Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Introducing Pol Pot of Purasawalkam




 ZK Bazz asks "Dearz arrogantz gentilez of Kasturiz topclazz familyz, doez thiz faze remindz youz of someonez??!!" Ormayundo ee mukham?!! 
Quiz question by ZK: you knowz who iz Mozartz of Madraz tellz me who iz Polz Potz of  Purasawalkamz? 
Crude Woman says "Pol Pot? Never smoked that one"

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Primitive colonial spaces should be squatted out

 Even after seven decades of so called independence from colonial rule there are some people who have been carrying colonial mindset with relish. Goes without saying that they are mostly the elites who have gained immensely from supplicating to colonial power, since have made these as a tradition and passed on to their progenies. These are sometimes packaged in the pointers of modernity and diversity, and in the feudal nature of society carried out as aspirational lifestyle. These do exist with gusto in the primitive feudal lands of north India where elites are known to be blatant. That it is happening in the land of revolutionary leaders like Periyar is unacceptable. This should be squatted with necessary urgency and repeat of such practices shouldn’t be tolerated. 

Most of these clubs have colonial origin and Indians were allowed depending on their degree of obsequious and sycophantic attributes. So they emulated these traits and lifestyles to show their ‘civilized’ nature, in the meanwhile codified these as amazing expressions of civility. Common people therefore will have to catch up to these exalted attributes and defining characteristics of graciousness, it is an achievement. Ideally after independence these clubs should have been taken over and declared public property, but by then Congressmen had made hypocrisy an art with the transfer of power, they just fitted in. 

Judging a person by what they wear, from what community they belong, what language they speak, what food they eat…all these are primitive and smack of chauvinism, indeed it is violation of human rights. For Indians it has always been quite difficult to accept people as they are, even the least factor of humanness. Biases are deeply ingrained and elitizens adorn these as culture. The clubs therefore becomes anachronistic pits where these are relished. The idea that clubs (even private ones) should have dress code is reprehensible; people should have all the right to wear whatever they feel is decent and appropriate to the occasion. What is acceptable and not acceptable is matter of choice, provided there is a logical (has to be factual and not based on someone’s fancy ideas of civilized) explanation, like for instance, someone at swimming pool has to wear swimming suit which is not same as someone at dining has to wear coat and tie (??), here people will wear what is comfortable provided it is within the laws of the land as also hygiene factors. Which also means a clean 'bathroom slippers' should be and must be acceptable, importantly who defined what is bathroom slippers and who decided it is to be accepted as one? Indeed dark suit in hot climate is ridiculous and absurd, exalted selves splotched in colonial crave may not realize this but these outfits looks horrendous. A goose is a goose still, dress it as you will.  Karan Thappar, the club craver’s suitable boy, even comes in bow tie –the one that hangs around the necks of the waiters of cheap hotels in perpetual angst. The ridiculous is sought to be made sublime with straight face! 

With what people dress and not dress is not going to shatter the world, the fragile egos and their entitled lives may break. Indians are very good at valuing superficialities, close scrutiny will point to that this is the only thing that they have, maybe the nostalgia of grandness added. They always try to measure to colonial masters, consistently falling short they come out with wonderful conception that seek the legacy, hence competence. Amazingly mediocre elitizens conceive ridiculous to keep themselves ‘above’ common people, this also has traditional context –the making of thousands of years of misery. Colonial references give them feel of modernity but these are amazingly brutal and sick people. They should be dealt accordingly. This colonial relic has temple squatter’s haughtiness to keep common people away. This is a clever shifting of sanctum sanctorum to modern framework. Who is allowed in who is not, blacks, indians and dogs not allowed, local dress not allowed so on. These framing of rules and other inanities to keep people away is where Indians truly sparkle. It has so much culture and tradition, that it is a diversity milestone of incredible dimwits. 

