The perils of secular triangulation

I have been meaning to comment on these two articles. These are remarkable because they mark some of the rare occasions when someone from secular liberal establishment breaks off from the norm and makes an admission, even if grudging (and the above articles are reluctant, I regret to say), either  of exceptionalism of Indic civilization and her history, or of the conflict between Hindu and Muslims which is existential in nature.

First the article by Ashish Nandy (courtesy Rohit). Now even though he is a figure much reviled by us nationalists, I think unlike others he should be engaged in debate. In the article he rightly mocks the idea that Indians need to be indoctrinated with secularism for living in communal amity, something which has been the norm of Indic religious experience, if only our liberal overlords did bother to notice, (of course having been indoctrinated in missionary schools they can't be expected to, but that is a different matter). I do have two objections to it however. Firstly, there is still a reluctance to elucidate, namely , it is Hinduism which is the soul of Indic civilization, and history of India is inseparable from history of Hinduism. Secondly, as I have written earlier, tolerance, and inclusiveness is not the highest virtue a civilization can aspire for, and certainly not one that should be adhered to fanatically at all time without regards to cost, sure in the general scheme of things, being tolerant and respectful is a great enabler of social interaction and progress. However there are times, and situations, when tolerance is not only useless but impediment in doing what is right. So while India has been tolerant, it is not its highest virtue nor the ultimate goal she sought.

The article by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is also interesting in that it admits that the agitation over Amarnath is very much communal in nature, in fact, he goes further, correctly, in his explanation and reveals the great taboo. That partition was very much about conflicting identities (or nationalities he puts), and therefore any conversation without taking conflict and its history into account is for any practical purposes worthless. However even here he is reluctant to go whole hog and name the conflict identities,because doing so will establish a) That there is an Islamic identity which has influenced masses of Muslims from various parts of the globe, impacting events, in past as well as contemporary  world and b)  More importantly there is Indian identity which is independent of, and much more vast, than present shibboleth of secularism, which has directed actions of people living across this land since times immemorial. .

Finally the refusal of secular establishment to accept the truth and power of India must be recognized for what it is, a sort of schizophrenia, driven by their self loathing due to lifetime of indoctrination, the establishment seeks post-identity society. Since this is impossible to achieve, at least in this age of civilization, what it finds is stagnation leading to dissolution of India. Nihilism by chance.

No it's not them, it's us

I will be frank, I have never seriously put much faith in "us vs.them" and it is not because I care for movies about dyslexic kids.

Here is what I think. Prior to partition the obduracy of Muslim intelligentsia was unmanageable. After the partition, however, it was possible to ensure that there is no re-occurrence of the problem in future. We  could have decided, the boundaries for political and cultural discourse, outside of which any conversation would be deemed unacceptable to the main stream. In other words, we could have defined our nationhood. But we didn't. Why ? Because India has been cursed with feebleness. Not merely of intellect, but also of faith in herself, of belief in her history. Her spirit is emaciated. We feel this malaise but unable to cure ourselves take recourse to placebo of high minded rhetoric. For us secularism is the sedative of a exhausted nation, liberalism  as anesthetic for a tortured civilization.

Which is why, India is thwarted by conflicting identities and loyalties, why even thought partition should have vanquished them Mullahs still rule the roost. This is also the reason why even if there were no Ulemas, or even Muslims, the result will be same.

I don't think you meant what you wrote

Pramodji writes

Between the communal Congress and the fascist BJP, Indian voters have little to choose from

Err, calling BJP fascist is too nutty even for some one who pines for Ron Paul. Unless of course it is Orwell's definition we are using.

Question On Asimov.

This post by Megan McArdle on American urban spaces reminds me of Earth and Spacer series*. Now I have always thought that when Asimov wrote about Spacers he was actually talking about Americans what with their preoccupation with privacy and personal space. My question is whom did the Earthmen represent ? Generic third worlders ? Chinese ? Indians ? **

* Wiki classifies the trilogy as Robot Series, I don't agree. Story wise, the trilogy can be better seen as precursor to Empire/Foundation series. Of course that was accomplished by  writing  two of the lamest books of Foundation series, which just goes on to prove that Asimov sold his soul to the Man of Publishing House.


** It can't be Russians for sure as Asimov visualized the future with Americans and Russians as under united.
And for the record, I don't think it could have been Indians either, I doubt Asimov (or for that matter Heinlein) thought much of Indians.

Blame Hindus

You know who is to blame for this Jammu uprising ? Hindus, of course. Because Muslims are always the victims.
Hence Kashmir unrest was "secular" , ostensibly for federalism, while Jammu unrest is communal, because we can't have Hindus getting uppity, can we ?

