Aphorism : Dead past liberalism

For liberals history begins from the moment that has just passed away, or to be more precise from some event in time which is a convenient peg for liberal mythology. Any attempt to correct this notion and inject a perspective of history is illiberal/communal/fascistic.

Hence history of communal strife begins from Godhra/Mumbai riots/Ayudhya prior to which India lived in communal bliss. Partition or Ram Mandir is irrelevant, a distraction from pressing concern of this moment. Any one who dares to disobey the liberal dictum must be prepared to be slandered and stigmatized.

It is like 50 first dates, only without Drew Barrymore.

PS. Talking of dead past, I always thought this story was flirting with authoritarianism.

Naipaul on Hindu awakening

The key Hindu concept of dharma - the right way, the sanctioned way, which all men must follow, according to their natures - is an elastic concept.
At its noblest it combines self-fulfillment and truth to the self with the ideas of action as duty, action as its own spiritual reward, man as a holy vessel.
India was trampled over, fought over. You had the invasions and you had the absence of a response to them. There was an absence even of the idea of a people, of a nation defending itself.
Only now are people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalizing of India. The movement is now from below. It has to be dealt with. It is not enough to abuse these youths or use that fashionable word from Europe, 'fascism', There is a big, historical development going on in India.
What is happening in India is a new historical awakening....Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

Move over Amit Varma

Update: Ok I didn't realize at the time of writing this post, but H.E. had just suffered from personal tragedy, hope God gives him strength to face the sorrow.

You have to give this. His eminence has his shtick, which basically comprises of poorly constructed arguments and a cheery ignorance of reality. Whatever be the case, it is popular and so I guess it is all right. I wonder however, what exactly is wrong with this boy, Nilu. He writes an article on TN politics, which is reasonably good. Not content with this however, he has to spoil it all by almost mandatory dravidian effluvium of "distinct identity", "Indian state".

Here is a helpful reminder for Dravidian chauvinist pigs like him (and that other moron Balaji who used to troll INI).

TamilNadu can no more claim exceptional status owing to its heritage and culture than Bengal, Maharashtra, or Gujarat can. No matter which region one is from, one can proudly make claim to a heritage and history. But this doesn't negate the idea of India. India is not a monolithic identity which refuses to take cognizance of existing history forget annihilate it. Instead it is a affirmation of our history, a celebration of all our memories which live today in us, and also recognition of the fact while we have diverse traditions in conclusion they have influenced each other and have coexisted largely peacefully with other traditions over the millennium, that in the end we have one history, that India is the ocean in which all rivers merge in the end.

Of course this is something which is incomprehensible to Dravidian nut cases like Nilu*, who have never seen India beyond Chennai, and who spout garbage under the pretense of manufactured identity, which is nothing but juvenile rejection of Tamil identity as part of India. This is nothing but political equivalent of teenage rebellion, resentment and offense for sake of it.
This jingoism, fueled by bogeyman of other (in this case India as monolithic imperial entity occupying the glorious Dravidistaan), is just one more in the long line of Pakistan, J & K, Khalistan, and like its predecessors injures the soul of India.

I think it makes good sense to relocate such idiots to Lemuria.

* It is especially pathetic to see some Tambrams becoming whores for chauvinistic Dravidian movement, a severe case of Stockholm syndrome.

Minor query

Considering the nature of God (or Brahman) which underpins our darshan, which is the more accurate translation of Shruti, revealed or inspired ?

A quick 'un (on schools)

Recently Ravikiran wrote a series of short posts on regulation in education which started off as response to some dude called Abi.
Now since I am not terribly interested in policy discussions, I know next to nothing about education policy. Having said that I think that the above posts don't do justice to education, but that is probably because of they are rebuttal to specific points. Further I am not sure that the cases of blogs and schools are similar at all. Anyway, I am sure those interested can find insight from elsewhere, Rohit being foremost. However two comments.

1. Abi writes,

"Our current problem is not that there are no private players, but that they have among them too many crooks, politicians and thugs whose primary motive is demonstrably something other than education. So the real issue is this: What changes do we need in our higher ed regulatory structure so as to attract the 'right' sort of private players -- philanthropists -- in larger numbers? And, how do we keep the undesirable sorts out?"

To which I can only say, whatever this guy is smoking. Here is a news flash, we have crooks and thugs in educator sector precisely because of regulations, which ensure only those who can game the system can enter and block free competitions. Neither is this an exception, the same disheartening story has been repeated in all fields of life since independence, of course reform initiated post 1991 (and let's be honest, under coercive pressure of IMF and world bank) have ensured that considerable portion of economy has been deregulated. Sadly this is yet to happen in education. Talks of more regulations to ensure better output certainly seems surrealistic.


2. The posts written by Ravi reflect his general outlook on regulations. Regulation, which I understand as legal restrictions on entry to market, are never desirable. This outlook is more clearly enunciated in few of his previous posts. I am still mulling it over. Basically the reasons I have doubts with Ravi's position are.

a. Possibly owing to genetics or cultural conditioning, there is a tendency for regulations.

b. I would like to see the premise that regulations are never desirable substantiated by economic analysis. I am still attempting to frame the question in terms of vocabulary of economics.


PS. If anyone wishes, may be he/she can attempt to prove/disprove the premise in the comments. I am most interested.

Comedy Hour

UN Human Rights Report: UK should abolish monarchy.

Plus Iran complains about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.

Jagjit Singh Is God