Kalki is not coming.-II (A hope)

[Previous Post]

I am really skeptical of prophesies which foretell coming of messiah or plans which require for a great sacrifice from one individual.

The reason is, unless there is a grave danger to society or unless the society itself has a spartan discipline, people in general will hesitate from any sort of sacrifice. As a general rule how far people comply with even far more mundane regulations for contribution (i.e. taxation) depends on an effective evasion detection mechanism as well as social milieu culture.

This brings me to the story with some value. During the last decade there arose, in the eyes of nation a young man who despite of his most un–hero-like appearance quickly went on to become a national hero, a champion feted by all.
In fact his rise went beyond this. In this land of countless Gods, he was added to pantheon. He was adored, worshipped. His exploits in the arena launched and sustained debates, engaging and furious, across the nation. People prayed for his triumph, celebrated on his stroke play, sacrificed their first born for his health (ok so they sacrificed their neighbour’s first born, the point is clear).
Devoid of heroes, in fact so utterly lacking in any modern accomplishment, he was the salvation for billion hopes belied. It came to pass that the team, except for one or two “pinch hitters”, used to give up as soon as this man was out. After a time, shoulders of our hero started to fail him, his failure made the nation in turns distressed and discontented. The master was tired and it showed.

Then something happened, a new generation took over, in skill they were no match for master, but they were eager and they were aggressive. Soon this young generation took over from the master, now the burden was on collective shoulder; the team is performing irrespective of which specific player is out of the form. The young man is no more that young. He is no longer treated as God either, he is now a player again.

This more than anything can act as template for India.

Do not try to make Gods of mortal they invariably fail.

Instead just try to become a citizen with all the pride that the word suggests.

Cultural Nationalism: Musings.

Posted as comments for this post (thanks to Frog for conversation)

For starters I define myself as cultural nationalist. This means I am interested in rejuvenation of Indic civilization, resurgence of India back to her place. This means progress, not only in terms of GDP, but also in arts, music, literature, science ,philosophy and everything else.

To accomplish this, in order to lift India from morass, two conditions must be fulfilled.

One willingness of Indian citizen to work for self - improvement instead of depending on others, including state. (when I say self -improvement, material acquisition is just a part , although significant, to me self-improvement or rather self realization implies discovery in the field of ideas, in essence curiosity to explore the uncharted territory).
Second The confidence and the pride in nation and fellow citizens. Civic sense follows from pride. I know any talk of national pride is too politically incorrect in this age of progressivism.

This is why I support free markets. Free markets imply that each individual earns according to a combination of factors such as skill, labour, intelligence and job profile. I find it more conducive, in fact the required condition for national resurgence. While creed of egalitarianism may appeal to our loftier instincts, welfare state or "from each according to his capability to each according to his need" will invariably be foiled by our baser instincts, free riders in other words.

To me introduction of free markets is a hope, a spark if you will, which can ignite Indians in the same way as our freedom struggle did at one time.

Why am I a cultural nationalist is matter for separate post

Monday Blues: Bureaucracy as super-virus

One of the characteristics of any human organization (social institutions being one specific subset) is their similarity to an individual organism.

The parallel is two-fold.First, “the purpose behind existence of organization”, in my opinion (admittedly cynical one) whatever be the initial justification behind the organization, it is soon buried under the matters of technicalities and details, the final result that after a period the organization exists for sake of its existence.

To put in precise words, while initially the organization might have been meant to provide benefit to the society at large, but eventually in most cases the only one benefiting from the organization is the organization itself (i.e. entities which constitute organization, this might be some officer or some NGO point stands) with the society at large paying the banker (or to be more precise sucker).

Second, “the reproduction and evolution”, both to justify its existence in eyes of bankers (superficially, of course) any organization as well as to maximize the pay off will constitute processes (new rituals, or regulations) which willy-nilly give rise to new processes.

Ultimately a time comes that the society is bogged down both by the restrictions placed on it through these customs and laws as well as by the enormous amount of energy, time and cost required for preservation of these.

The reason such organizations which serve no purpose (except of their constituents) exists at cost of larger society, is that the society can always be beguiled with promise of some unrealistic, fantastic but highly desirable goal.

To give just two examples taking the advantage of natural sentiment for departed ancestors, priest class prescribed complicated rituals for shaanti of departed, this doesn’t have any sanctions from basic world view of scriptures but this is rewarding to the class and hence a burden on society is added.

Modern example is that of welfare state, even though it doesn’t work, politicians, progressives and bureaucrats can announce one poverty alleviation program safter another with no danger of recrimination because it appeals both to the basest desire of greed as well as lofty and yet superficial ideal of egalitarianism.

Hence welfare state is best understood in terms of a modern adaptation by a modern organization (that is bureaucracy) to survive.

All the Nehru's horses

In my carefree days when my primary task in life was to read all the jokes (without discriminating about quality) on Internet, one particularly good one was about corporate fascination with buzz words without regards to reality and following a path of action just for sake of pretending again unmindful of the consequences.

