B for Bad Taliban

…and there is no good Taliban, there never was. Terrorist cannot be good for some people and bad for others. The heartrending scenes from Pakistan have numbed people across the world. As for Pakistan these were waiting to happen. Chickens know the way back home. The warning bells are ringing for some time now. When brave children like Malala are seen with suspicious by many in this society then you know the putrefaction is quite deep. Even their latest leader, Imran Khan, is no different, just another ambitious opportunist. This country probably has to go back to its foundation, and bring out something egalitarian in its dealing with the world. What is exhibited is primitive patriarchy of the religion fed by arrogant feudal leaders for their narrow ends, mixed with narration of invincibility of selves garnished from crude historical references. In such societies male valour is seen as defining attribute, like animal packs they live in primitive conception of the world. Violence therefore is a choice that is high on priority. Army tends to play major role in the society, that degrades things further.  Army intelligence is an excellent definition of oxymoron, they are incapable to be in the role of decision makers in democracy. Gen. Zia exemplified this degradation; this dimwit scoundrel was the one who help fuel radicalisation. Pakistan therefore suffers quite badly. It is tragic that children are paying the price. The society has turned cannibalistic. 

The feudal primitiveness is present in India too, but somehow it hasn’t threatened the democracy so far. Yes they do have pangs for benevolent dictator, as they are incapable of handling freedom. Freedom scares them as the mind is always tied in servility, though even the religion has hinted at enlightened freedom and other subtleties. But they chose the primitive version as the society (that is most people) is too mediocre to fathom the nuances of subtle thoughts. They are stuck to primitive references. From these putrid pits Indians negotiate modernity.     

In most Indian movies ‘men in uniform’ (even woman, nowadays, as a case of twisted gender parity attempts by mediocre ‘artists’) are saviours. Almost every movie is about cops as saviours, or alpha male syndrome and angst herein. Violence therefore is the priority on which actions get defined and feudal arrogance exhibited as necessary tradition that sugar-coats these. These are popular narration that is consolidation of most Indian dealings. Despite sophisticated veneer primitive Indians have latent violence lurking everywhere; thankfully it’s rarely been channelized as societal response. It’s dispersed between the stratified nature of disunited society, the higher one cannibalising the lower, while the lower the lowest. This is the nature of society, and the culture herein. The violence is much localised, therefore nonviolence is built as a potent weapon –an all-encompassing thought, while little realities are dealt in all its brutality. The all-encompassing thoughts are taken as further from reality as possible, it adds to the allure of purity, the grandness of these are therefore the expertise. This involves amazing level of cunningness, manipulation as instinct and sniffing opportunities as way of life. This cleverness and feudal advantage found haven in democracy, lately market has made it incredible India. India and Pakistan are very similar society, religion is what makes it different. The undercurrent is the same. It really gets tight when feudal lords from both sides meet for the sake of peace.   

India’s missing Bravehearts

                  Braveheart is a word that is used quite often these days, mostly in context to women in cities (or whatever comes in the attention of market media) that fits in the narration. In the narration of women fighting against harassments, it is seen that the braveheart index increases exponentially, if the woman concerned dispenses justice with ferocious violence. Agreeing that patriarchal society is loaded against women, particularly these are vicious in small towns and against marginalized sections, has percolated into state machinery as reflected in the tardy/prejudiced responses so on. But the violence exhibited by woman against alleged perpetrator cannot go unscrutinised. This need to be treated with necessary skepticism and caution when class issue is involved, as also when these incidents are reported from metros where law and order machinery is much better. Further woman from richer sections are in better position and equipped to deal with the situation. I happen to see a clip of a woman brutally handling a chain snatcher, the hapless fellow had fallen down and apparently had given up, but the woman kept stamping him with such ferocity that it is likely that he could suffer life threatening injuries. I have seen, some perfectly dressed (with conventionally understood term decent/cultured) people brutally dealing an emaciated looking pickpocket. They became part of dangerous mob. The vigilante action are amazingly disproportionate to the alleged crime, it was so apparent except for the people involved. Thankfully there are some sane people around (rare and in dwindling minority in what is essentially a primitive society) who intervened, but it was chilling experience. I must add, the elderly refugees from partition, mostly in Regairpura-Karolbagh region, generally turn out to be quite compassionate.

