Something like life

SHOW DONT TELL

2013-04-14T13:32:00.001+05:30

(Originally posted on CRI)

Much of my original posting on CRI has been in way of criticism without offering any positive alternative or solution, one reason for this, as the cliché goes, criticism is easy, other is my own political views are still work in progress (As Oscar Wilde said, “I am not young enough to know everything”).

That said I will like to qualify my humble appeal in which I objected to pretending that right exists in India, in any meaningful way. I will like to note following criteria to admit existence of right.

1. Define right in a broad but coherent way. (And again no, you can not just import definition of American Right)

2. Identify the set of philosophical/policy positions in Indian context which can be classified as right.

3. Locate in politics a serious faction or movement which identifies with said position. Or,

4. Identify a serious strand among contemporary Indian discourse which can be identified with said position.

5. Note emphasis on “serious”, by which I mean not twitter, or blog, or any other part of web.

HUMBLE APPEAL

2013-04-14T13:28:00.000+05:30

(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!*

2013-04-14T13:07:00.001+05:30

(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

2013-04-14T13:03:00.000+05:30

(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.

APHORISM: FREEDOM

2013-04-14T12:58:00.003+05:30

(Originally posted on CRI)

First step towards being free is to realize you are enslaved.
Freedom is like zero gravity. Both can only be simulated in this world, and never truly achieved.

QUOTES: BREAD AND CIRCUS DEMOCRACY

2013-04-14T12:54:00.003+05:30

(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

APHORISM: INTELLECTUALISM

2013-04-14T12:49:00.000+05:30

(Posted On CRI)

Most of the times intellectual discourse amount to debating choice of cutlery on a sinking ship.
The difference between a drunk and intellectual is that while former looks under lamp post for key misplaced somewhere else, later actually insists that keys should have been misplaced under lamp post

Frankly, Mr Dhume, I don't give a damn!

2011-11-27T03:06:00.001+05:30

(This post contains profane language)

Now, compared to your typically ethically challenged journalist/public intellectual, I have a rather favourable opinion of Sadanand Dhume, which is why I am sort of nonplussed with where exactly he is going when on eve of 26/11 he reminds us that many in Pakistan (presumably liberals) were appalled by the attacks.

Excuse me for breaking the rules of decorum, but why am I supposed to give a flying f**k about how appalled the bed-wetting class in LOP is about all this "unpleasant situation".

For the simple fact is you can take all the dread, consternation, horror, revulsion, indignation and whatever else Pakistani liberals feel about 26/11 and still fall ten rupees short of ten rupees vada pav.

To paraphrase Jennifer Lopez, for liberals, whether of LOP or of India, feelings don't cost a thing. For them all the hand wringing and tch-tching is about signalling kindness in their heart and virtue in their soul to the world in general and their peer in particular.

Pakistani liberals don't care about 26/11 or about terrorism against India.

You don't believe me, do you! Then please tell me, where are morchas by Pakistani liberals demanding an end to state sponsorship of terrorism against India, or demanding punishment against masterminds of the terror attacks. Forget morchas, where are the articles in their liberal respectable publications, newspapers or magazines, offline or online denouncing terrorism against India, unequivocally asking for an end in involvement by Pakistani state.

I will tell you, you wont find any such examples, because there aren't any! And that is not because Pakistani liberals are scared. Not so ! To accuse them of cowardice is to do disservice to them. Pakistani liberals have been vocal critics of Mullahs and Military (ofcourse it helps that they possess no threat to either of them).

The only reasons that I can surmise behind their reluctance is either they don't care, or they consider terrorism a justified response to Indian "occupation" of Kashmir, or an appeasement of Jihadi monster.

Either way, by their silent acquiescence, they have encouraged religious war against Kaffirs by a psychopathic Pakistani state.

If you want to remember 26/11 please remember for what it was just one instance in ongoing jihad against Hindus by a Pakistan which still resents the fact that for all their professions of Islamic piety and purity they are in essence rape child of Islamicized central asian hordes, and that even after thousand years of persecution Hindus refuse to submit to the true faith.

And also remember the true lesson of 26/11

PAKISTAN DELENDA EST.

The Political Animal

2011-04-06T08:19:00.001+05:30

(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

2011-03-25T08:15:00.000+05:30

(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.

The Black Swan

2011-03-20T08:11:00.002+05:30

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)

So this is a short one. Anyway it seems that I am one of the last guys to have read The Black Swan. I bought the book during a book shopping binge under the impression that it had something to do with sub-prime crisis. As it turns out, while the book does address financial shenanigans, its scope is much broader, more accurately described as epistemology, or study of knowledge, which, as a conservative, happens to interest me.
Now I will not claim that book exposed me to new information, however what it did was much more valuable. The Black Swam has helped me to begin seeing existing information in a new light, emphasizing what was previously underestimated.

