Nehruvian (NOT Hindu) Rate of Growth

Nehruvian Rate of Growth

NOT 
the "Hindu" Rate of Growth

Please also check the following interesting links on NEHRU'S LEGACY:

(1) Summarising Major Nehruvian Blunders

(2) Squandering Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity

(3) Bewildering Questions, Part-2 (Nehru)

India’s poverty is self-inflicted, thanks to the self-destructive policies followed after independence, even though prescriptions for prosperity were available off-the-shelf for many years, and there were any number of real, practical examples to go by. Had Nehru’s government focused on its primary responsibilities—internal security, external security, law and order, justice, education, health, ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, efficient business-friendly regulation—and desisted getting into business, had it allowed the freedom to public to do business, India would have shot into double-digit growth rate in the late 1950s itself—such were its advantages over other countries—and would long since have been a part of the developed first world, rather than still being a poor, pathetic, third-rate third-world country.

What makes a country poor or prosperous?

Climate, geography, area, location, natural resources, race, religion, history, “type of people”, “character of people”?

No. None of these.

Poor countries are poor because those who have power
make choices that create poverty.

—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
in ‘Why Nations Fail : The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’

The determining factors are what kind of laws and rules, that is, the institutions, the people are embedded in.

Daron-Robinson demonstrate in their book mentioned above that the determining factors are the institutions: ‘Extractive Institutions’ cause poverty and misery, while ‘Inclusive Institutions’ lead to prosperity and freedom.

Extractive Institutions are normally the feature of monarchy, feudal system, political or military dictatorships, fascism, socialism and communism. Capitalist societies that are not fairly capitalist, or where crony capitalism prevails, may also lead to extractive institutions.

Characteristics of Inclusive Institutions include: encouragement of investments; harnessing the power of markets by better allocation of resources; allowing entry of more efficient firms; ease of starting businesses and provision of finance for them; and generating broader participation in the economy through education and ease of entry for new entrants. Growth under inclusive institutions involves both creative destruction (replacement of the old methods, technology, industries by new) and investment in technology.

Inclusive Institutions are not compatible with socialism, communism and feudal societies, or with dictatorships and monarchies. Only a society with competitive capitalism is capable of having inclusive institutions.

“It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth. They certainly don't feel any ‘obligation’ to learn economics ...”

—Dr. Thomas Sowell

Unfortunately for India, after independence, Nehru laid the foundations of Extractive Institutions, and his Dynasty reinforced them! Socialistic institutions happen to be extractive.

While the developing countries of SE-Asia, which had been far behind India in 1947, raced ahead at over 9% growth and became highly prosperous, with infra-structure rivalling western countries, India plodded along at what was derisively referred to as the Hindu rate of growth of just 3%, and became a basket-case, begging aid and food from all.

However, the term "Hindu rate of growth" is highly inappropriate and unfair, besides being derogatory.

Let us examine why?

One : The "Nehruvian Socialistic Rate of Growth"

The low rate of growth was thanks to Nehru-Indira-Rajiv’s policies. If rather than the “Hindu rate of growth” it was called the “Nehruvian rate of growth” or “Nehruvian socialistic rate of growth” or “NIDP [Nehru-Indira-Dynasty policies] rate of growth” or simply “Socialistic rate of growth”, one would have no quarrel.

“Nehru’s inability to rise above his deep-rooted Marxist equation of Western capitalism with imperialism, and his almost paranoid, partly aristocratic, distrust of free enterprise in its most successful form as ‘vulgar’, cost India dearly in retarding its overall development for the remaining years of his rule, as well as for the even longer reign of his more narrowly doctrinaire daughter.”

—Stanley Wolpert

Two : The “Colonial Rate of Growth”

The rate of growth during the pre-independence period, the colonial period, was even less! In fact, it had even turned negative during several long periods!!

Why was the rate of growth then not called the “Colonial rate of growth” or the “Christian rate of growth” in a pejorative sense?

As per an estimate by Angus Maddison, a Cambridge University historian,  “India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952.”

Hindu-India had been highly prosperous in the past, thanks to its massive “Hindu rate of growth”, which is why first the countries to the northwest of India, and then the Western countries invaded it.

Until the rise of the West, India was possibly the richest country in the world, which is why it presented an irresistible target for the ravaging Mongols and their descendents, and then the West. Why then was the term "Hindu rate of growth" not used in an adulatory sense?