The clubs cannot make any rules as they feel like it. They are located in this land, and don’t carry any diplomatic immunity (atleast for now!). And yes club rules are not twinkle of cultural diversity, by their action they stand against it. With tongue twisting capabilities and intellectual malleability some people have the unique ability to turn the argument into whosoever’s doorstep in giftwrap.  They should be aware of socio-historical realities. This kind of colonial club rules are an affront to common people’s way of living and attire they choose to wear, by placing decent attire to west they have degraded the society and challenged decency. Hopefully this will be squatted out at the earliest. 
That this incident came into light in Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Club in Chennai is not at all surprising. Cricket is very much an elitist occupation, their success being they were able to hook millions of zombies as audience and hallucinate about country’s pride. This is where the club values has succeeded and sucked in billions of easy money meanwhile degrading sports in the country as also awards (including Arjuna award) and even Bharat Ratna. Any wonder as most cricketers are from certain sections as also happens to be famously mediocre record grabbers rarely showing any wins or even talent for it. Sartorial sense doesn’t compensate for talent. Even the cash rich club with around why five odd nations seriously playing this game doesn’t have anything to show except some ‘big names’ and bigger money over the years. The loot is amazing. Now I hear they have won in London after decades, and yes that is now enough for next few years as they suck on money and awards! For some it is moment of reckoning. BCCI with money should help Indians win more, it’s good for the economy. Which country in the world has such talented people who make money from nothing? Well if squatters can convert a barren hill into abode of god (Tirupathi) and convert it into billion dollar enterprise then BCCI is child’s play. Pour the gold statues in butter and milk, to rub it in direct telecast it as more than half the population go hungry, and yes this travesty is been celebrated for ages. Amazing is it not. With much ease BCCI has also created a god and the little fella despite money and fame (including an undeserving Bharat ratna, that should have gone to much revered Vajpayee among others) humbly delves in earthy money making matters, like suggesting brand of water purifiers for common people so on. Some extra money squeeze in for herd sake, always helps. Charming indeed. The fella with his humbleness (that keeps dripping) has elevated cricket to religion among herds while BCCI club has acquired the exclusive rights for conduct and procedure of suck. The framework sounds familiar. We are back in business. 

Kasturi&Sons, who must be quite close to the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Club in Chennai, the elite club (the sports club logo is even designed as a temple!), even they too are cricketers, the bourgeoisie passions and proletarian concerns, writes that “Clubs are private organisations where members have the right to set their own rules on their premises. It will be best if good sense prevails and the clubs change their rules”. Aha. As mentioned earlier the rules “members” set cannot go against the laws of the land, as also the socio-historical factors that govern these. Squatter’s rules in temples have been cut down by the constitution, these have shown as barbaric and violation of basic rights, the same hold good for clubs. This subtle shift from sanctum to clubs (to freedom of expression of media) will not work, quaintness of argument withstanding (Kasturi family are quite good at these, we have moved on from “banana republic” (Sainath). Oops that hurts! 'Pol pot!!!' (Swami) lip smackingly delectable). Wake up dear arrogant gentiles. Going going gone the Statesman way. Hurrah to that). And yes the Gandhian ruse of “good sense prevail” on the perpetrators will not work. They should be squatted out if they don’t fall in line. There is a possibility that violence could be resorted on to club members and they manhandled. Non violence and “good sense prevail” is acceptable when the society is egalitarian and based on equality, otherwise it is pandering. Even after seven decades “good sense prevail” has not happened means there is something sinister and entrenched bias mindset at work, which is not surprising at all it is only an extension of Indian tradition. If the government fails to apply rules (or make rules to prevent these bias mindset) then violence will have to be supported, non violence cannot be subterfuge for elitist misdemeanors that has thousands of years of bias and haughtiness to it. Non violence therefore becomes extreme form of violence. Asymmetry of power makes non violence a powerful weapon against weak as it seeks to maintain exploitative status quo as also masquerade egalitarianism and intention of peace wherein it is a sinister attempt to perpetuate inequity while looking suitably angst filled. Sorry Kasturi &Sons no more pandering to your higher worldview from primitive framework, no more of your “good sense prevail” to the horrible elites and their ways. They will have to fall in line, shocking that these exist even after so many decades. 