I think that insight can be readily applied to politics. So here are some takeaways (in brief) from the book as applied to politics.

1. We can not predict
Properly speaking this applied more to punditry than to actual politics. The short term politics, which most of punditry is concerned with, is susceptible to too much uncertainty to enable any prediction.
In the near long term though, politics can be predicted. Here my definition of “near long” is rather tautological for I take it to be period between major realignment, such as Mandal or Ayodhya.

2. All ideologies are narratives (to some extent), and all politics is opportunistic (to considerable extent)
I find the conventional understanding of politics erroneous. It is assumed that there is a nice committee of philosopher/meta-physicians/policy wonks which come up with a nice set of dos and donts, which is called ideology and which is the starting point for politics.

In reality (or so I hold), politics is a *programming jargon alert* continuously iterative process with starting points, if there were any, lost in the mist of history. Which leaves us to rely on dynamics of politics, sure people have some ideas in the starting but what determines their actions is expediency, they have to compromise and align with others for power, which is ultimately what politics is about, if these alliances are stable over long period of time, their (initially) disparate ideas are merged to form an ideology. This happened both in case of American conservatism as well as American liberalism.

3. Narrative is important.
Why does the above happen? It’s because humans love narratives, thinking in terms of sequence of cause and effect is so natural to us that to actually do otherwise take real effort. This is hardly surprising, we instinctively turn to narrative as it makes world more predictable and hence more safe (to be more precise safety is an illusion), evolution-wise this is fantastic. An effect of this, to paraphrase Orwell, those ho control the narrative also control the levers of power. Which is why left still survives and thrives despite being a disaster.

4. Hindsight is 18/20.
Politics is actually messier than what appears in rear view mirror. The reason, as told in the previous points, we tend to narrate politics as a logical end result of intermediate step which were only determined by the clearly demarcated ideologies and (that mythical beast) voice of the public, whereas in reality where politics end up is significantly determined not by the ideologies but by political manoeuvring resulting in unexpected political events such as ascension of India Gandhi.

Turned out this wasn’t that short after all. Oh, well!

How should we learn from American conservatism (or anything else for that matter)

2011-03-13T08:06:00.000+05:30

(Note: Originally posted on CRI)

“What can we (meaning Indians) learn from American conservatism ?”, this is a question that is being frequently asked and discussed by many Indian bloggers, generally belonging to what who can be called, for lack of any better term, centre right.

Now I have a problem with this question. This may seem weird considering how much I obsess over American politics. To describe my unease will be difficult, however it is simple to illustrate it.
See this is Indian democracy,

jugaad

And this is American democracy

benz

Now most of the times when above question is discussed, the answers tantamount to borrowing steering or transmission from Benz, force it into our contraption and expect contraption to work like Benz. Unfortunately this is not how machine, or for that matter democracy, work.

Democracy, put it simply, is hard. It is a complex system consisting of interdependent sub-systems and components. To make things, well, more complicated, unlike machines humans are complicated with (allegedly) free will, they have feelings, which makes any system dependant on their actions, such as democracy, difficult to design or predict.

Learning about social institutions, which ultimately democracy is as is economics, from external examples without the broader context in which they function is fraught with danger. Yet that is the mistake we have repeatedly made, first romance with socialism, and now flirting with libertarianism.

So does this mean that it is impossible to learn from outside. Far from it! But to really learn instead of focusing on the specifics and the contemporary, we have to go one level higher and investigate the factors which influenced the evolution of American democracy to its present state. Only when we have knowledge of these factors we can actually judge what will work in our context, and how exactly should we go about re-designing our institutions.
But whatever we do, let’s not get carried away with it.

Sarah Palin’s New Conservatism*

2011-03-08T18:06:00.001+05:30

“Today’s conservatives resemble the exhumed figures of Pompeii, trapped in postures of frozen flight, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology”, thus opined Sam Tanenhaus, editor of NYT Books Review, on contemporary conservatism in his book Death Of Conservatism, published in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's victory in the 2008.

His literary swagger could be excused. After rending clothes and gnashing teeth through eight long years of George Walker Bush (who according to them had all the unpleasant characteristics of Hitler, Satan and company of dimwitted cousin), in 2008 the liberals were finally back in Washington and how!
With Obama’s audacious victory as well as the earlier drubbing of Republicans in 2006 Congressional elections, they had captured both executive and legislature after a long time, to top it all for a short time they had filibuster proof majority in senate, it seemed nothing could go wrong for liberals.

