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.

Not even a pretense

Despite knowing better, I still get surprised when I happen to encounter blatant media bias such as this

Dismissing India's tradition of religious and cultural pluralism, Rashtriya Swayam- sevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said, "He who is an Indian is Hindu and he who is not a Indian." [Emphasis Mine]

Now while RSS may or may not be subverting "India's tradition of religious and cultural pluralism" elsewhere, it is not doing in this instance. Mohan Bhagwat was trying to make a case for national integration on the bases of shared heritage. Except in the typical muddleheaded manner of  RSS apparatchik argue such issues he appealed to etymology. This is what it means, Hindu is a loan word from Persian meaning people living near river Sindhu, similarly India is a loan word from Greece meaning land of river Sindhu, this means Hindu is same as Indian.

Now I don't care much for this argument, (as the argument Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, which is predictably forwarded by Mohan Bhagwat), but as the saying goes never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

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.

Democracy as Ummah's lever

I have been meaning to write something about Telengana, and I will write when the mood strikes me, but putting the academic debate regarding small states vs. large states aside, this is a good argument against Telengana.  Call me Hindu Fascist if you like but I am leery of gifting any more leverage to Ummah than it already has.

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.

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.

Center right tangle

For those coming late, we continue from where we left . Here are the rules, I will show the error of Center right ways, and I restrict my argument to electoral viability. 

Gnomes in the famous South Park episode had a somewhat lousy business plan.

Phase 1: Collect Underpants

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit!

In contrast the proponents of center-right have a relatively more elaborate road map to political ascendancy, best summarized as.

Phase 1: Discard Hindutva (Because it is electorally inviable or/and unpalatable to prospective alliances)

Phase 2: Adopt economic reforms and liberal social mores as political platform (Because it is election winner)

Phase 3: Majority!

Now the plan is sensible as long as one doesn't insist on it adhering to the reality, for the reality is a bit different.

Specifically it is not clear that Hindutva is electorally inviable. For sure, a certain section of urban India, to be more precise the section which is informed by English language media, responds unfavorably to antics of Sangh Parivar and its ideological soul mates. However it must be taken into consideration that Hindutva was never meant for the particular demographics. The target demographics for Hindutva,  in its suffused form, was either middle class Hindu living in smaller cities and towns or, in its more cathartic form,  the vast rural hinterland.

Now there are reasons why Hindutva by itself wasn't sufficient for electoral majority. For one Hindu identity has never been as overriding as Islamic identity and unless there is a sense of impending danger or great grievance Hindus tend to focus on more materialistic pursuits. The fact that Sangh Parivar never made any sincere attempt to articulate what it hopes to achieve with Hindutva or it was never in position to implement whatever agenda it had for Hindutva just ensured that after the heady days of Ram Mandir movement Hindutva stalled electorally.

What this implied, or should have implied at any rate, was a. To make Hindutva more substantial for the electorate* and b. on parallel develop saleable agenda** for governance. That this didn't happen is the main cause why BJP has declined to such an extent. However, this doesn't mean Hindutva has become a liability. Provided we get rid of the more unsavory elements, call them lumpen Hindutva to make a distinction, and not pine for the votes of Cosmopolitan flotsam, Hindutva can still provide at least the electoral edge to win the elections and at most provide a foundation to enact broader agenda for resurgence of India. It will be a mistake to drop H word .

Now if the case for discarding Hindutva is weak, case for adapting economic reforms is ever weaker. Problem with proponents of center right is that they are swayed by the "no one I know voted for Nixon" syndrome (or confirmation bias if you will), since they observe support for liberalization around their vicinity, they conclude it is a winner. Well I have news for them, it is not, as evidenced by failure of India shining. Now the counter argument may be that the campaign was inept and selling agenda of reforms needs more fine tuning, an argument with which I agree, however I also think that Hindutva can be sold, and I don't see if I have to reject Hindutva because it is not such an easy sell, I see no reason why BJP should adopt reforms being even more difficult to sell electorally. To further weaken this position consider Congress won 2009 ostensibly because of its tax and spend schemes.  I say ostensibly because I don't agree with it, however if I have to pick a reason for its win, it will definitely be socialism over economic reforms which didn't take place at all.

Therefore we see that the center right clique by arguing on bases of electoral viability ironically discredits its own plank.

And with this I hope I was successful in confusing everyone.

*,**  Selling is important than everything. It really doesn't matter how good a program we have, unless it can be sold to voters, it has no value.

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.

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.

I am shocked, shocked ...

to find that Maoists don't take bourgeoisie democracy seriously , instead using it as a stepping stone for people's democracy. I mean who could have thunk that Maoists will do such a thing, after all they gave their word.

You know what is not shocking, well the studied silence of the cocktail swishing circuit which not so long was agog with dawn of democracy  and secularism in the erstwhile Hindu Kingdom. I realize I have said this many times but the clique of cosmopolitan flotsam is so beholden to the glory of democracy and secularism that it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any interference of reality, and is perfectly willing to take India to slow but sure journey of civilizational death in the process.

