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...

How to survive a zombie outbreak while campaigning for Lok Sabha.

Quick thoughts on Kejriwal's resignation.

Well if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, more importantly if wishes were Alison Brie, engineering students would be very happy. That however, is not the point of the post.

When I wrote about solving Saint Kejriwal, I was also wishing for the possibility however feeble of averting the scenario of Kejriwal launching an aggressive campaign for Lok Sabha.

Of course Kejriwal being a shrewd political operative made the same calculation, and was going to do everything to escape from the facing scrutiny for governance, and he did just that successfully.

He is being mocked by BJP supporters, and it is possible he might amount to nothing. still I remain wary of the potential for damage that Kejriwal possess to Narendra Modi's juggernaut.

To understand this, one must understand the dynamics underpinning AAP meteoritic rise. It is simply this, urban population, in particular middle class, is outraged at the political class including, not without justification, mired in culture of civic and political ignorance, Kejriwal provides two functions. The more familiar role, is of hope, of promise to deliver from the morass. The less recognize role is that of outlet for catharsis, for venting out all the frustration and  anger that middle class has against "the system".

Kejriwal's main purpose was never to govern, or to eliminate corruption. His aim as far as 2014 Lok Sabha elections are concerned, is to undercut BJP as much as possible, either resulting outright in third front government or a weak BJP government which will hopefully collapse before its terms.

Kejriwal plan is to wage an aggressive no holds barred campaign against Modi in order to undercut him. In that he hopes to channel above mention anger of middle class to build and sustain momentum of his campaign.

Is there any way to mitigate the damage that Kejriwal may cause to BJP campaign, in my view there are six ways to do this.

1. To employ Arnobspeak, Modi must never ever, ever ever engage with Kejriwal mano-o-mano, that will allow Kejriwal to draw Modi in a personal contest, to Modi's disadvantage in my view.

2. Modi should de-emphasize corruption as issue. That will expose BJP's flank to attack by Kejriwal. BJP supporters may argue till the cows come home that Gadkari and Yeddyurappa are not guilty. However in elections popular perceptions matter and as far as public perception goes BJP is as guilty of Congress as Congress.

3. Modi must emphasize his credentials as outsider to Delhi Durbaar. Modi's campaign should run a below the radar campaign silently delinking himself from the intrigues and shenanigans of Delhi leadership

4. He must put development at centre of his campaign. He must convince middle class that growth should the first priority for the next government.

5. If corruption is BJP vulnerability, capability and stability are its strong points.  Even though Modi campaign shouldn't make personal attacks on Kejriwal, it must weaken Kejriwal by emphasizing importance of stable ad capable government. Middle class should be scared with prospect of havoc caused by unstable and inept government at the centre. This has the advantage that performance and capability are achilles heels for Kejriwal.

6. Last BJP should try to subvert Kejriwal campaign from within by waging war of attrition. Whenever Kejriwal is mentioned in the news cycle it should be about the conspiracies and brinkmanship like binny episode within his campaign. The time Kejriwal spends on firefighting within his campaign, is the he can't damage Modi's campaign.

How to Out-Kejriwal Kejriwal (Or How Do You Solve A Problem Like Kejriwal - II) Updated

Note: Update at the end

This post is sort of update of previous post. Also to clarify this post is based mostly on stray observations and not on empirical data.


Here are some more suggestions on how to tackle Kejriwal, but before that how not to tackle him.

1. Narendra Modi shouldn't directly engage with him, never punch below your weight. Once Modi directly addresses Kejriwal he will be treated on par with Modi by media and from that point onwards Media will compulsorily contrast any any coverage of Modi will become

2. BJP leaders should always be engage with Kejriwal respectfully, and observe the decorum.

This needs explanation. Personally I have nothing but distaste for Kejriwal, the man is a rank opportunist, the way he has dealt with BJP since start of India Against Corruption has been nothing short of utterly dishonest, boorish, and uncouth. I can understand if some BJP leaders are tempted to pay the populist charlatan in the same coin. However as tempting as the prospect may be, BJP must eschew it, in fact it should pass this throughout its chain of leaders and cadres, any engagement with Kejriwal must not cross the bounds of civil discourse.

Why is that ? Glad you asked!