Bravehearts, that is, women vigilante as described by righteous media -essentially crass attention seeking, are generally welcomed as it is a statement against the patriarchal society and its lackadaisical response to acts of sexual assaults and sexist stances. But not all are clear cases some do fall into grey region. And when it deals with women from affluent class then we have to be very careful. These brutal acts are very likely assertions of caste cannibalised class, that in all likelihood finds its reasons from squatter’s world, so the brutal response has to analysed in complex context of degraded society. Class does collapse with caste. It needed be pointed out that crimes against women in Delhi (as also Mumbai/ Bangalore) get more urgent and wide coverage (which ideally should be welcomed but in Indian reality there is more to it) because of these sinister reasons. It is this influence that sees to it that politicians are forced to make statement in parliament. Sharma, Chaturvedi sisters and mothers coming out on streets of Delhi to protest against atrocities towards women hide a rather sinister reality, this they carry as beacons. As I was flipping through one of the newspaper today I read this article Womankind Keeps Woman Happy by one who calls herself Shampa Dhar-Kamath. Vow double whammy there, caste cannibal as also caste partner patriarchy!! Nice. Very nice. Congrats, you must be proud. That doesn’t prevent our little woman to claim high moral ground, it comes so easy around here. Well I don’t blame these little wonders, cunning Gandhi did provide an excellent foundation (this must be drilled in at every conceivable occasion). DharjiKamathji, quite appropriately has taken feminism to new level, which also means that most men are dumb. Fair game but kuppa manduka, i.e. the frogs in the well called Indian primitive society, like her shouldn’t try to take too much higher grounds with the kind of double whammy beacons. And yes if they try to come out of these wells as voice of compassion or even feminism then they must be squatted therein, no mercy must be shown since showing them mercy will be acknowledging primitive worldview. That would be further fuelling misery to common people. A civilized newspaper shouldn’t give these people any space whatsoever. Alas but our cannibalised 'bania' is looking for good omen! 

Ideally marginalized sections of oppressive structure (I realize classifying as Dalit is only acknowledging caste cannibal value system) have all the right to be violent and ransack temples that nurtures squatters and their fancy worldview. Wonder whether this violence (a decent violence against ‘sweet persuasion’ barbaric non-violence) will be referred to as that of bravehearts? Indeed this is the violence that is what is missing. Smoking out squatters. Gandhi cunningly obfuscated urgent matters - what is very definitely a civilizational blot that gives untold misery to people as also degrade their realities, in his characteristic cud chewing good nature posing. While the Gandhians very cleverly helped consolidation of these primitive oppressions as it hid their true nature as also the feudal advantage and higher angst value herein. Ideally oppressive references should have been shunned and any caste indications shamed. A civilized and egalitarian worldview is what forms liberal ideas, these become foundation of democracy and just society. But what has happened is that (I have discussed it earlier too) squatters have divided the terrain. One side professed liberal values, hinged to West, while the other side stayed back to protect their ‘way of life’ also Hinduism. That these masks are to acquire power/influence/money is quite clear, and their adherence to squatter’s primitive creations is a hinge to negotiate their advantage. It is no surprise that Gandhi could be so easily be appropriated by Hindu right, he makes sense to even small time traders but never did to oppressed sections nor any egalitarian values or any sane individual who analyze/scrutinize these severe transgression on humanity! The other day I was reading Gandhi’s statement on religion conversion. Absurd, entitled, arrogant, diseased with self righteousness indeed lacks any empathy or common sense whatsoever. This fellow cannot be father of any nation nor beacon of any morals. 

Bravehearts are needed to handle traditional atrocities, to ransack temples and haul up the squatters and question their source of legitimacy. Bravehearts are needed who will not allow people with caste references in any position of authority and influence. These give credibility as also consolidate primitive worldview. Indeed for jobs of teachers such references should be shunned and people with these shamed and removed. In the last many decades, after so-called independence, the primitive elites have consolidated these in the garb of modernity but the truth has habit of peeping out. They may have influenced West with their ‘sweet persuasion’ but the chicken have come home to roost. This wouldn’t be possible without the egalitarian platform that technology has created, that bypasses power brokers and culture henchmen. The control over narration is broken, the subaltern maybe pushed out but the international platform is alive. Therefore we need bravehearts who take on the atrocities, the recent expression of these at a school where children are refusing food because of squatter’s ideas, is welcomed. These children must have the encourage to beat up caste cannibalised elders who perpetuate depraved ways, that is what being braveheart means in this primitive and deeply immoral society. Anything short of that will be violence, akin to cunning gandhian non violence. 