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Demystifying Gandhi





Mahatma is a misused term. Indian society has tradition of great souls who dedicated themselves to the uplifting of fellow being –who were in immense misery and untold discrimination. They were quite vehement in their protest against temple squatter’s horrendous hold over society, and fancy rituals which tied people into absurdity. They spoke against the nonsense that was spreading through Vedas and superstitious norms that was replacing the egalitarian nature of Upanishadic culture. The temple squatter’s framework was the one that insidiously and consistently degraded Indian society, it just took away the soul. The unenlightened thoughts, stories and myths associated with gods –their unusual tendency for anger and uncontrolled egoist outbursts (which any normal person will find embarrassing, even a child listening to these godly stories cannot but think of moral depravity of evengods), grossly exaggerated self worth and pious juvenile penance is all part of package that has hallmark of what happens when amazingly mediocre people are given importance, who with no insecurities of livelihood, tax their harebrain to work out crude forms of expressions. These can be nothing but primitive, devoid of even basic sense. These arrogant knuckleheads cannot be really be expected to come out with anything subtle nor compassionate. It goes from crude to cruder, and over the centuries you have amazingly deviant people who are absolutely absorbed in their infallibility. These are percolated as common culture and therefore despite being amazingly mediocre inbred imbeciles they think of themselves as centre of the world. To keep common people (zombies) busy in the network they came out with incredible ways to propitiate these angry gods, therefore by careful default assumed themselves these crudeness, indeed the stories were in first place created to justify their own moral exigencies, giving it godly characteristics only embolden their nearness to god and the cruder world they created. The fact that it only helped temple squatter’s to consolidate themselves was never understood by the zombies, who if ever felt only trapped and isolated. Such was the grip, critically it sucked into very weak areas of human dealings, matters of gods, death, fate so on, therefore capitulation by the common people to these enormous traps that has making of some cunning people of over thousands of years.   

In the meanwhile, as is the nature of human societies it wasn’t completely emasculated of human feelings and wasn’t devoid of responsible people. There were parallel movements that sought to create sane, enlightened and compassionate ways of living that understood the nature of life and its connection to living. They were determinately not part of temple squatter’s worldview, indeed raised their voice against these primitive cannibalistic nature of society that were being perpetuated by temple squatters. They used the languages and nuances of common people and therefore attracted much attention and admiration but never could be mainstreamed as a system, since it generally fizzled out after the charismatic individual died. The squatter’s framework was much stronger, like any cunning marketer they assimilated these new ideas (even Budha was made a god, some even put him in dashavatara, wherein he was quite an ordinary man who contemplated and with empathy and insight enlightened. Unlike temple squatter’s quick fix there isn’t short cuts in life) provided it didn’t overtly threatened them, and so the pious viciousness of pouncing on any aberrations or questioning. Meanwhile any threat to them was equalized to threat to Hinduism, therefore zombies didn’t really cross lines of traditions drawn to them, they became circumspect faced with overwhelming odds as it dealt with matter of gods. If hell wasn’t much clearly defined wrath was and it had terrible consequences with millions of gods ready to spew fire, meanwhile ever opportune squatter negotiating the situation slyly from the sidelines. The caste based cannibalistic system therefore got consolidated hence the socio-cultural pointers too slanted towards squatter’s worldview, hence deviant traditions. So despite the best efforts of Budhas, Mahaviras, Kabirs, Nanaks, Tukarams…(the list is much long), who fought these discriminatory ways, it couldn’t dismantle the exploitative structures that had acquired very strong racist undertones. Nevertheless the efforts of great souls, the mahanatmas were not futile. Their thoughts influenced the moral fabric of the society and, despite entrapped in deviant social system, it had a deep impact and significant influence on the thought process of common people. Indeed almost all the egalitarian thoughts of Indian society and civilizational achievements can be traced to these great souls, thoughts that ran parallel as a protest as also a glimpse of subtle brilliance. 


In the meanwhile the squatters where sharpening their sinister styles, fashioning increasingly atrocious methods to inflict pain on common people. Concomitantly their amazingly mediocre minds were occupied in absurd ‘philosophies’ on all and sundry that their little overactive mind could comprehend, they had to fill the gap of being placed at the seat of wisdom wherein they lacked even the basic intelligence. Thus began the ridiculous nature of ‘philosophies’ that ranged from outrageous to rubbish, and vacillated hereabout for centuries, as the society suffered and slipped into depth of bizarre. With their limited thinking and actively fertile cleverness they worked to degrade common people, to justify themselves they even debased something as basic as physical work!! Being acutely aware of power they also gave certificates of closeness to god to the rulers. To get acceptance from zombie like people the rulers actively pursued them. So temple became centers for rulers to gain acceptance among population, thus gained quite wholesomely in the arbitration. They became centers of power and money, as they grew their nature of exploitation became much vicious. As coffers filled so was the demand for specific gods and miracles, and so elaborate rituals that was meant to further squeeze in common people and increase their hardship. Temple squatter’s worldview was slowly seeping into societies psyche with detrimental effect, the kind people still struggle to free. 