In any fight Arvind Kejriwal will be the underdog, as far as optics go plebeians don't appreciate top dog pummeling underdog, there is a further glitch, BJP is part of political class. At present, middle class is downright hostile to political class, blaming it, not without some justification for present catastrophe.

Kejriwal has shrewdly positioned himself at champion of "aam aadmi". In what should concern any BJP well wisher, the middle class supporter doesn't just support Kejriwal he identifies with him. any ill advised comment against him by any BJP leader will be perceived by Kejriwal supporter as assault on him, an aam aadmi, by the all powerful political machinery.

Kejriwal is aware of this, which is why he will continue with his utterly disgraceful passive aggressive act to provoke some BJP leader into making some kind of personal remarks, after which Kejriwal can bask in the glory of martyrdom, a hero having to undergo personal humiliation for sake of public.
This is all the more reason why BJP should not fall in Kejriwal's trap

So what should BJP do then.

To summarize previous graph, Kejriwal is covered by deflector shield, before BJP can take him down it must destroy the shield. As I suggested in previous post BJP should relentlessly subject Kejriwal to intense scrutiny, however the focus of scrutiny shouldn't  be on personal honesty and integrity of Kejriwal which will be counter-productive, but on a. his competence to govern and his ability to seize of the issues b. honesty of rest of the the AAP members c. his judgement

To give an example, when criticizing Kejriwal's many flip flops, BJP shouldn't question his honesty, but his judgement and competence, further more BJP must emphasize the cost in terms of money, time as well as governance to public caused by theatrics of Kejriwal and his party

Above all BJP must eschew the temptation to reply in kind, it must not resort to histrionics or any kind of action that can be seen as gimmicky, instead all its criticism, arguments and policy pronouncement must be calm, dispassionate and well reasoned. Above all, BJP should try its utmost to impress upon public that its criticism of Kejriwal is not opportunistic, but a result of concern for public well being.

Above discussion doesn't mean Kejriwal can't be paid back in the same coin, only that BJP can't be involved with that. It is possible to out-Kejriwal Kejriwal by organizing otherwise apolitical section of people behind specific emotional hot button issues.

For instance, it shouldn't be difficult to start a agitation against Kejriwal's remarks on Batla encounter or Bhushan's stand on Kashmir or Naxalism, it will hurt Kejriwal's credibility even more if those directly involved with issue were to participate in the agitation. Similarly agitation can be started wrt even policy issues. Only condition to this is BJP's fingerprints shouldn't be visible on this/

The above two pronged attack can damage the positive public image of Kejriwal through attrition enabling BJP to go in for kill.

 Update: One point missed in above discussion was the role of social media, so far BJP supporters have been very strong in social media, however their monopoly has been challenged by Kejriwal supporters. Although role of social media is exaggerated, it does play a important role both for BJP and AAP.
My observation so far has been that majority of AAP supporters are as uncouth and deluded as Kejriwal, nature of the platform. Nature of the platform and the behavior by AAP supporters tempts BJP supporters to reply in kind. I confess, I am guilty of this too. However, if we want to persuade Kejriwal supporter to see the reality of AAP, we must control our urges, we must not make any personal attacks on interlocutor, further as far as possible we should try to refrain from making personal attacks on Kejriwal.

I am not sure if this is practically possible, I am pretty convinced it will not be possible in my case.

How do you solve a problem like Kejriwal (Updated)

Update at the end

At the end of this post I had cautioned about the remote possibility of Kejriwal playing spoilsports. Well with the Delhi elections the possibility just got less remote. The surprising turn of events culminating in Arvind Kejriwal taking oath as Chief Minister has dramatically altered the possibilities for Lok Sabha.

In a nutshell Arvind Kejriwal has become the great secular hope. Our sec-lib establishment which is desperate to stop Modi juggernaut has come around to view Kejriwal as its champion. For them such a drastic turnaround in their view has a simple logic, Kejriwal appeals most to urban middle class voters, which used to be core constituency for BJP and more importantly Modi must attract if he hopes to upstage Delhi Sultanate. For the establishment then, the calculation becomes straightforward, more Kejriwal is successful in convincing urban voters, less likely Modi is to be at the helm of the things.

The problem for the BJP in my view is that the assessment of establishment seems correct. Anecdotal evidence suggests that even normally apathetic and apolitical middle class is warming up to Kejriwal. Kejriwal, and his network of highly motivated volunteers can leverage their strong online presence to quickly scale up their political operations at the grassroots and hence convert positive perception for Kejriwal into votes.