Three : Higher Growth After 1993

 How do you explain the growth rate of 9% or over for certain periods after 1993? The same India, after only part junking of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv socialistic policies, reached a growth rate of over 9%! Junk more of the Nehru-Indira socialistic policies, and the growth rate will rise to double-digits.

Four : The Absurdity of Religio-Cultural Connotation

Many Islamic countries prior to the world demand and discovery of oil were very poor. Was their growth rate called the “Islamic rate of growth”?

The growth rate during the dark ages of Europe was static or negative, when during the same period India was immensely rich and progressive. Was it ever called the “Christian rate of growth”?

Sri Lanka and Myanmar have had long periods of no growth or measly growth. Were they castigated for being under the spell of the “Buddhist rate of growth”?

China’s growth rate after going communist and till the end of the Mao-period was pathetic. Was it termed the “Atheistic rate of growth”?

Why associate “Hindu” with a rate of economic growth unless there is an ulterior motive of deliberately showing Hinduism in bad light? Of course, many use the term unfeelingly, without being conscious of its implications.

Five : Nehru vs. Hinduism

Nehru was an agnostic, and was more English than Indian, more western than eastern, more “something else” than a Hindu, and therefore it is grossly inappropriate to name a rate of growth, which was thanks to him and his dynasty, as “Hindu”.

Six : Why not “Secular” Rate of Growth?

Nehru, Nehru-dynasty and Nehruvian intellectuals have raved ad nauseam on “secularism”, without ensuring it in practice. Why not credit the growth rate thanks to them as the “‘Secular’ rate of growth”?

Seven : Socialism vs. Hinduism

Hindu-India has had long tradition of free international trade and commerce, and of liberal religious and world view. Such an ethos can never accept the Big Brother denouement or the run-up to it. There is an age old Indian proverb: Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari. That is, people become beggars when government enters into business.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,
in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
—Milton Friedman

A belief in self-reliance and an overweening socialistic state on the part of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi actually did India in, rather than something that had anything to do with Hinduism.

Eight : Socialism vs. Gandhi, Rajaji, Patel...

A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart;
an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

—David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister in 1920

Mahatma Gandhi was no socialist. Nor were the other stalwarts like Sardar Patel, Rajaji and Rajendra Prasad.

Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and prosperity through socialism...He sticks to this bias in spite of the demonstration of world experience against it...I hate the present folly and arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.

—Rajaji, as reproduced in Rajaji: A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi

All the four—Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Rajaji and Rajendra Prasad—quite unlike Nehru, could be considered as also representing the Hindu ethos, and perhaps precisely for that reason they were against socialistic claptrap of Nehru.

Nine : A Camouflage

In any case, using “Hindu” as in “Hindu rate of growth” in a pejorative sense is not only insulting, it camouflages the real reasons—socialistic claptrap was never going to give you a respectable growth rate to enable you to ameliorate the lot of the poor.

But, the question arises as to why did the term “Hindu rate of growth” gain currency? Well, here are the reasons.

One : Raj Krishna

The term was reportedly coined by the economist Raj Krishna to draw attention to the embarrassing rate of growth during the Nehru-Indira period. India being predominantly populated by the Hindus, he called it the “Hindu rate of growth”.

But, of course, he didn’t mean it to be insulting to Hinduism. He just used another term to represent India. It would have been more appropriate had he used the terms like “Nehruvian socialistic rate of growth”, which would have been really representative and meaningful.

However, what is interesting is the way it was lapped up, used, and made popular by the Nehruvians themselves, the socialists, and the leftist intellectuals; and also by the India-baiters and the colonialists.

Two : Blame Hinduism rather than Socialism

While many studies have documented the predominance of the political left in the academic world, the exceptional areas where they do not have such predominance are precisely those areas where you cannot escape from facts and results— the sciences, engineering, mathematics and athletics. By contrast, no area of academia is more dominated by the left than the humanities, where there are no facts to challenge the fantasies that abound. Leftists head for similar fact-free zones outside of academia.

—Thomas Sowell

Indian politicians and bureaucrats never wanted to admit that the fault lay with the socialistic apparatus. Why blame self? Especially, why blame something on which you have fattened yourselves?

The leftists, socialists and communists got prized slots in the government or government-aided organisations, societies and universities, and dominated the intellectual discourse in India. Socialism and Marxism could not be wrong—what was required was more of it!  The whole band, be it politicians or bureaucrats or intellectuals, didn’t mind the blame shifting to the religious-cultural heritage. Someone coined the term, the next one picked it up, and it spread.