Conversions matters

 People follow religion and other forms of craziness to bring in some meaning into their lives. Some people also convert from one religion to another, as they find convenient. Conversions from one religion to another religion cannot be stopped. Banning these will be against fundamental right of every human being. The right to follow any religion or faith, or better still to evolve and not be part of any herd, is part of human rights. Conversion from one religion to another cannot be about god. My god is better than yours is rather dumb. It is the sign of juvenile world that some Homo sapiens inhabit and increasingly try to infect others too. The choice of religions has to do with social-cultural construct and other day-to-day realities an individual faces. Many Hindus (indeed most) have compelling reasons to convert to other religions. And they have been converting all these while. No doubt, many Muslims too have valid and increasingly compelling reasons to convert to other religions. There is, one must assert, nothing compelling to convert to squatter cannibalised Hinduism (as some Muslims in Agra seems to have undergone, you see in the picture herein). Ritualistic Hinduism is part of squatter’s worldview, there isn’t anything egalitarian nor anything divinely about it except to keep the herd in self consuming trance to please. 

 

   Islam has been degraded in recent times, despite the claims of peace and so on, the reality is barging in its all brutal forms. Many Muslims (as also non muslims) across the world are getting tired of this, as also the troubles it brings into their lives and social realities they face. Clearly mullahs have strong views against Muslims conversions, and response has been heinous in primitive parts of the world. The rights of individuals must be protected, and mob mentality shouldn’t impress freedom of people. This blogger prefers more space to no religion (I wouldn’t call it secular, since that too has acquired religious connotations. I am waiting for an invite for secularismwali mata ka jagran!). Hinduism, without sounding pompous, does have an inbuilt system for such realities, though in recent times things are getting murky. You will notice the Hindu fundamentalism is hinged on reactionary issues as also hint on its grandness. The consolidation of majoritarian is an on-going agenda, doomed if left on its own as it needs nourishment. Clever sickularism, of nepotistic feudally corrupt elite, mistaken for secularism, in their holier than thou fake liberal market hugging stance only help the division. Take, for instance, the degradations done by parties like Muslim league (indeed some really rich Muslims) who have severely undermined democratic norms and social progress in Kerala, hence pushed into communal tinderbox undermining all egalitarian values as the Hindu right capitalise on the falling mask of communists as has happened in Bengal.  

Organised religion doesn’t tolerate no-religion spaces much. Christianity, having gone through the process of enlightenment/renaissance and other reckonings, has become quite tolerant, and does provide space for varied views and realities. The latest Pope is amazing example of this. Islam seems to have bypassed these and to have barged into modern world rather abruptly (this very true for Hinduism too, with all its primitiveness intact but the inbuilt thoughts and nuances is different). The realities of modern lives are creating a rather violent upsurge and reactionary world among Muslims. It’s getting clear that Muslim leaders and intellectuals aren’t much equipped to handle these eventualities. It cannot be blamed on West and market greed forever. Clearly Muslim majority regions response seems to be always verging on violence and fundamentalism, its resurgence of primitiveness. The space for civilized discourse is vanishing, so is tolerance for varying views. Indeed the situation is moving towards lack for any space whatsoever. As also, these are severely affecting non-muslims, in particular, the common people. Islam has lots of primitiveness that it needs to enlighten, to negotiate the realities of diverse modern world.  

Much ado about cussing

In the last few days there has been some fervent, characteristically abrupt, attention to invectives, indeed even the parliament was in uproar. Cussing is so common in streets and around that these elevated concerns make me laugh. Evidently they want their surroundings to be sanitized, any intrusion into these sacred space is scowled. Though this blogger will be concerned if the cussing is with the intent to be divisive or communal, other than that cussing is a reality and should be treated as such. Though it may be avoided but these exaggerated concerns are unnerving. My concern would be what is hidden in sanitized subtle world of Indian elite. Barbaric non violence that sustains and encourages oppressive system, that demeans humans as tradition, is my immediate concern. In the crude reality of things cussing is a non issue and yes may be used if the situation so demands. In the rough world it acts as a vent for common people, these impotent rage have psychological benefits. The deliberate attempt to make issue of something that is so common and very much a reality in the lives of common people is a ploy to showcase the subtle and sophisticated world of Indian elite wherein what is cleverly pushed under is crude world of nepotism and corruption much less tacit acknowledgement of oppressive traditional system and not so subtle indications as beacons over names, as heritage. This insistence of proper conduct while everything else is putrefied is undoubtedly nothing short of being an alien. The reason why the construct of ‘purity’ created an assorted world that this society still reeks in its stink. A civilized person world would undoubtedly find Indians quite uncivilized, though it may not be apparent in first instance. It is cloaked in clever and layered deceit. The Sharma family in Karol Bagh always had atthiti devo namah at their door, I never went in nor was I ever invited. There was something quite serene about their demeanor, and cussing was never even possible, except maybe when their little world is scratched and then you could hear some shocking use of language. The difference here is that common people’s world is mutilated on daily basis.