Ofcourse this will not convert into many Lok Sabha seats for Kejriwal at such a short notice. But it will undercut BJP votes which is the main aim of establishment and I suspect Kejriwal.

Going forward, strategy for establishment media is going to be simple, wall to wall positive coverage of Kejriwal (accompanied by incessant negative coverage of BJP), similarly expect Kejriwal to reserve and direct his strongest attacks on Modi and BJP.

Which brings us to our main concern, how should BJP tackle Kejriwal. I am afraid that in terms of immediate action, there is hardly anything BJP can do. The reasons behind Kejriwal's appeal to middle class is his status as political neophyte as well as his open contempt and disdain for political system and process, both of which resonates with middle class. It is clear BJP being on wrong side of both the issues, can not hope to convince the disenchanted middle class.

Luckily though, BJP has a crucial ally, his name is Arvind Kejriwal.

Currently middle class is smitten with him, however as the quotidian reality of governance sinks, the untenable nature of blatantly populist policies of Kejriwal will gradually become clear to middle class and hopefully its fascination with Kejriwal will wear off.

Both Kejriwal and Congress realize this. I am reasonably sure that as a countermeasure they are looking for "martyrdom" of Kejriwal. Congress will withdraw support from Kejriwal on some pretext or other. It will not endear Congress to middle class, however at this point Congress has reconciled itself to middle class voting against it. Crucially for Congress, such a "martyrdom" act by Kejriwal will further boost his popularity among the middle class.

BJP can foil this strategy by deploying "liquid oxygen". In a famous Ajeet joke, the villains asks his henchman "Raabert" to throw hero in "liquid oxygen", reasoning, liquid will not let the hero live and oxygen will not let the hero die. This is exactly how BJP should proceed.

First the oxygen, BJP should promise that it will play role of constructive opposition, further it should promise then if Congress withdraws support on any flimsy grounds, it will not vote against Kejriwal government.

Now the liquid part, BJP should do its utmost to keep pressure on Kejriwal, by questioning and exposing the harebrained schemes of Kejriwal and Gang, by subjecting each and every step of Aam Aadmi Party to intense scrutiny, and publicizing every shenanigans to middle class.

And hope that middle class will wake up from its dream.

Update: As always I forgot one minor point, by denying Kejriwal his "martyrdom" act and keeping heat on him, BJP can ensure that Kejriwal remains pinned to Delhi and is unable to cause any nationwide damage.

Arvind Kejriwal's tips for performance appraisal

Many eons ago, when Ravikiran had not been bitten by Ayn Rand, he had written an excellent post on Sonia Gandhi, this post is inspired by the same post.

Manager: So how do you assess your performance ?

Arvind Kejriwal: I think that my performance has been outstanding.

M: Well that's interesting, because I see you have not delivered anything in the last year!

AK: That's correct.

M: In that case, don't you think your self assessment is a bit inflated.

AK: Not at all, you see, you are looking at this from the wrong angle.

M: I am not sure I follow you, see for example Narendra and his team have delivered a killer app to our customers and while Rahul and his legacy team have been nothing but disaster at the least they have delivered something.

AK: See. that is the problem, this obsession with delivery. May I suggest this is the wrong way of appraising, and further, if I may, there is a better way.

M: Oh really, well what is that better way.

AK: Why good man, it is just before your eyes. See I have not produced a single bug. Whereas, your much vaunted Narendra model of software development has resulted in nothing but tens and tens of bugs. It is clear that both Narendra and Rahul are failures.

M: Now wait a minute, Rahul and his team has worked since the beginning of this company, and they have more experience, on the other hand Narendra and his team delivered a far better product in far lesser time than Rahul and team. In fact I am thinking of promoting Narendra.

AK: No! You must not do that, you have been deceived by Narendra using ideas such as delivery and what not. Our top priority, scratch that, our only priority, should be quality. We can not compromise on it. In fact I propose that zero defect should be our only goal, delivery should be optional, in fact since delivery is impediment in achieving zero defect goal, I think we should do away with delivery. And I think you will agree that no one is more qualified to achieve goal of zero defect without delivering anything whatsoever than myself.