In fact so pleased was liberal intelligentsia with their good fortune that they believed that similar to climax of horror movies (when the protagonist manage to off grotesque monster), 2008 election marked beginning of end for conservatism , and beginning of beginning for long term ascendancy of liberalism.
Unfortunately for them, conservatism, just like monsters of horror movies, is back. Barely a year after its epitaph was being written, it was back, stronger than even in form of tea parties, giving ulcer to liberals and media (but I repeat myself).

But let’s not get ahead of this story of conservatism’s comeback. This story begins immediately after the Obama’s victory, even as Tanenhaus and his ilk were gloating, trouble was brewing.
But before that full disclosure at the time I had predicted that Republicans were headed for a well deserved exile in political wilderness. Subsequent events proved my prediction incorrect.

Liberals had taken charge just when US was entering most severe recession since World War – II, a result of subprime crisis. What is worse, US had narrowly (according to some) managed to avert financial Armageddon, though the way it was averted proved to be unpopular.

Before we continue, to some among you, who are less unsympathetic to liberalism than me, this might seem unfair to liberals, and to those among you who are just plain crazy or Oliver Stone, this might look like conspiracy of Rovian proportion. Now without going into details in this post, suffice it to say the crisis was a bipartisan folly and liberals were reaping what they had helped sown.

Anyway to continue, the work for liberals was cut out. Their first priority should have been to get economy on track; everything else took back seat including their hobby horses. If liberals had done that they would have increased their public acceptability and consolidated their political gains thus helping them secure real long term dominance.

It is here that liberals met the same problem they have frequently encountered spanning time and space, which is, to paraphrase what Nietzsche said , in liberalism ideology never comes into contact with reality at any point.

Same happened this time, liberals, and this includes current American president and full time dilettante Barack Obama, instead of taking verdict as what it was, which is a result of voter’s anger over Republican Party making a perfect mess of government, what with shoving democracy down the throat of unwilling tribes, and taking wide stances in inappropriate places, they took it as a indictment of free market and a mandate for tilting the American politics to left. This transformational reading of election lulled liberal into a false sense of security. Result? Instead of trying to address economy, they busied themselves with their pet projects.

The first manifestation of this was the spectacle of Obama acting as Santa Claus by completely outsourcing the task of writing legislation for economic recovery to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Result was an early Christmas present, otherwise known as stimulus.
This largesse to special interest groups, at expense of general public raised the first murmurs of discontent. These murmurs turned to outrage when Obama decided to go where no liberal had been able to go before that is healthcare.

Even this didn’t deter liberals, though discontent was palpable, they estimated it was perhaps too diffuse to harm them. But then a miracle happened, powered by the social networks and largely independent of any existing conservative organization at the time began a series of citizen up swell. Alarmed by the prospect of anonymous bureaucrats deciding their healthcare choices, the furious public started to besiege the house members in constituency town halls.

Normally to any ordinary politician this would have sounded huge warning gongs and he would have curbed his enthusiasm. But not the liberals (see liberals, reality), in a move which was to presage their subsequent disaster, they decided the only problem plaguing them was that they were just too damned nice and their opponents were just too mean.

Thus came out Alinsky’s rule no. 11 from the democrats armament, and began a long campaign of vilification which started with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Liberals hoped to gain a reprieve by redirecting people’s anger at them. But this had the opposite effect, as designated enemy of Obama both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News became even more popular.

More importantly, this propaganda further inflamed popular passions and the besieging of town hall transformed into protests across America, small at first which later became known as Tea Party movement. Instead of getting a clue the liberals decided to go for broke, and then started a second campaign of vilification again ordinary people participating in the protests. They were vilified, as liberals do, as bunch of know-nothing knuckle dragging racists.

The result of this was as before, after a long time Scott Brown, a Republican won what was popularly known as Kennedy’s seat.

And now starts the third act. After they lost the filibuster proof majority, it was believed that Obamacare is dead. However in a display of sharp political maneuvering, liberal managed to pass it, and it became the law.

After the passing of Obamacare, liberals believed that it will become more popular. Unfortunately for them and as before the reverse happened. The liberals were handed one of their worst political defeat and due to liberal immaturity, conservatism is more popular than ever.

*From Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

Not that anyone is going to care

2011-02-09T11:03:00.000+05:30

But I have moved to CRI, this blog will be used for archiving.

