing framework .

Whatever their differences in politics, it is important to realize their wold view was informed by their elite background and  in general it was disconnected from mass politics. Mohammed Ali Jinnah belonged to this school.

Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi changed all that. While he was a firm advocate of non violence, he engaged the masses on the scale that was hitherto not witnessed in Indian freedom movement. Mass of public, burdened with exploitative policies of the Raj, responded passionately to Mahatma's call of non violent agitations. This enthusiastic participation expanded the project of Indian freedom as never imagined possible earlier.

However this expansion upset existing elite consensus. The modus operandi shifted from "freedom through petition" to "freedom through peaceful disobedience". Existing actors who were not accustomed to mass mobilization disapproved of the tenor of the movement and they responded in different way. Some like Rabindra Nath Tagore just went into background, others like Motilal Nehru accepted Mahatma's leadership. Jinnah was no different in his disapproval of mass politics.

However with him there was an additional factor. Jinnah was irked by the overt infusion of spiritual message by Mahatma Gandhi to (what Jinnah considered) a non-religious endeavor. Even more infuriating for him was the fact that spiritual message had a distinct Hindu hue. Now for Mahatma spiritual message was about fostering religious harmony. However Muslim intellectuals and to lesser extent Jinnah, always apprehensive about the metaphysical boa-constrictor form of Hinduism became paranoid by Mahatma'a approach. They took it as a conspiracy to assimilate Islam within the folds of Hinduism.

I believe it was this paranoia combined with his ego which wouldn't accept Mahatma's leadership which ultimately drove Jinnah to Pakistan.

Update: There are two issues that I will like to discuss in separate posts, one is the proximate causes vs historical causes as far as partition is concerned, second is the mobilization strategy of Mahatma.

Hindus in the iron mask.

Venerable fossil Khushwant Singh comments on connection between 1984 anti Sikh pogroms and 2002 post Godhra riots. Now I am not sure whether a logical connection can be drawn between the two riots.
What I do find interesting is this throwaway dissimulation, "After the burning of a bogey of the train at Godhra, we are still not certain who set the compartment on fire or the identity of the victims", now former part is familiar to us.

To this day our secular overlords still pretend that the identity of perpetrators is somewhat of a mystery, I can only assume that they think the Muslim mob was present there just to enjoy the stench of burning flesh.

However the latter part is a novelty, now we are not even sure about the victims! And all along I had the impression that the victims were mostly VHP activists who had greatly offended Muslims of Godhra by traveling to Ayudhya to demand construction of Ram Mandir which in the lexicon of secular Joan of Arc Teesta Seetalvad is a justifiable  excuse for roasting them in gasoline fire.

Lest people dismiss the curious apologia as a rambling of senile mind, they should realize the agenda which subconsciously drives the dissimulation, it is to keep reinforcing the narrative of Muslims being the designated victims and Hindus always suspect as aggressors with only secular liberal establishment shielding former from the wrath of the latter. Secular liberal establishment zealously guards this narrative and will not, indeed it can not, allow any chink however minor to appear in this. 

Of course the end result, and intended one at that, of this endless propaganda is the Hindus are hidden with an abstract mask labeled as aggressor, and it is under this shaming of anonymous notoriety denied any claim to insult to cultural dignity and as the in case of Godhra even the possibility of being a victim. This is dehumanizing Hindus.

Orwell described Totalitarianism as a boot endlessly stamping on a human face, secularism as a doctrine is just endless beating of Hindus as a punching bag.

Another communal post

Can some one explain the fundamental difference Kashmiri Muslims and Muslims in rest of India.

I am interested because I want to understand why what happened in Kashmir to Hindus wouldn't have happened to Hindus in any other part of India if Muslims were Majority.

"Now now Gaurav", The well intentioned are going to say, "Surely you are jesting, surely you can't mean that every Muslim is a radical who will want nothing less than annihilation of kaffirs and establishment of  Ummah".

Which is precisely my problem. To understand let's model this in form of sets.

Assume M_i = set of all Indian Muslims.