M: Now that you have put it this way, your logic seems impeccable to me, I think I will promote you instead.

AK: Now that this small matter is out of the way, here is my list of 18 conditions before I accept promotion.

Deluded and Dysfunctional

So a gruesome, horrible beyond imagination, rape/murder happens, which arguably could have been prevented, culprits are apprehended and verdict pronounced.

You know what is this? The bare minimum requirement of functional government in a normal society (look it up under Law & Order).

Yet media and deluded middle class is celebrating as if it was a momentous achievement for India! This sorry state of affairs is a direct fallout of dysfunctional government, itself a result of cargo cult that passes for democracy in India

A Conservative Paradox

To be more precise the paradox is that of conservativism  in a democratic polity.

Now conservatism has no single definition, depending on the specific society it also differs,  the quote by Tolstoy about unhappy families* applies to conservatism also. However, broadly speaking conservatism tends to emphasize importance and conservation of existing traditions, customs and institutions, considering this to be key to a life well lived. In short it is democracy of dead.

So what is the paradox, democracy by its very nature is susceptible to mob rule or tyranny by demagogues,  there can be checks and balances in form of republican form of government but ultimately political power, like any form of power is corrosive. It corrodes the moral grain of those entrusted with stewardship of democracy, it corrodes the political institutions, until the checks and balances give way. The ultimate bulwark against this corrosion is an informed public, whose awareness about politics goes beyond palace intrigues, not only zealously tracking the conduct of political officials and the debates on policy but also finer nuances pertaining to political philosophy.

The above sounds nice, and you might be thinking where is the problem. Well, it is this.

Since conservatism is concerned with the society as a whole, it seeks a balance between the various (often competing for power) social institutions, among which state is but one. The engagement described above is nice in theory, but human nature being what it is, the engagement can turn into obsession fairly quickly, this obsession creates imbalance in favour of state. State monopolizes, in order, the discourse, the narrative and finally even the perspective. This monopoly causes gradual decay of all the institutions, with the exception of state, which progressively sucks up more and more power. This social upheaval, needless to say, is diametrically opposite to what conservatism holds to be prerequisite for good life.

 So what is the resolution of this paradox? Unfortunately there isn't any, pertaining as it is to fundamental nature of democracy and human nature itself. However it is possible to mitigate this somewhat.
One by cultivating general scepticism of the state and another by cultivating a  broader sense of civic virtue which strengthens all the institutions and not just state.

* Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Social Media Sucks!

 Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa 
Let's get the easy part out, social media has at best limited electoral influence. To be specific twitter has no influence, Facebook has some, Blogs ? ha ha good one. That said, if people are banking on social media for electoral deliverance, Boy, they are for rude surprise!

Social Media can at best play marginal, complementary role. It can't even dream of supplanting traditional political campaigning including voter outreach. But oh, traditional is so boring, let's talk about shiny new things instead.

This misconception about electoral relevance does point to a more serious problem though. That of misunderstanding the role and potential of social media in Indian context. People simply do not understand how to best leverage social media, this is why their participation is at best tactical, at worst  self referential. 

Therefore most of contemporary social media interactions can best be summarized as chasing the news cycle.

Cycle starts with a scandal/outrage/foot in mouth statement, the worthies devour the topic du jour like ravenous wolves, superficial commentary shreds it, until there is a new one, and the cycle continues.

This ceaseless and frankly tedious process obscures other possibilities such as in short term social media can be used to co-ordinate, in medium term it can be used to organize and in long term it can be used for dissemination, thus providing a stable and distributed platform for body politics.

But where confounding narcissism masquerades as profundity, possibility is the first casualty.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta & Art Of (Forced) Equivalence

I confess, I am pretty pissed off at collective orgasm of Internet Hindus over the overrated Pratap Bhanu Mehta's "While we were silent" piece. Here is what galls me, when PBM uses the hackneyed "We were silent" phrase, he doesn't really mean "I", which he should be doing.

I am not saying PBM has never criticized the disaster that is UPA before, he has done ample of time. What I am saying is, even though the article he wrote now might score high on literary scale, an article titled "Holy shit! this government is a disaster! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!" published, let's say, eight years ago, while scoring considerably lower on the scale, would have been immeasurably more useful because then it might have helped in averted our present "decade of decline" (which threatens to become "decade of darkness").