Keeping that in mind it is somewhat of respite to this Hindu to read this stinging article by Ashok Malik on ELM's instinctive bias against Hindus.

I must admit this naked bias did surprise me, though I should have seen it coming. Somehow I assumed that five year of secular liberal rule might have lessened the Hinduphobia of pimps of secularism ELM, but I forgot that this contempt and hatred for Hindus is not merely a matter of political power play, this goes deeper, this is a malaise that afflicts the secular spirit, a mind seduced by annihilation of identity, and end of history, with nihilism as the only conclusion. The God might be dead but eschatology lives on.

On terrorism

I started writing this as a short post intended to this post by GB, however since this post by FiTW and this article by Saubhik Chakravarti are also relevant to the issue at hand, so I broadened the scope.

It is almost unnecessary to state that terrorism is a complex issue involving various interdependent causes or factors having a feedback affect on each other. Now  I do concur that there are many factors involved which can be addressed and mitigated by considering as law and order problem. Specifically to bring results following at least are required  a. a federal agency with an unambiguous and centralized command and adequate resources, for intelligence, and investigation (as mentioned by GB) as well as clear and simple communication channel with various domestic and international agencies. b. Law(s) to facilitate intelligence, investigation, and prosecution without hindrance, this can be achieved by re-enacting POTA and other laws.

However the scope of these steps as far as terrorism is limited. To be precise, these steps are concerned with disrupting the supply chain of terrorism by dismantling the necessary infrastructure whether communication wise or logistics wise. What these can not address are the issues which go deeper than mere infrastructure, to be more specific, source of terrorism.

First take the more obvious. "Moral support" from "land of pure". So far this has been the major source for terrorism (although there is speculation that this might be changing). If counter-terrorism efforts have to have any meaning threat from Pakistan must be neutralized. As I have written many times earlier also, there are three approaches to accomplish that.

First, diplomacy. I hope I am not being too hasty in claiming that it has failed. Of course that it has failed should not stop secular liberal establishment from touting it time to time as a breakthrough or BJP from trying to imitate it looking for elusive acceptability from the establishment, but rest of us can move on. Second, in words of Don Vito Corleone,  is to reason with them, by delivering political equivalent of horse's head at Pakistan's feet. This may be difficult, but certainly doable, and importantly, the only way to achieve immediate results. In long term however, Pakistan will continue to weaken India by any way possible, and hence it is necessary that it be dismembered. But that is just my inner Hindutva Fascist speaking.

Now we come to the perplexing part, because while Pakistan is external threat, there is undeniable evidence that terrorism is being fomented from within the country as well. Muslims find themselves increasingly ghettoized, a problem largely of their own making, one which has been going since partition. A significant, and ever increasing, percentage of Indian Muslims are being indoctrinated in Madarassas resulting in increasing fundamentalism and radicalization. The community remains beholden to leaders who promise favors or mostly just a collective face against kaffirs, and to Ulemas deeply rooted in Islamic theology and a historical sense of  creedal superiority who ensure that Muslims remain chained in past, with only interaction in present as perpetual victims of either duplicity of kaffirs, or treachery of time. This is not helped by the secular liberal establishment for whom Muslim community is a convenient prop to burnish its credential as savior of oppressed.


No wonder then this radicalization along with resentment and grievance* over injustice works to inculcate sympathy for the terrorism among the community, with a few individuals actively turning to terrorism.

This is a cause for concern, and also the main reason why it should never be concerned as merely law and order, which basically means that it is a matter of random individual breaking laws for their personal and unrelated gains. However as FiTW points out this is hardly the case. The ultimate aim of terrorist is clear, even if cliched, to destroy this country.

This is also the reason that Saubhik Chakrabarti is way off the mark, surprisingly so, as he is very much the part of secular liberal establishment, any conversation on radicalization can not happen, indeed will not be allowed to happen as there is simply too much at stake, for Maulvis as well as establishment, to maintain the fiction of Muslim as lamb to be perpetually defended from big bad Hindutva wolf. In fact the very notion of Indian Secularism hinges upon the insistence at absolute equality between Hindus and Muslims irrespective of the time. Any contrary evidence is either ignored, embellished or dismissed as irrelevant.

* So am I saying there are no genuine grievances as opposed to manufactured ones. I think there are, but that subject will have to wait for another post.

Paris Hilton video (Like totally hawt)

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Yeah, I am that desperate.

Bonus!  Angelina Jolie's twins