Thus lived the parasitic charlatans trapped in primitive frugality that was elevated as piety and cleverly worked as detachment. This then was the art of staying powerful by denying oneself power, living with outward symbols of simplicity but acutely egoistic and arrogant grandness about oneself. This special connection with gods and assured place in society gave them the assuredness in dealings. Thus amazingly mediocre people high in confidence, ready with clever lines that could turn any fact into fiction and vice versa. This therefore defined the deviousness of existence of elite section of this godforsaken society as it tumbles from one vicissitude of fate to another.

It is in this narration that Gandhi enters. He therefore doesn’t deny the deviant oppressive structure that made lives of common people miserable and exploited in the name of religion. Since this deviant structure was what gave him legitimacy. He was completely enmeshed in squatter’s worldview. He was born into it but wasn’t enlightened enough to grow out of it. Gandhi was a little man from the little word. He searched salvation/ truth within this framework and as has happened even the best of its expression lacked compassion. You cannot bring in egalitarian values from within an exploitative system, it is just not possible it is against the law of nature. At the most it is a good play act, a clever move, most likely godly brownie points for afterlife or next birth comforts. It is as ridiculous as that. Gandhi had firmly pitched himself into this framework –that lacked character, he wasn’t from the tradition of great souls who connected to common people, those who understood the causes of their misery, tried to assuage them with their enlightened thoughts and very fervent opposition against casteism and superstition. It is therefore easy to bring out lack of compassion in Gandhi in almost all the cases involving common people right from racism against blacks to his views of people who were massacred in Jalianwala bagh or people exterminated in Nazi concentration camps, to take few examples. Not at all surprising and out of place is his arrogant nature as he lived with simple frugal means, he effectively used pointers of simplicity that squatters were quite fine with. Even today squatters can be seen moving around half naked in small towns. It shouldn’t really be mistaken for signs of piousness or simple living but clever way of exposing the grime thread and claiming entitled status. How many times have seen the fellow across the seat strategically keeping the shirt buttons open to expose his threads? It is akin to exposing nazi tattoo in Europe.

Gandhi was useful for colonial british as much as for elite Indians. For british he was needed for emasculating the struggle of common people against the oppression, apart from day to day miseries (it also lead to worst of famines that killed millions of people in Bengal. Britishers didn’t want repeat of what had happened in 1857, it had severely jolted them, a renewed version of this would have most definitely ousted the colonial power from the subcontinent.  How sub-continental geo-political history might have shaped after this is matter of speculation and one cannot be really be prescient about it. Also Gandhian presence didn’t prevent the worst kind massacre that followed partition, millions and millions of common people bore the brunt. Gandhi’s non violent protest put the onus of realization of oppression on the oppressed. It remarkably gave the initiative to the oppressor. The strategy questioned the basic morality of oppressor but even the oppressed. Further the act of allowing being violated is in itself acceptance of violence, being injured and maimed in the process goes against the basic instinct of self preservation. Inability to stop violence against oneself and one’s being is undoubtedly immoral. In a civilized society one takes the recourse of law but britain was a colonial power. These incremental moral assertions were at heavy price.

The reason why I seriously question this is that oppressor aren’t unaware of the lack of morality in their act, they use this occasion of emasculation of oppressed as means to consolidate themselves. Britishers did exactly that as they stripped the land of its natural resources as also exploited the people. They left not because of any overwhelming desire for non violence but from the realities that emerged after Second World War, the most violent phase of human history. Which also saw “our leaders” supporting colonial British against Germany for higher good, while common people suffered as usual, the ideals of “high moral ground” never reaching them, it still haven’t changed much even after 60 years of so called independence. It seems that goodness of British people took precedence and therefore violence was acceptable.  To be fair with Gandhi he gave the clarion call for do or die against British but one wonders what kind of non violence is that? What does ‘do’ means if not violence? Call to die is not non violent. It seems his entitled position ordained by feudal-casteist nature of society was being used by him to experiment on hapless people who had put trust on him. Such arrogance and self assured nature of one’s being while one lords over common people can come only from squatter’s framework. “My life is my message”. Surely a mahatma will never utter such eulogy on oneself, and yes I am struggling to understand the message.