And please don't say PBM couldn't have foreseen. Its one thing for paid dullards in Indian media, who copy every frickin' trend in US, to say this, but PBM is a smart fellow, he could and should have foreseen this, especially considering that many in blogosphere (incl yours truly).

It is not my contention that those in blogosphere were particularly smart, rather it is that it didn't require particular keen sense of foresight to predict this, considering Sonia Gandhi and her minions were shouting from rooftops, that was the platform on which they fought 2004 elections, that was what they promised and that was what they delivered. Sure they used latest socialist jargon and that could fool the dullards in media, but surely PBM is a smart fellow, he could have cut through the verbiage and seen the reality.

Ofcourse I think he did see the reality, and as I said at the starting he has criticized UPA ample times. However almost all of his articles can be boiled down to either of the two themes.

1. Congress is bad, "lekin saala akhha system hi kaharab hai".
2. Congress is bad, but BJP is worse.

Of course he took far more sentences to say this, and used fancy vocab and sentence construction, but the gist, was always this.

Why would someone as smart as PBM do this. Surely it must have been clear to him, that as flawed as BJP was, in matters of sound policy and in matter of respecting the institutions, it was (and is) far better than Congress.

Let me postulate this, like all liberals PBM is basically a cultural warrior, his overriding concern is the cultural war over soul or rather idea of India. Sure he wraps this in noble sounding rhetoric of apolitical liberalism, don't let it fool you though, this is anything but apolitical.

PBM is a participant in this war, even if he doesn't explicitly realizes this.Sure he may point to the lumpen elements (and there are many) within the fold of cultural nationalism. but he is more than willing to turn a blind eye towards similar element within lib-sec fold. What is more he has no problem being congenial with our intelligentsia which practices intellectual La Cosa Nostra. In contrast you can bet he feels revulsion associating with, even interacting with, any member of nationalist fold, irrespective of the fact how exemplary that member is.

Mr Pratap Bhanu Mehta, you can play or you can referee, you can't do both.

Needed mediawatchers (First Update)

Inspired by Dosabandit's idea

First Update: 3 ways to start a wiki
Help: Start A New Wiki (Wikia)

"Who watches the watchmen" originally dealt with question of accountability of political class. At present media is supposed to answer this question, in theory at least, it was supposed to be the watchdog.

However media with its ideological bias, guild mentality, venality, corporate interests and ties to establishment has rather than solving, exacerbated the problem. Last decade and half provides ample evidence of this.

It is therefore my proposal that concerned netizens should track and publish any act of shenanigans by media. It should be possible to accomplish this by a wiki.Media can't be allowed to get away with its acts of omission and commission.

Our Modern Crisis: Ancient Discontent (Updated)

Previous post might have given the impression that we moderns have stumbled on the crisis on our own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The genesis of modern crisis is ancient, rooted in the human nature itself.

The human nature, transcending evolution, always becoming, ever dynamic, is also the scene of a struggle. A struggle between its projections.

The biological man is in existential confrontation with social man who in turn is challenged by technical man who is a rebel against the spiritual  man. It is not in power to man to stop or end this confrontation. This confrontation will resolve only when ever unfolding evolutions draws to its unknown conclusion.

Update: In simple words, this means there is always a tension between an individual and society, society and technical progress, technical progress and spiritual faith.

So if the man can't bring the confrontation to its end, what can he do? The overarching aim of philosophy, politics, science, any body of knowledge as conceived by humans should be to  try to mitigate the frequent destruction unleashed by evolution even as it carries human to next stages of his transformation. 

Our Modern Crisis: Background

Ecce Homo

We are missing it. Beyond the incessant chatter of media traditional as well as social, beyond even the rarefied atmosphere of policy debates, there lurks a crisis. I doubt if many are aware about it, much less attempted to grasp its seriousness.

Our modern crisis is about true nature of man. Western politics is sharply divided into Conservatives and Liberals. Yet despite their often bitter partisan rancour, they have fundamentally same view about nature of man. To both, man is an atom, isolated entity imprisoned in his biological form, completely defined by personal virtues and vices, by his intellect and desires. Whether he is triumphant or defeated, he stands alone.
Man is atrophied, static. Man is a mere "being".