Buddha deliberated on right conduct, unlike the squatter created world wherein pure conduct was end in all. Right conduct is an engagement with the world, it is much nuanced. Pure conduct on the other hand instigates muck and tends to degrade and alienate the world around. As mentioned, in my earlier blog, squatter’s world associated itself with power (therefore money/greed) and control, and the powerful in turn fed and eulogized these degradations. Common people were out of this equation of culture and heritage herein. They were to be subjugated, and this became the cause célèbre of elites, they got their understanding from these varied forms of oppression. The world they constructed constantly seek to define itself from the point of domination, the reason the philosophies were rarely egalitarian, if ever reeked of hypocrisy. Also, since these were entitled worldview mediocrity and irresponsible conduct (however pure) became the mainstay. The reason why, whatever way one may be talented, it is quite unlikely that it will find much expression; the reason why Indians rarely reach their potential, and find meaning in fatalism while the mediocre elite with their lack keeps degrading the institutions.  It pervades into culture, sports, literature…So much so that even words like democracy become farce. Now that the mediocrity has shifted to market needs, we have the shift in garb of liberal saviors.

Guptaji (we eschew beacons on cars…those political goons, power hungry babus, crass people. But the beacon on the name is always on. Nice. Very nice), Director from Public affairs and Critical thinking (phew big one that) understandably is eminently qualified to defend Gandhian worldview. As mentioned in my earlier blog, Gandhi originates and deals within the power structure, indeed independence from colonial Britain meant transfer of power. In effect it was struggle to control power (for the sake of people, of course), and therefore very much entrenched in squatter’s framework. It cannot work otherwise, this gives legitimacy and necessary clout. Gandhi assiduously built on it. While the traditions of saints (also mahatmas, and you will notice they didn’t carry any casteist reference in their name or actions) was situated in questioning/denying the oppressive structure, that is, casteism and its barbarity. Saints were enlightened people who enriched Hindu society; all the egalitarian values that define this society can be traced to them. The ideas of non violence (as also vegetarianism) meditative thoughts so on arise from these frameworks. Squatter’s in the meanwhile first tried to degrade when that didn’t work manipulated these into squatter’s world view. Gandhi firmly fixating himself in squatter’s framework therefore cannot claim non violence, indeed that itself would be violence. Guptaji writes “In place of a violent display of opinions, Gandhi espoused ‘sweet persuasion’. According to him, “Anger proves our intolerance,” adding that the “capacity to bear one another’s criticism is a very important quality of public life.” Bertrand Russell, another famous pacifist, echoed Gandhi when he said: “If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do.”

Sweet persuasion? Even the sound of it reeks of lack of genuine involvement, a product of clever mind. It seems to work with coercion that is subtle and comes with lots of goodness, like what they call diplomacy, meaning getting your party/nations view across without being much concerned about truth. If you are genuinely concerned about something then you would try to understand, by logic as also by use of emotion, and then empathize. You don’t do ‘sweet persuasion’, that is subverting the issue. Mahatmas don’t do clever tricks (you can leave that to babas, the scoundrel at Puttaparthi used to do some ash producing tricks, and stacked money. They didn’t raid him like they have done to Rampal. Point to ponder), they are genuinely involved. Secondly, one also has to place oneself at the lowest section of brutal and barbaric oppressive structure (that condemns the moment you are born, what can be more heinous than that) and then practice ‘sweet persuasion’. So if it is the truth then it should work at all level. Clearly Gandhi was speaking from his reality that gave him the power, and what makes it disgusting is that he denies the realities/forces that work to make the life miserable for the most oppressed sections. In a civilized world this is known as being a hypocrite; Gandhians have made it an art in the garb of Christian inspired social work for poor. This non violent barbarity has to be met with violent decency. Both equally absurd but mutually compelling worlds.       

Quoting Russell as ‘echoing Gandhi’ doesn’t help the matter for the simple reason Russell hadn’t placed himself in primitive framework nor does he claims to be a Mahatma. Gandhi had raised his stakes but he clearly falls short. That these degradations exist even now, that eat away the soul of the society causing untold miseries, and instead of being ashamed is relished by mediocre and clever Indian elite. It has percolated as vicious cycle of aspirational framework, this is Gandhian legacy that will have to be resisted with all of one’s might. They have piggybacked, with ‘sweet persuasion’ skills, Gandhi and have influenced west into this gentleness hiding amazingly barbaric worldview.