This framework is the same he practiced in the case of oppressive system of casteism, he very determinately emasculated the protest that was gaining momentum against the heinous practice. His deviant insistence on non violence on people who faced untold violence over centuries and violation of all forms of their being is where Gandhi faults much grievously and cannot be pardoned. Gandhi was a pacifist of the conservative mold who strived to preserve the existing structure, his morality seemed hinged on this, people were expendable. This was his focus as he dealt with colonial atrocities of british as also while he dealt squatters (indeed he never did, his focus being the mechanism of the dealing of the oppressed, there must be some perverse pleasure in this). So what we are left with are structures: The colonial structure as a form of insensitive administration (even after so many decades and much misery to people, they remain archaic and nobody seems much bothered. They call it freedom), indeed the bureaucracy is such that it strives to preserve itself over people. While the temple squatter’s structure/framework is still as intact and oppressive, meanwhile even acquiring forms of culture expressions and redefining the land of diversities. These are true dedications to Gandhian efforts.


As much as Britisher preferred, as it made their job of exploitation much easier, the elitizens too played a major role in hiking Gandhi, indeed he was tailor made for them. By the late 19th century temple squatter’s framework was being severely questioned from within, not for its oppression of common people but for lack progressiveness, as they negotiated the western world and the new emerging power structure. The wily ones had to capitalize on these new opportunities, so westernization became a wont for some. Clearly westernization they faced had egalitarianism extended to only few select, this suited them immensely and so the race to get into this coveted status of being accepted which for most was natural extension of their entitlement, the god ordained status that was very much their due. The colonial power quite astutely used these cravings of the ‘natives’ and so were made ally, an exalted status in the little world of neo squatters. They therefore furthered the cause of colonial powers with centuries of tongue twisting ability that was chiseled with selective inbreeding (the progenies justify colonialism as good for the society even know, with straight face without sounding ridiculous at all). As they adopted western lifestyle they sought to distinguish themselves with acquired tastes and thoughts. Modern values seeped in as necessary alibi but it rarely pricked the omnipresent casteist structure and oppressive nature of society, such moral transgression never disturbed their conscience.

As was expected they soon locked horn. The neo squatters found problems with traditional squatters whose conservative ways and lifestyle was seen as unpalatable and hindrance to projecting themselves as modernist. Thus you see the beginning of the fratricidal divide and ensuing war in the clamor to grab the power. The conservative section (i.e. the temple squatters with all the miserable tradition intact) acquiring right wing character that sought to safeguard Hinduism while the other section (i.e. the neo squatters) masquerade secular liberal concerns and sought to carry the legacy of colonial masters in a veneer of acquired sophistication. Interestingly both sides never condemned the squatter’s framework i.e. the heinous caste system as it defined them (so whatever side they were in the mock anguish they carried the squatter’s surnames with flourish). They divided their turf but usurped and sucked on to the perverse legacy of thousands of years, that gave misery and defined common people’s life. It gave them the entitled advantage as well as necessary reach and easy comforts cushioning the hiccups in the journey. It was an easy way out to lead the hapless people. Matters came to head on as Gandhi was assassinated. Before I go further into this let me acknowledge that there were enlightened people genuinely concerned with the plight of people but these were scattered lot. The mainstream was broadly occupied by these two sections.  


What elitizens refer to as concept of liberal values and tolerance is something that exists quite effortlessly in the lower strata without anybody being aware of. They coexist with people of different religion and regions without much effort. For divine selves emerging out of insulated abode of pure world living it was quite challenging. Such was the deviant world that the act of interacting with ‘others’ itself was heightened case of tolerance, extending this skills to muslims was seen as beginning of secularism. This was quite a remarkable achievement in their little worldview, considering that it dealt with hobnobbing with non vegetarian. While common people had never any problems of vegetarian or non vegetarian or whatever anyone eats as also any heightened sense of oneself and purity associated. For squatters trying to modern themselves these were significant achievements while common people carried on negotiating their life and observing these burgeoning modern values with tired amusement. For icons emerging from squatters framework these were immense challenges that shook their being (like for instance something as trivial as having food with common people was almost the end of world as they knew), crossing of which was major achievement as one negotiated treacherous path of acquiring enlightened liberal nuances. Since their interaction (or shall I say adventures) were confined to elite sections of muslims therefore these became their references. These superficialities are reflected in how the idea of secularism is practiced. It lacks compassion and is more towards patronizing the feudal power and pandering entrenched deviants. Common people were never in scheme of things although these acts were purported to be played for them!