Let me humbly suggest that this conception of man is flawed. Man in fact is dynamic, he has progressed from biological evolution itself to higher forms of evolution. Man is "becoming".

It is true that man has a biological form, but that's not his limit. He projects onto higher planes. He is a nexus in social network. He is a shard of global data. He is a wisp of reason. Finally man is the very part of cosmic concious.

What a magnificent creature man is!

Alas how he has been sundered by simple minds 

On cults and soft totalitarianism

A short post this

Cults: I am sure anthropologists and the guys who do comparative religion studies have some rigorous definition for cults which no one outside the fields can understand. With the disclaimer let me offer my alternative (?) definition.Cult is any group adhering to a set of belief, who for all practical purposes, refuse to validate or falsify the said beliefs. Even as they insist their beliefs conform to reality or (nowadays) science, they steadfastly resist intrusion of reality. If somehow reality does successfully make a breach, the response is to burrow themselves even more under the certitude of dogma.

Soft totalitarianism: Instead of redefining totalitarianism I will like to shift the focus, totalitarianism refers to a polity where state controls every socio-politico-cultural institution, thus controlling every aspect of social and individual life. While there have been totalitarian regime in the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) and exist in the present (North Korea, Saudi Arabia), text book totalitarian regimes are the exception and not the rule. Instead we have a more subtle and hence also more invidious (because it gets ignored)  soft totalitarianism. I define soft totalitarianism as the political situation where while in theory both individuals and social institution have freedom as well as rights, and where state doesn't control all aspects of life, there does exist a intellectual monopoly over key social institutions including academia and public discourse such that dissent beyond a certain point is ruthlessly delegitimized and the person who dare to cross the boundary of shibboleth is hounded mercilessly, career destroyed, his right to civil discourse revoked, humiliated, and finally excommunicated.

Cylindrical Elephants & Spherical Cows

Nowadays political discourse, whether online or in mainstream, evokes sadness tinged with a feeling of Sisyphean futility of it all. Earlier when one fancied oneself young the feeling that this evoked was of rage.

Political commentators when not perpetually chasing the breaking news in a manner reminiscent of street mongrels,  remind one of the parable of blind men and elephant, with discourse focussed on specific issues.

Now there is something to said about this approach, focusing on a small specific part and studying reducing the complexity of problem, divide and conquer in technical lingo.

Problem though is that human condition does not yield to convenient, clean division, on the contrary it is messy, one part running into other. The result, all the well constructed theorems and model assuming the isolation and independence of  parts are ruined by the intrusion of totality.

So may be going piecemeal is not correct, may be our reasoning should be anchored on first principles. A tempting thought no doubt, and one which many do succumb to. Unfortunately this too is deceptive, a dialectical siren song for those chasing intellectual certainty, and the results as predictable, intellectual wreck on treacherous shoals of reality.

Every scientific query proceeds within the framework of assumptions. Assumptions simplify problem domain and make working on problem earlier. This is useful as long as care is taken that simplification do not filter anything essential. This is next to impossible in study of social affairs.

First principles are dangerous precisely because they cloak incompleteness of assumption in intellectual certitude. Hence spherical cows.

So what is the solution. Short answer, there aren't any. Longer answer, it is not possible to completely eliminate the complexity, it is possible however to mitigate it somewhat, by not focussing exclusive on one domain, by making it a habit of stepping back and taking it all in.

Unless we understand elephant's nature we can't hope to tame it.

HUMBLE APPEAL

(Originally posted on CRI)

Not that anybody is going to listen to me but still…

Please, for love of God, stop pretending/deluding yourself that we have some intellectually coherent “right” in India. I know why you are doing that, you have a ready-made template of political categorization in American politics, it is so much easier to just import it and build an edifice of superficial punditry to satisfy that irresistible urge for self affirmation.

However just because it is easier doesn’t mean its correct, it is useless, scratch that it is worse than useless in that it is misleading, it is obfuscating instead of clarifying.

If you have to do it, do it the right way.

And remember the only difference between drunkard and a pundit is whereas drunkard looks for the keys under the lamps, a pundit insists that keys should have been misplaced under the lamps in the first place.

YOU SANCTIMONIOUS TURKEY!*

(Originally posted on CRI)

Note: Usually I refrain from posting as this will drag down the quality of CRI especially since theinfamous Julio-Claudian supporter joined it   but this time …. well I cant control you are  forewarned!