Aphorism: Greens

2010-10-12T11:19:00.001+05:30

If Liberalism is “immanentizing the eschaton”, then Environmentalism is “eschatonizing the immanent”

An absolutely awesome post on Koran burning

2010-09-27T17:32:00.000+05:30

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

Peril Of Checklist Politics

2010-09-27T11:44:00.002+05:30

All right let's continue as long as we are on roll, now previously we talked about Obama and Colbert, in this post we will see why O' Donnell may be a bad news. But first start with tea parties. For those not familiar with tea parties, they are localized popular movement against Obama's policies. Now while tea party in general has been Godsend to Republicans, miraculously rescuing it from the anticipated oblivion after the route of 2008, some of its choices, among them O' Donnell, have been rather questionable. Now at best I have a superficial understanding (mostly via Hot Air) of the specific races, therefore instead of nitpicking about the candidates, I will like to focus on the broader issue, viz. the rather troubling propensity of tea parties to circumscribe politics with a checklist of simplistic and absolutist positions.

It is troubling because

a.This approach is dismissive of a candidate's judgement, his temperament and his experience. A robust polity depends on all the three.

b. This approach is short sighted. A stable polity like US can not be transformed in a single go. It will take a protracted political battle to bring about the change, Therefore it is necessary to take a long term view which will involve legislative compromises, incremental advances, gradually substituting imprudent policies with prudent ones. Considering this, a unrealistic and puritan approach to politics will only set up for further disappointment and bitterness, ultimately resulting in reversal of fortunes.

There is much wisdom in Buckley's rule.

Colbertization of politics.

2010-09-26T12:48:00.001+05:30

Let's talk about Uncle Sam a little longer. Stephen Colbert appeared before US Congressional committee on immigration in his blow-hard O' Reillesque persona (via Hot Air again). In a way this just furthers bolsters the argument that American politics is becoming an extension of personal, in this particular instance a result of excessive self-regard and at the same an acute need for peer approval among the demographic group termed as hipsters. This main characteristic of this phenomenon, let's call it colbertization, is trivialization of serious matters, accompanied with self-assuredness and self-righteousness that only comfort and security of living in United States can bring. In it it is reminiscent of what Heinlein termed as "Bread and Circus democracy",

"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."

The empathy argument

2010-09-26T11:47:00.000+05:30

The daily beast has an article arguing that President Obama lacks empathy (via Hot Air). I confess that I find this empathy argument weird.

Obama was never empathetic, he was always a narcissistic dilettante much like Nehru. The reason Obama, and before him W, was elected, is because American politics has become a collective form of personal relationship dynamics.

Bush was elected because not because of his policies, or wisdom, or record, but he was considered a drinking buddy, a decent down to earth guy you could drink with, as opposed to blow-hard Al Gore.

Obama, in contrast, was more lie a high school romance. Candidate Obama was like a cool dreamy boyfriend, and American electorate, a needy, clinging teenage girl with low self esteem.

Well as it often happens cool guy turned out to be a jerk. Better luck next time, please elect Chris Christie.

The Awakening

2010-09-21T18:24:00.000+05:30

The sound of clattering instruments broke the silence of the lab. The table, which, except for the chair, was the only piece of furniture in the sparse room, had toppled and fallen, spilling the instruments on the floor. The scientist tried unsuccessfully to steady his shaking body by gripping the chair. Even as he steadied himself, his chest for the second time exploded with searing pain.

He fumbled for the medicine in his pockets. The search seemed agonizingly long to him, even though it took barely few seconds to locate the medicine. He swallowed the medicine, desperate gesture of a dying man. For he knew that he was dying. He suffered from a rare congenital heart condition, in any other time he could not have expected to survive infancy, but the advances in medical sciences meant that he had made to late twenties.

However even science had its limits and now he lay on the cold floor gasping for the breath, losing his consciousness. All of a sudden, just as candle burns brightly before extinguishing, the fog of pain lifted over him lifted. He admitted that he had failed. For his whole life, he had pursued the mystery of universe, hoping to unlock it, but in the end death had defeated him. A sudden despondency gripped him, he could not bear the thought of dying without unraveling the unknown. It was then that he had a conversion. He, who had rejected God as ancient superstition his whole life, became a believer in the last throes of his life. In sheer desperation he begged for God.

Slowly darkness enveloped him.

Slowly he regained consciousness, of course strictly speaking this was not true, as he didn't possess any material body, his existed, for lack of better word, as an Idea. The new sensations were strange to him, he could sense the physical world, but in the same way we normally watch TV, he was not part of it any longer. He, again for lack of better word,felt detached. Finally he was free of emotions which bind and prod men.