The breakaway neo squatter brown sahibs concerns of freedom from colonial rule and liberal thoughts wasn’t finding much resonance among common people, the hypocrisy was obvious as also it lacked the native touch. It was into this cauldron of squatter’s worldly concerns that Gandhi entered, arriving from South Africa, with some reputation of taking on the colonial rulers. That his concerns didn’t extend to black Africans, who faced amazing discrimination, was telling but then it was pushed under the carpet with traditional alacrity. You will notice that the same sections (including Gandhi) didn’t feel much about oppressive caste structure, therefore lack of concern for blacks was absolutely normal, it is even likely that tolerating discrimination against lower section was so entrenched that they didn’t see black Africans worth concerned about. Some humans don’t measure up the scale to fight for, to be concerned about, they live they die it is their karma. It is this structure that they were trustee of, it was balanced on purity pecking order.

Gandhi soon brought in the pointers that were close to squatter’s worldview but very cleverly molded into liberal language. He was immensely successful with the elites as also it gave hope to common people, but these were mirage and was only a ploy to gain ground against colonial force. The mass movements weren’t meant for change in common people’s life but a move to transfer power to Indian elitizens for which Gandhi was eagerly acquiring a status of compelling mascot. Furthermore Gandhi didn’t threaten their ordained status, he didn’t find anything morally shallow in the depraved socio-religious system under which Indians functions, the traditions hinged on exploitation and discrimination. Despite these glaring ethical ambiguities they were able to build Gandhi as some kind of moral guardian of the masses. Wherein the reality was unlike the tradition of protest against temple squatter’s framework, the enlightened souls and seers who were born time to time to reaffirm civilizational values and its unique legacy, while providing ethical framework to hapless common people in an increasingly immoral oppressive mainstream lives of elites, Gandhi fell grievously short. In the context of things Gandhi was an amazing travesty, but nevertheless a successful ploy. It fooled common people into believing that something significant was about to happen or is happening. Gandhi played his part, his body language, postures and the life style reflected the image of a great soul, detached and connected to divine, a man of wisdom. These motifs common people had come to associate with the tradition of mahatma, of great souls who were indelible part of this society who, from time to time, guided common people from the atrocities of temple squatters. But in reality Gandhi was very much earth bound, quite a cunning politician and astute in matters of money, meanwhile disposing of his political threats with much ease.  Paraphernalia that pointed to divinely interests, puritanical frugal means and pious bearing (that was quite a characteristic of temple squatters, it was certainly taken around as trophy) were nothing but subterfuge for extending his moral authority and necessary arrogance that comes with it. From this lofty ground Gandhi’s patronizing self saw ‘god’s children’ (the bullshit called Harijan, a divinely insult inflicted on common people) but not the discrimination. Gandhi’s experiments with truth were a joke on common people and a travesty on truth itself. In the meanwhile the discriminated faced such untold misery that even a person with common sense would shudder but not Gandhi he was made of much sturdier piety that is so much valued by squatters. Even meekest of protest by most wretchedly discriminated was met with aggressive angst or even sadist threat of self harm. These were beginning of Gandhian techniques of solving problems, which have since been much intellectualized and indeed has shifted from original framework to egalitarian worldview.  