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.

When the worlds collide : The Mangalore Incident

Some thoughts, mostly disjointed, provoked by Mangalore incident.

Playing fast and loose: Now I realize as a Hindutva Fascist, I should be loathing "pink chaddi campaign" as nonsensical, frivolous, and indicative of moral turpitude. Well, I don't. To be clear, I do not completely endorse the campaign, and I am not enthused by the idea that this campaign just ratchet ups the hysteria of the chattering classes or that it feeds the  narcissism (people must be getting bored of this by now -ed, who cares, they don't pay me, screw them) of self righteous class.

Nevertheless, I reluctantly find my self on the same side of fast, forward and loose womyn for the simple reason that a line must be drawn somewhere. And the simple condition is this, it is absolutely unacceptable  to inflict physical injury on a woman*, no matter how earnest or sincere perpetrators are about their objectives.

Beyond this there is not much that I have to say on the merits of this campaign. Sending underwear may be ridiculous, but often ridicule is a effective weapon. Nor do I really fault whoever behind this campaign for diverting the attention from whatever great debate that India is supposed to be engaged at presently (If anything Messrs Pramod Muthalik and Raj Thackeray are more worthy of this distinction), or enthusiastically aligning with liberal-secular establishment to caricature the debate between traditionalism and modernity  ("traditionalists" usually seem to be hell bent on discrediting tradition ) to continue to undermine and stigmatize traditionalism.

The end of illusion (of civil society): Now our secular liberal establishment is utilizing this to the hilt in order to  "secularize" terrorism, however the issue is more troublesome. Yes what Pramod Muthalik and his sena did was indeed outrageous, but before people start ringing alarm bells for "Hindoo peril", it should be pointed out that in tactics what Sri Ram Sene did is no different from what Dravidians frequently do in TamilNadu , or what Gujjars did in Rajasthan or Marathas did in Maharashtra or what MNS is doing in Mumbai or what Kannadigas have done in Karnataka, Sri Ram Sene is guilty of nothing more than employing the tactics guaranteed to be most effective in our political system of mobocracy (or extreme democracy ).

Now comes the tricky part, I concede Indian experience of democracy has never been one of dispassionate deliberations by epistemological modest intellectuals but an uneasy concoction of multitude of identities jostling for material and social rewards, a million mutinies if you will, but even then there was a tradition of arguments, a willingness to talk and listen. I am afraid that tradition is being lost, we are not willing to talk or listen. 

How it came to pass. Even accounting for demagoguery there still remain agents who have aided in this degradation, one is the culture of grievance that has been encouraged by our secular-liberal establishment, where the claims to victimhood has become not only the standard modus operandi for political patronage, but also an ideal for society organized on secularism, second, which pertains specifically to simmering cultural tensions, is the incessant demonization of Indian tradition so as to achieve a state of social tabula rasa for purpose of secular indoctrination.

Our intellectual, all of them dyed in wool secularists liberals stress the importance of a civil society, where it is possible to hold conversation for common welfare. However it is impossible if one side is always denigrated and slandered, if it is declared to be out of bounds.

* Or for that matter on a man, or property. I will confess however, the very idea of anyone hurting woman makes my blood boil, I am MCP that way.

After all, if one cries wolf long enough, wolf obliges. (To be continued ...)

BJP & Elite

Rohit muses upon the Mangalore incident and accompanying media firestorm. I agree with most of his post except for the conclusion. I have come to believe that no matter what BJP does, it is going to incur the wrath of elites*, because cultural nationalism which is the mainstay of BJP is anathema to our elites.

This is not to excuse the hooliganism at Mangalore pub, there are many legitimate issues that we cultural nationalists can spar and joust with secular-liberal establishment, this is not one of them. In this, I agree with Rohit.

*I will qualify the term. It is true that elite, as understood in sense of social class, is a frequent adversary to cultural nationalists. But the main opponent or antagonist, so as to say, is the cultural elite, the group which is firmly anchored in post national, post faith, or broadly post identity milieu, and therefore has fundamental hostility with cultural nationalism. This group, which is recognized as secular-liberal establishment may disagree on the economic nuances, but as I pointed out earlier share the same bandwidth culturally.

From where I stand the current acrimony and conflict in political discourse owe their cause not to economic reforms but to a battle, a battle for the soul of India. My aim, as a cultural nationalist, is clear, to recognize secularism for the intellectual fraud it is, and to reject it along with its ruinous consequences.

It is a 1984 world

Wasn't this expected ? From Hindu Taliban to Hindu terrorist  to now threat to national security . Clearly what happened in Mangalore is comparable to Kargil or Mumbai. This Orwellian propaganda brought to you by the secular pliant media.
My dear friends, what we are watching is a big lie operation so audacious that even Goebells probably would have nothing on the the quisling media.

Update: Some misguided youths.