Gradually he grew comfortable with his new surroundings. Although he didn't posses any sensory organs, his sensory perception was beyond what biology could device or mind can imagine. Tentatively he started to explore. He found that he could observe any phenomena irrespective of its location in the universe or the physical scale at which it took place. He could simultaneously investigate the nebulae and the subatomic particles. And yet even he had limitations, he was not detached from the material realm, he was bound both by time, logic and more importantly existence.

Many eons passed, after he had observed, investigated and deduced everything he could, he grew restless. He dimly remembered when he belonged to material world, he had prayed for an answer, yet the answer still eluded him. Space time undulated through what was his ethereal manifestation in a pattern which if he was still human would have been recognizable as brooding.

He was in this mood for some time before he became aware of another presence. That other being had been there for quite some time, but until them he had missed him. He sensed that the other was very similar to him. He kept observing the other for some time. The other remained still.

Finally he spoke to the other (he could do this by warping space time continuum), "Who are you", he added hopefully, "Are you God". The other replied, with amusement, "If that's what you wish to call me", "What do you mean", He was confused, ""Where am I", and after a pause, "What am I". The other explained, "Since you prayed for me, you begot me". He asked not convinced, "What if I hadn't prayed for God"."I don't know". "How can the God not know", He was incredulous. The other was patient, " Is it that incredible! I, The God, am the manifestation of your act of believing, I can not fathom what non-belief could have brought forth. Suddenly he understood. He asked plaintively, "Do you have the answer". The other ruefully replied, "No, I don't have, countless time I have appeared, only to dissolve without knowing what lies behind it all".

And for the second time, he begged in sheer desperation. He begged and begged for an answer.

Slowly darkness enveloped him for the second time.

And for the second time He regained consciousness. It seemed as if He had been dreaming for a long time. Though it didn't make sense, for now not only He transcended physical world, but also boundaries of time and logic. He knew what had happened since the beginning of universe, the big bang, but beyond that the truth was hidden from Him. He started thinking.

After many eons had passed, He came out of his reverie, now He had a way to find the answer. But for that, the universe as it existed didn't fit. He knew what He had to do. Almost instantaneously the space time continuum encompassing the universe folded. Universe ceased to exist. There was nothing but Him.

Now He had to begin again. He was not sure what He will do next. But that was OK. He was patient, for time had no meaning for Him. He will think of something.

Shamelessly plagiarized from Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein

Aphorism: Refuge

2010-09-20T10:43:00.001+05:30

Rationalism is the last refuge of unimaginative, but aphorism is the last refuge of superficial.

Why Barkha Dutt hates Hindus ?

2010-09-19T22:15:00.001+05:30

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.

What they mean by Azaadi.

2010-09-16T11:23:00.001+05:30

[Originally posted as comment on this excellent article by greatbong]

You know what riles me most is this Kashmir vs. “rest of India” dichotomy as if “rest of India” is a monochromatic, monotonous monolith. What idiots in media such as Barkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose don’t get is that Marathis, Bengalis, Telugus, Oriyas all have history as rich as Kashmiris (if anything richer) and all are as proud of the fact as anyone. Idea of India is not something which belongs to Lutyen’s Delhi, or to air-conditioned newsrooms where pretty young things read breaking news in their precious accent. Idea of India is also the essence behind the Indic civilization, the essence which pervades its congested cities and dusty country sides, its desultory summers and its intoxicating monsoons; it is the idea which unites its various histories, its people, past, present and future. It is not some single hegemonic construct but a spirit unique to Indian experience best exemplified by Sarve bhavantu sukhinah

It really breaks my heart to see no one among our “intellectuals” has the cojones to call this Azaadi nonsense for what it is, a Islamist movement to obliterate the kaffir past and unambiguously belong to the community of faithful i.e. Ummah.

'fess up, that's what you have been thinking for some time

2010-09-15T21:43:00.000+05:30

Not to toot my own horn but ...

2010-09-09T12:01:00.001+05:30

Look guys just admit it already, I am a freaking genius. Here is what I wrote way back in 2007,

Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger menace than communist thuggery. It is a tiger which one should not be riding.

And in 2008

As I pointed out earlier, the rise of Islamic politics in Bengal portends ill for the future. The increasing population pressure in Bangladesh has altered demographics in the border districts of Bengal and Assam to a alarming degree. This is a security threat in its own right as pointed out numerous times by Arun Shourie, and when combined with the kind of politics Nandigram signals, a potent recipe for disaster.

Things are turning out exactly as I feared it would. It is a good read, even though it has the usual “I am a pox-on-both-the-houses independent thinker” greatbongish disclaimer.

The bad news is things are going to get worse, the good news is we don’t really care.