Yes Sherna Gandhy, there is nothing demeaning about calling Uma Bharati  “Sexy Sanyasin”, or publishing innuendos about Bhanvari Devi.

Neither is there anything demeaning about some horny octogenarian  doing a winsome foursomein Raj bhavan.

But heavens forfend that Narenda Modi call someone ,  who got 50 crores in suspicious circumstances while being a minister’s, you know, girlfriend, “a 50 crore girlfriend”, that ma’am is inexusable.

After all as herstory tells us reality is just a conspiracy by patriarchy to bind womyn.

PS You forgot to add “chaiwallah”

* Reference here

MOMENT OF GLOATING

(Originally posted on CRI)

Well, a very warm evening to all the enlightened readers of CRI. Now I have been keeping horribly busy for quite some time, but work must make way for important things, which is gloating on the interwebs.

So without further ado, first item,
By now most of you must be aware that Indian economy resembles Titanic (in its “Hello there Mr Iceberg, how do you do” phase and not “Kate Winslet fooling around with a younger looking De Caprio” phase).

If you are aware of that, you must also be aware of the dire predictions of experts that future of Indian economy has eerily similarity with what happened to Titanic after its rendezvous with Mr Iceberg.

Curiously though, most of the same experts were more or less exuberant in not so distant past. Even after there were signs of distress, these same wizard of dismal science were more interested in embellishment and obfuscation to actually ring the bells.

You know who predicted (or rather guessed) it, this guy, six years back.

All right I know most of you might have guessed, but I think a man is entitled to a moment of happiness before he meets the cold water of reality, and all he has a curiously unbalance Victorian wardrobe to hang on to

Moving on, while writing on Baba Ramdev, I wrote this,

“So what will happen, when Baba Ramdev does win elections? Well as Edmund Burke said a wise man learns from the past, and as it turns out we have seen this movie before.”

As it turns out I was more right than I could have guessed,

“If black money is recovered then this money will benefit all poor people. Whatever Baba Ramdev has suggested is good”, said Mr Pawar

I guess all that now remains is for ghost of Haji Mastan to appear from his grave and join Team Anna. (Ref here)

Over and out.

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

The Political Animal

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)



For those who came late, we at CRI are having Aniversarypalooza, so far the posts have been nothing less than outstanding. This post is a modest attempt to bring the average down.


To be honest, I was not sure about the direction to take in the post which will suit the occasion. Sure, I could try an intellectual overview of the conservatism, but to quote Oscar Wilde, I am not young enough to know everything, nor am I articulate enough to condense my views in a single coherent post.


That said,  when I was told about the anniversary palooza one thing stuck with me, the article should be first person, that is it should bring out one’s perspective. This appealed to me as the reason one views the things the way one does clarifies the perspective.


*Before we proceed here is your obligatory jargon alert . You have been forewarned *


So, what drives our politics and informs our positions ? One usually answers the question intellectually, in form of abstract ideas and impersonal values.

Yet, to truly answer this we have to go beyond the certitude of abstract and grapple with whimsy of humanity.

I was introduced to the titular phrase, Political Animal, while reading politics (more on it later). At that time the phrase struck me as clever but nothing more. After that I kept encountering it on occasion, mostly from our resident Chicago boy.


However, it was not much later, that I grokked its true significance, and, if I may say so, true magnificence of this deceptively pithy phrase.


Much of our political discussions are based upon the implicit assumption that involvement in politics is a deliberate and reasoned act on our part. Our all political theorization work from that assumption.


Yet what if the assumption is not true. It is my contention that as the phrase suggests, politics is a very basic human instinct as opposed to an act of reason. Politics in various forms pervades human condition. Whether it is work place, or peers, or family or larger social gathering, consciously or otherwise, politics is always an influence.


This raises the question, why we humans have political instinct, surely if our elder cousins the adorable Chimpanzees can do without politics, who are we upstarts to say otherwise.

Many among us will answer that it is greed which causes the politics. That is true but still not helpful, for you see, greed is the first principle of nature. A short (but not very accurate) summary of  the selfish gene could be, “we are all greedy”.

A better to our question is, “Politics confers evolutionary advantage”.