Gandhi in effect gave moral authority to the elitizens despite the fact they were trapped in primitive framework, this exploitative setup fed them well in the meanwhile gave a head start on angst. So you could be blatantly casteist (therefore racist), amazingly feudal and patronizingly patriarchal but still can claim to be modern, therefore liberal. You could be crude but can easily claim to be wise, discriminative but can seek redemption. This self assurance despite being hypocritical, ability to patronize despite lacking sympathy is gandhi’s enduring gift to the elitizens. He became their moral torchbearer, they therefore went overboard in edifying him, it was a self justifying act. Being a Gandhian covered whole lot of crap and you could still walk head held high, some angst for others as you hobnob with power –while denying it all at once! This skewed nature of things is how India’s foundation was being laid, and does reflect quite acutely in the discriminating nature of development pattern that followed. One could say India’s development pattern, seen through social indices so on, is very much Gandhian with necessary trustees angst.

Gandhi therefore was promoted with gusto, a moral trump card. He was a Mahatma. Father of nation. Public spaces were occupied, from roads to statues to what not. The more it was pushed into psyche of hapless people more elitizens justified their crude piety and patronizing self, while necessary lip service became the defining nature of trustees. It all worked so well, Gandhi filled the moral gap that existed with transfer of power that commonly sold as independence for which common people paid heavy price particularly along the indo-pak border. Never in the history of human society was a man used to emasculate the aspiration of common people over generations. Never ever on this land did a ‘mahatma’ haughtily claim his moral bearing standing on discriminations. Never was non-violence used to justify violence against the most wretched and discriminated people in the history of human society. And never ever in the history did Mir Qasims and Mir Jaffars claim that they fought for freedom of people from oppression. 


Gandhi undoubtedly was a great man with good intention but he fell short since he could never come out of the entrenched system, he faults further in that he lacked the wisdom to realize these. He worked well within this oppressive system which he mistook for religiosity, hence was ‘morally’ stuck to it. With the advantage of hindsight one can see that his best intention were nothing but patronizing the agonizingly oppressed.  This therefore was seen as justification by much cruder elitizens who were passing through existential crisis and immense personal tribulations being exposed to harsh world outside the squatter’s superior entitlement framework and enchantingly self assured world. Gandhi assuaged this transitional angst and agony of liberal world and remodeled it to fit into squatter’s reality. Hypocrisy was redefined and oppressive framework was seen as uniqueness of cultural diversity, racism was patronized as acts of ‘god’s children’. Gandhi used all the pointers of squatters to negotiate the modern values, hence casteism was onlya discrimination and not racism. These subtle differences falls in the pecking order of Indian philosophy that needs one to strip into absurdity and mediocre nature of traditional thoughts and deviant ideas that kept emerging quite regularly from temple precincts.

Gandhi may have been a Mahatma for squatters desperately trying to fill in the moral gaps and modernize themselves as they grab the power as it is transferred. But considering the tradition of great souls who guided common people, who vehemently recognized and protested against oppressive nature of traditions and the deviant values derived, Gandhi falls woefully short, indeed he is an embarrassment, he couldn’t even recognize what great saints could thousands of years back, prominent being Budha, and in his lifetime saints like Ayyankali (great man who didn’t pretensions of mahatma and other divine attributes. These saints insistence on practicality differed diametrically from Gandhi. Indeed Gandhi took shield of even superstition to cow down common people rather than engaging with their reality, prominent being causes of earthquake so on). The list of these venerable saints is quite long, and unfortunately Gandhi doesn’t even deserve a footnote. Gandhi wasn’t a Mahatma, and most definitely doesn’t deserve to be called as one, compelling motifs withstanding. He was a politician who wanted to bring in morality in discourse. We don’t need any father of nation, how about fathers and mothers of nation? The ‘founding figures of nation’ will do. Gandhi has been overplayed by the elitizens, quite appropriately, the recent instance being the statue in London, this to buttress a million dollar arms deal by Britain.  British know the value of hypocrisy, and the use of Gandhi.


It’s time to expose Indians and shake them out from their self assured world. This is going to be difficult. The popular culture too has consolidated discrimination as diversity, squatter’s utterings as divine interventions while the fact is these are worst forms of superstitious hogwash that seeks to perpetuate a sinister world. They have infected the myth, traditions and collective conscience of the society. It is going to be difficult to weed out these. International community declaring India a racist country would be a good beginning, some reality check for mediocre Indians ensconced in superior considerations.   

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Congratulating BBC



I happened to see a physically handicapped (or challenged, the politically correct version) anchor, that too in a wheel chair, in BBC channel the other day. It was quite refreshing. Here in india it has gone primitive, as is expected, and they focus more on body and its unique expression called body language and other crude nuances, adding to it, amazingly puerile nonsense as news and high claims on freedom. They also have sponsors stampeding them, to somehow hoodwink people to buy. It is called business model.  