Gandhi tried to be a good Hindu without understanding what it meant, he deliberately stuck to simplistic version of squatter’s oppressive world and searched enlightenment herein. His thoughts and ideas when taken out of Indian reality may match Russell’s or for that matter the best in the world, but the very fact that it came from the acknowledgement of oppressive system makes it a suspect. It’s like Nazis talking about human rights or white supremacist referring to empathy. These may sound wonderful but the reality is stark. Oppressive structure like casteism embedded in religion doesn’t give it any divine blessing as much as face covered muslim woman is primitive patriarchy in its brutal form (I bring my muck you bring yours is not how diversity is understood. It will lead to British like monarchy hugging crap and export terrorists as part of multiculture dividend). These cannot be fit in the garb of religious freedom, it has to pass through the ideas of universal truth. No ‘sweet persuasion’, genuine people don’t deal in such histrionics. These have worth in market driven deceit, that has taken human race to its own peril.     

Gandhi was a man who wanted to bring in morality in political discourse, anything more than this is part of Indian myth making tradition, that Indian elites have a firm say.

Thus wrote TOI journalist: One of the Jain Bandhu slave has written about a Doordarshan anchor at Goa IIFI. It is a must watch. It’s hilarious, the vacuous nature of Homo sapiens that market creates, a statement on the times we live. The woman wonders and is unable to comprehend that despite “successfully hosting corporate and entertainment shows since college” she is being crucified. These are the kind of wonders that only market can create and sustain. Indeed after market invasion, commonly ‘liberalization’ used as euphemism and capitalism invoked as justification, lots of crude and degrading jobs have come into existence. Already world renowned for its diversity (a closer scrutiny will make one puke) Indians have colored it with market choices. The diverse nature of jobs, we are told, is making the society vibrant. These are only following squatter’s framework in its market avatar: deceit, mediocrity, clever manipulations, gabbing nonsense as one goes for emotions so on. That they have been spinning money from nowhere with least of talent is what makes it compelling (aka Tirupathi aka Cricket). The slave (also journalist), apart from pointing to serious lack on the part of anchor (which is so very obvious, again the readers must watch the clip. It’s nothing different from the crap we watch every day in Indian TV. It’s a Déjà vu feeling) points to another serious mishap on the part of anchor “…and made the stupid, stupid mistake of asking Prahlad Kakar, how he felt being ‘here in Goa’. Well, woman, Kakar’s been in Goa as many times as he has scuba dived. For crying out loud, he even has a house there”. Now I am wondering who is this fellow Kakar? And why should the anchor know his detail? Indeed why on the first place he should be even be in the list at IIFI? Then I find out he is the presiding deity of marketers, and for the slave in the market driven newspaper, this is moment of reckoning, his way of supplicatiing to the superior force. The slave pontificates “…so why she is being laughed at and castigated for? The PM is solemnly heard out when he says that plastic surgery was rampant in ancient India...A former Uttrakhand CM and present MP believes that a 2^nd century BC sage had conducted nuclear test…” Good, well taken. Punching politicians is quite common, it also has this urbane demeanor to it, placing oneself as superior is inbuilt. Many Indian journalists adhere to this. But the slave at TOI will have to explain on ridiculous ads that weave puerile worldview, indeed ridiculously juvenile. The other day they redefined it further: youngsters (obviously successful) are playing golf using car. All this to sell one kind of brand over other, there are people who are being sought to be influenced by these!! It surely is black money doing the round). This is the system that creates the vacuity and celebrates it.

Likes of Indrajit Hazra are part of this vacuity, the reason why Kakar becomes a beacon of recognizable excellence, wherein he is just another marketer who helps manipulating things. Mediocre society values these people. In the last many years market has helped some really harebrained people to make huge amount of money and celebrate it too, as the society slips into crudeness with relish. Peddler’s of foreign brands and assorted worldview is what defines the society and choices herein. The DD anchor is no anachronism as much as likes of Hazra, just that these people earn few hundred times more in a day than a rickshaw puller in Chandni chowk (who puts in hardwork all day long) in a year or so, that is what is shocking. Now this is comparison of genuine ‘jobs’ in market driven world, I haven’t even come to money from nepotism, corruption and other family values that defines this society.