“Surely you must be joking!”, I hear you. Let me assure, I am not joking and further I am not Shirley either. To understand why it is so, let’s revisit the Chimpanzees. Now they may or may not be political, but they are certainly not adorable, in fact they are quite nasty. And they are not the exception. Nature as a matter of rule is less Lion King and (overwhelmingly) more Fight Club.


Why is this so? Well because scarcity exercises its tyranny over the living. To survive all the creatures must compete against each other. In this competition, violence decides the winner. And yet violence has its downsides for one, while violent struggles eliminate the rivals, it also leaves the winner weaker and therefore at disadvantage.


Politics is nature’s rudimentary solution to this (I am skipping few steps here). To paraphrase Freud, the first person to indulge in politics instead of violence was founder of civilization.
To summarize,  ”All politics is about control”.


This is far from the nobility ascribed to politics by Amar. It may sound disheartening but politics far from being intellectual exercise is more accurately described as a reflection of our baser instincts.


Yet there is more to politics than power which elevates it from a reflex of id, a mere dismal science so as to say. Simply put politics is also a manifestation of our social personae.


Human behaviour like that of any other social animal is influenced by two mutually contradictory forces. One is self interest, and the other is group interest. If an animal always acts in self interest it ends up harming the group, however acting otherwise puts itself at disadvantage.


These two forces are resolved by modification of  individual’s self identity. Simply put, affinity to the larger group and identification with it become a part of individual’s self image. In Freudian terms it manifests as superego.
Thus our political instinct is also an evolutionary means to contribute to group utility.


Thus our aphorism can be modified to, “All politics is control, except when it is utilitarian “

Waiting For Baba Ramdev

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)


Note. This post is counterpoint to our guest post arguing for entry of Baba Ramdev. I am restricting myself to the specific question of Baba Ramdev, however the original post raises many interesting broader points, which I will defer for some at later date, as it is difficult to respond coherently to all the points in a single post.


Baba Ramdev, or to be more precise his foray into politics, is topic du jour among “the right wing ” netizens.  He has managed to electrify lot of good and sensible people. To an extent that is understandable. Metaphorically speaking, he is taking fighting into the enemy camp which is any day a better strategy then trying to fire-bomb your own army (which is all what BJP seems to be capable nowadays).

Now I do concede that right wing could do a lot worse than Baba Ramdev. From what we know of the man, Baba Ramdev appears to be an honest and sincere man. More importantly he is a patriot, and this is what attracts many to him (but not me), apolitical.

Even conceding all that I don’t think his involvement in politics is such a good idea. Problem will Baba Ramdev, like most of the Indians, is that he believe in what can only be called as Underpant  gnome theory of political science, going something like this

1.  Elect a charismatic leader with personally admirable qualities.
2. ???
3.  Mission accomplished!

You see, the problem with this. If you guessed step 2 with the  question marks , hey you just won a million dollar from a Nigerian dictator’s bank account.

Step 2, which to reiterate, Baba Ramdev (like most Indian) misses is the ideas. What are his specific political ideas, what policies he is in for, what are his specific proposals. We don’t know, because there aren’t any (to best of my knowledge).

So what will happen, when Baba Ramdev does win elections? Well as Edmund Burke said a wise man learns from the past, and as it turns out we have seen this movie before.

And this is why I am not swayed by him being  apolitical. Truth is, politics is not reformed by apolitical people (by which I mean people who are not familiar with the politics and disdainful of it) entering into politics, but only by politicians.

There is another point, if Baba Ramdev does enter into politics, the event, will without doubt, raise expectations of middle class (excluding the cosmopolitan flotsam, ofcourse), what will happen to them when this experiment fails, as it surely will, like it always has? The disappointed and bitter middle class will sink even more into morass of indifference, fatalism and cynicism, thus making the problem even more intractable.

However, in my opinion, the most important argument against Baba Ramdev’s political foray, is that he is much more valuable outside formal politics.

I will explain it. I am a cultural nationalist. I hold that the real strength of India is not its army or democracy but its culture. If, to quote Iqbal, winds of time have not been able to destroy us, even as once mighty empires laid waste before it, it is to our innate spirituality to which the credit should go.

As long as we follow Dharma, no one can vanquish us, and if we let go of it, no one can save us.


We require, and are eternally grateful to Sadhus like Baba Ramdev for nurturing Dharma and making sure we do not forget our real heritage.