The continuing NAM fascination of Indian leadership is one such examples of Indian politics being more comic and farcical than Internet jokes.

The main objection is not whether America will be angry, but that there is no relevance of NAM (if ever was) for India either as an ideological platform (non alignment in a unipolar world, why just not rename NAM as "rag tag of stuck in the time wrap third world politicians, out of work progressives and uncouth megalomaniac dictators opposed to American hegemony" ) or for purpose of striking strategic alliances for political or other purposes.

But horse is being flogged and the fact that it is dead is a trivial matter, to be ignored for sake of outdated fantasies rarefied ideals of our deluded righteous leaders.

Meanwhile the India which aspires to be taken seriously as an emerging superpower is attending unhinged show (spewing bile at Israel for aggression, defending Iran, Chavez, Castro etc etc.)

Kalki is not coming.-I

Related to earlier post. Repeating the point as response to end note of confused's post

1. Appropriating Gandhi for free market is contradiction. For me, it is not possible to disconnect the means that Mahatma Gandhi employed with the goals he had in mind.Ideology of Bapu was highly altruist, to say the least, and it is with respect to this world view that he set out his paths and his methods .
Whereas the basic premise behind capitalism and free market is pursue of self interest. It is this as a guiding light that role of state as well as form of policy is defined. Therefore expectation of a Mahatma like figure evangelising about free markets is a paradox in itself.

Here I do not object only for the sake of the principle but for the reason that this expectation to me seems a fundamental flaw.

( Frog pointed out that a person can embrace free market for sake of altruism. However I do not think (I may be wrong) that free markets are a very attractive solution for an altruist. In all probability altruist will go for welfare state. Further for someone to spread the "gospel of free market" he must be convinced about primary importance of free market and not just as a system (not very efficient one at that) to deliver welfare.)

2. However the greater problem with this for me is social (or philosohipical).
By the very expectation that one person is going to take burden to reform the present rot, to me betrays another form of messianism.

More important than free market, more important than globalisation or capitalism is the question on what premises we want to base our society, our nation.
In my opinion the society which depends on some individual or some entity (i.e. state) for its welfare or progress can not succeed.

Dependency in any form can only breed intellectual feebleness. And it is from lack of ideas that a nation or a civilization wither away. I do not think (or to be more precise I do not know) that altruism can be done away with entirely.

However we should stress on individuals to be self-dependent. When I say self-dependent, I do not only mean that he should earn his own living but he should actively contemplate , explore and contribute ideas too. In other words he should also earn his own ideals and beliefs.

This misplaced expectation of salvation through an avataar, Kalki if you will, this faith in saviour is typical of all the religions (including Hinduism).
This is not characteristic of a strong society, these prophesies of mahdi are either psychological support for vanquished or mirage for ignorant.

The best way, the surest way to progress is for each one to be his own guiding light. Any society which expects someone else to wear crown of thrones for its salvation is bound to be disappointed. Let us not heap our crosses on someone else's shoulder, even God needs rest.

The chemistry of terrorism.

Often after Islamic terrorists have carried out an attack the aftermath is a debate over banal phrases. Progressives/liberal/apologists would proclaim but for a small minority of extremists, Muslims are moderates, this proclamation is meant as an assurance, lest there is any alarm or panic or animosity. Yet this proclamation even if true doesn't hold much comfort. The reason is simple , moderate has more than one meaning. One someone holding views which are middle of the road that is moderate views.

Other and more appropriate (in the present context) meaning is person(s) who are willing to take path of least resistance, who will prefer to get along rather than to enforce their beliefs through means of violence. Whereas radical are those who spread their ideologies aggressively ,many times though not necessarily always using violent means. Osama Bin Laden and others of his ilk are radicals in this sense.

Now the difference between "moderates" and "radicals" means that above a certain percentage it will be "radicals" who will set the agenda for the community. What is more crucial the radical faction will become more significant with the passage of time.
Thus it is analogous to evolution or chain reaction

The only way to counter this is for moderates to turn radicals albeit for different cause, the cause assumed to be more worthwhile than that of terrorists.

Fighting terrorism is first and foremost a battle of ideas. And yet regrettably this aspect is most neglected, more than that time is of importance in this, because if the extremists are not checked in time, they will be unmanageable. One can excuse "moderates" in various Islamic countries (in west or central Asia) for not doing enough, however what can be said about those in India.

The "moderates" who are the first to take umbrage over real or imagined transgressions and lament over exaggerated grievances are suddenly coy when it comes to self introspection, instead there is a persistent effort to obfuscate the issue.

This apologia may save "face" for the moment but does nothing to help the situation

The Good , The Bad

Fatwa that is,

First the good, Osama if Salafi not Muslim

The bad, Insurance is unislamic, against the will of Allah

As far as I am concerned, the clerics can issue as many fatwas as they like, loony or sensible, as long as it is not in violation of laws.

However what is worrisome is that these clerics have influence among Muslims and when they issue edict it has effect on the nation.



What is more crucial for nation building as well as for welfare of all citizens is rejection of the dogma and superstitions.



Scriptures can not be allowed to supersede national values.