Though, as mentioned earlier, standard of BBC has plummeted quite drastically, they are about “monarchial butt” –quoting the speaker in a debate about monarchy in Australia. Australians are such primitively feudal people to have British monarchy as their head is amazing. The aborigines should demand the ouster of this nonsense.  

Indian elitizens too are quite keen on monarchial matters, as it justifies their feudal gains. Some in mysore claim that it was the royal family that created the city and its infrastructure, it may be true, they were known to be benevolent, indeed it was expected from the rulers. Period. In the contemporary time it is disgusting to refer back to them as torch bearers and the ‘incumbents’ given respect which is not at all due. It is a sickness. They should have absolutely no role in public functions especially festivals like dashara, it is a deviant tradition. Instead citizens who have contributed exceptionally to the society should be taken in as guest of honour. Royal family and their minions have no place in civilized society, their role is over. And yes thank you for ruling well, it really shouldn’t be allowed to stretch any further. 

There are people who conduct heritage walks, and take tourists to look at these monstrous structures. I had that offer but I said thank you. These are nothing to be proud of, indeed in mysore the palace is shoddy copy of Europeans, and lacks any local understanding or innovation.  I am not at all impressed by royal fleet of cars, it made me puke. They should dump these into some garbage yard and convert the space into organic farm or something, or maybe a science park. A democratically elected government is expected to see to that any reference to ‘royal’ is removed from any dealings and leftovers be treated like ordinary citizens. It is too much to ask from sycophantic mindset that characterizes Indians, which is so cleverly capitalized by elitizens. It is also not uncommon that some novae rich want these royal treatments be extended to them, while others cling on to traditional claims and entitlements. The only heritage I am keen on is natural heritage, and they are making all effort to see that it is plundered in the name of development.        

    

Biradri ki aukat: making of high culture family

Crude woman was saying “har biradri ki bhaisaab apni apni aukat hothi hai. Ham logon ko hi dekh lo. Hamare hi log hai mandiron me. Tum logon ka kriya karam bhi hum logon ke hath me hai. Hum logon ka bhagwan ke saath seedha connection hai”. Her high culture claims was blatant take on casteism was not lost, she even stressed that it has to do with “superior genes”. “hotha hai bhaisaab, kudrath me yeh sab hoth hai, aap mano ya na mano. Some people are always superior to others”. “Dekh lo Sharma log kahan tak pohunch gaye hai. Agar aap bbc dekhoge tho hamare log, Amrika jaoge wahan pe hamare hi log hai uche position par. Akbaar kholo tho mishra, cricket dekho tho sharma. Kya bathaye hum logon ke biradari ke naam pe pahad bhi rakh diya hai amrika me. Ye sab natural hai bhai saab”. “Bharath bana he hai ham logon ki karam se, freedom fighters se lekar patrkar sab hamare biradri ke hai” “ab bolo kya bolthe ho” “bolthi bandh ho gayi kya?” 

If you are thinking it is fiction then you are grossly mistaken. These are fragments of discussion one catches while travelling. So what is morality of the story here? The caste reference is quite clearly claimant for superior genes by primitives in this part of the world, though the fact is India as a society is amazingly mediocre. Also those who carry these as identities should be aware how it percolates down into racism and prejudices. Mishras and Sharmas (of course our little Pande) claiming high moral ground should be put in their primitive framework. Indian zombies will take time to understand these, it is too entrenched, but international community should take stern actions. I strongly believe it was Gandhi and his ‘moral’ reach that emasculated these matters, hence the blinkers, as people suffered untold misery. They quite effectively hid these primitiveness with heightened secular claims. Gandhi saw the glimpse of it not in poor marginalized muslims in here but by supporting calipha in Turkey. In school, I distinctly recall, this was regarded to as his “masterstroke”. It is this superficial secularism that some elitizens practice and even claim more than their share of returns –it has become a game, as poor people suffer and mullahs embolden.  Casteism is racism and the fact that Indians are blatantly racist should be accepted. It is in the same context that the mountain that was named after an Indian recently, unfortunately, represents racism.