Then M_i = M_m +M_b + M_r.

where M_m = Moderate Muslims who are just like you and me (well mostly like you, I am obscenely awesome and hardly anyone is like me),  who do respect other faiths, are unquestioningly patriotic, and are concerned with nothing more than daily grind of life.

M_b = Believers, They are also concerned with daily grind of life, but their concern doesn't end here. They are also concerned with their faith and their identity. Which is why it is a confusing group, individual member of this group may or may not respect other faiths, may be unquestioningly patriotic or may be conflicted due to opposite pulls of faith and nation.

M_r = Radicals. They are convinced, partly due to indoctrination, and partly due to dis-affectation, that India is not their future, and they actively participate in undermining India.

Now the well intentioned elites argue that it is unfair to blame moderate Muslims for acts of radical Muslims.
In other words M_m >> M_r

Only problem, while moderate Muslim may not unleash violence, neither will they attempt to stop radical Muslims. They will remain silent witness to slow subjugation and annihilation of  Kaffirs at the hands of Radicals. Therefore the only difference between rest of India, and Kashmir, or between post-1947 India and pre-1947 India  is the percentage of Muslims, the cultural DNA is same.

Which is why I don't want myself or for that matter my coming generations ever to live in a Muslim majority nation.

Asinine Observation

This is going to be bit complicated, so please bear with me.

First, one can not help but be aghast at Justice Katju's observation. To say that growing beards by observant Muslims is somehow equivalent to Talibanization is nothing but absurd*. As far as religious practices go, beard as a symbol can not be more than aggressive than applying Tilak on forehead, or wearing cross.

This is not to say that I disagree with verdict, but the reasons are different. In principle, The private institution in the case has the right to set its own rules, as long as it is not compelling anyone to enroll. The aggrieved student has full right to find admission in a different school.

Now I believe this is standard libertarian argument, and perhaps this is a correct. However I am yet to come around to this, mainly owing to a feeling of discomfort with libertarian arguments. Unfortunately I am not well versed enough to articulate my discomfort into some concrete principle, but I will try to give it a shot.
For me more important than question of property is the broader social outlook. Libertarians limit social outlook to strict observance to property rights, implicitly assuming that this is necessary and sufficient condition for utilitarian purposes**. I am not sure this is true. Human society is a complicated system, and I really doubt that it can be captured with a single rule.

Pertinent to this case is what norms of propriety should society at large evolve towards the case where property rights operate under significant public interaction. In way that was the essence of my position in these  Harvard posts by Ravikiran. Now I don't know whether propriety can be captured in a set of rules. To illustrate my point, there would not be much objection by Hindus or even educated Muslims over the school prohibiting some Muslim from growing a beard. However if instead it was a Sikh concerned the protests will be so vehement that there is no chance that this will ever pass.

Now strictly on religious principle this makes no sense. However it starts to make sense if we take history into context. Now this may be called Hindutva Fascist, and since I am one I have no compunction in saying that, but I think many Hindus are discomfited by bearded Muslims which indicate a more earnest adherence to faith, this is not the case with Sikhs. Of course despite secularists denial the contentious history between the two faiths can not be simply erased. For Hindus Islamic beard is a reminder of Ghaznis and Ghooris, a Sikh beard, on the other hand, is a reminder of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Arjun Dev.

* Justice Katju defends the observation calling himself secularists. Now other secularists will claim that it is not  "true" secularism but a perversion of the principle. They may or may not be correct but the problem is more serious. By elevating, what was in effect a matter of pragmatic compromise between competing factions of monarchy, church and emergent middle class, to high principle the secularists themselves are guilty of opening loophole for perversion.

**  Of course How to define utility function is a difficult question in itself.

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

Extreme democracy

A fifth form of democracy, in other respects the same, is that in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees.This is a state of affairs brought about by the demagogues. For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that 'it is not good to have a rule of many,' but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have an things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them

(Politics , Book IV )

Aphorism: History

We can't change our history.

Aphorism (Reason India Can Not Fight Terrorism)

India has been secularized.