“He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy.”

—Chester Bowles, US Ambassador to India during Nehru's time

Three : The "Secularists", or rather, the Sickularists

For certain class of intellectuals the touchstone of secularism is whether you can be abusive to Hinduism. The term “Hindu” in “Hindu rate of growth” serves that purpose. It serves for them the double purpose: camouflage the ills resulting from socialism, and be also hailed “secular” the cheap way—by casting a slur on Hinduism.

Four : The Colonialists and the India-baiters

Other groups, which received the term with glee, lapped it up, and enthusiastically promoted it to disparage India, were the colonialists or those with the colonial mind-set or the brown sahibs, or the India-baiters. Give power to the Hindus, and what you will get is the “Hindu rate of growth”! Had the British Raj continued, things would have been better!!

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
November 14, 2015
www.rkpbooks.com

Leftist-Socialist Intellectuals : An Oxymoron?

Leftist-Socialist Intellectuals :
An Oxymoron?

and
an Anachronism?

While many studies have documented the predominance of the political left in the academic world, the exceptional areas where they do not have such predominance are precisely those areas where you cannot escape from facts and results— the sciences, engineering, mathematics and athletics. By contrast, no area of academia is more dominated by the left than the humanities, where there are no facts to challenge the fantasies that abound. Leftists head for similar fact-free zones outside of academia.

—Thomas Sowell

For the context of this article, we will be using “leftist” and “socialist” interchangeably, and strictly in the sense of its connotation in economics. We would use “leftism” or “socialism” in a generalised way to represent various flavours of socialism: Nehruvian socialism, Fabianism, Marxism or “scientific” socialism, communism, and so on. Basically, it means dominance of the state, pubic and state sector at the commanding heights of the economy, predominant state controls of the economy and means of production, and lesser or marginal role for the private sector and individuals, resulting in an over-regulated bureaucratic state, and a mai-baap Sarkar. By the term leftist we cover the whole spectrum from light pink to deep red communists, Marxists or socialists.

The typical Indian Leftist-Socialist-“Secular”-“Liberal” “Intellectual” cabal that has spawned the academe, the cultural, literary, archaeological and historical bodies, and sarkari establishments, and has infested and dominated the opinion-making arms like the media unfortunately represents the worst in intellectual traditions.

It supports a globally discredited socialistic economic world-view that has practically and amply demonstrated its poverty-perpetuating, misery-multiplying, anti-poor, anti-prosperity, anti-anything-good characteristics. Its “Secularism” does not rise above religion; but is restricted to being anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim, and being unmoved and unconcerned by blatantly illegal proselytization. Its “Liberalism” is being pro-Animal rights while being pro-beef and pro-nonveg; being anti-American while yearning for green-card or assignments in the US; being a rationalist by slamming all Hindu customs and beliefs, while keeping mum on regressive practices of Islam or Christianity; being pro-Arab and anti-Israel; being anti-Sanskrit while being pro-German or pro-foreign language; and so on.

They oppose renaming Aurangzeb road, but never raise a voice against naming of hundreds of government schemes and institutions after the Nehru-Gandhis. They talk of common man and justice and rage about inequality, but find nothing uncommon or no injustice or no inequality in the unjust shameless continuance of the Dynasty! They shout against intolerance, but are themselves the prime examples of intolerance for alternate view (despite it being far superior to theirs)!!

In an interview, Nayantara Sahgal, who has returned the award, claimed, rather proudly, that she was a socialist. Shows the frozen state of these intellectuals—still living in the bad old Nehruvian times!

It has been said that true “intellectuals tend to have uneasy relationship with the status quo.” However, this deracinated Indian “Intellectual” Class has become uncomfortable with the change in the status quo. They feel comfortable only when cocooned in their good, old “secular”, socialistic, I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, mutually beneficial, incestuous, quid pro quo milieu, at home with the Dynasty.

By “leftism” or “socialistic state” we are NOT implying a welfare state or a state engaged in social justice and equality, because as per actual global experience such a socialistic state as just defined by us in the para above is neither capable of ensuring general welfare nor social justice nor equality.

How do you tell a communist?
Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist?
It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
—Ronald Reagan

“Scientific” Socialism:
a Contradiction in Terms!

Marxism and socialism were something Nehru was sold out on since the 1920s, wrote approvingly about in his books, advocated vigorously all through, and, unfortunately for India, implemented it post-independence in his own Nehruvian way.

Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and prosperity through socialism...He sticks to this bias in spite of the demonstration of world experience against it...I hate the present folly and arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.

—Rajaji, as reproduced in Rajaji: A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi

Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned, self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism as a science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has failed—it has been proven wrong both in theory and in practice.

Nehru’s class or caste bias is apparent in his autobiography where he mentions that “right through history the old Indian ideal...looked down upon money and the professional money-making class” and that “today” it is “fighting against a new and all-powerful opposition from the bania [Vaishya] civilization of the capitalist West”.

Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. Many became Marxists or socialists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, radical, rational, progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to the dismay of the Marxists and socialists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the wrong side; and their science—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be an alchemy!

The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery ...Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

—Winston Churchill

The capitalist economic thought, the capitalist societies and the associated democratic system themselves evolved and adapted since the time of Marx in such a way that they not only brought unprecedented prosperity to the concerned nations, they also significantly uplifted the status of the masses—falsifying, in the process, many of the foundations and assumptions of Marx. Further, Marx didn’t elaborate on the nature of society and organisation that would replace capitalism, and how it would be managed, except talking vaguely about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”—without allowing for the possibility of the Frankenstein it would unleash, and the surreal “1984” it would beget.

In science, society, economics and indeed all disciplines knowledge evolves, concepts change, new theories replace old ones in the light of new experiments, experiences and knowledge gained. To be scientific is to keep an open mind on things, to be willing to change, to be ready to jettison the old in the light of new evidence, and to go by actual practical results.

People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians.

—Thomas Sowell

For anything to be scientifically correct, it has to be proved truly and convincingly in practice, without a shadow of doubt. Till the same is done, it remains merely a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory. Has the so-called scientific socialism or Marxism or socialism proved successful anywhere in the world in practice? No.

Conclusively Proven, Globally:
Socialism—
A Theory of Non-Affluent Society

Facts, figures, statistics and ground-level experiences of various countries prove that all brands of leftist politics—Communist, Socialist, Fabian, Nehruvian, and so on—are inherently incapable of delivering anything positive for any nation or for its poor. In fact, they have actually been at the root of poverty, want and stagnation.

Leftists like Rousseau, Condorcet, or William Godwin in the 18th century, Karl Marx in the 19th century, or Fabian socialists like George Bernard Shaw in England and American Progressives in the 20th century saw the people in a role much like that of sheep and saw themselves as their shepherds… The vision of the Left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves— a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create “social justice,” and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to. Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control, minimum wages, or innumerable other issues— and why they react so viscerally to those who challenge their vision.

—Thomas Sowell

Dismal fate of all nations that went socialist proves the point. Take USSR. It claimed to be following scientific socialism or Marxism. But, what were its practical results? It drew an iron-curtain so that no one got to see the disaster: the wide-spread poverty and famine and suppression of human rights. Millions died from hunger and famine in Soviet Russia, yet the communist leadership did not have the heart to save them by seeking help from outside, lest the outside world became aware of the pathetic conditions. Same with China under Mao—about 40 million perished in famines! Country-wise unofficial estimates of the total number of persons who perished thanks to communism, through man-made famines and state-terror, as per “The Black Book of Communism” are: USSR–20 million, China–65 million, Combodia–2 million, North Korea–2 million; the world-total being around 100 million! Compare this with the estimate of Holocaust victims at about 6 million, and total World War II military deaths of all countries put together at about 25 million.

Take the case of East Germany: contrast it with the prosperity in West Germany. Why the Berlin Wall ultimately fell? See the fate of the East-European countries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania. Consider the case of Albania under its Mao—Enver Hoxha. What of Cuba under the “great” revolutionary Fidel Castro: it is now desperately trying to shed its socialistic past. Note the growing economy of Vietnam after the gradual shedding of its communist policies. The terrible fate of Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot—brought out so chillingly in the movie, The Killing Fields! Appalling conditions in North Korea: George Orwell’s “1984” continuing in the 21st century!

Take the example of the relatively recent red-hot socialist showman given to mega posturing on the world stage, Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela for 14 years, who succumbed to cancer in 2013. Called Commandante by his followers, he implemented several populist measures—which he could afford thanks to the country’s oil-wealth—to remain popular. But, what is the legacy of his 14-year socialist revolution? Decline in oil-production, a severely dented economy, dysfunctional state institutions and administration, and Caracas, its capital, turning into one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

“To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

—Margaret Thatcher

There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose poor were better off under communism or socialism. The democratic countries like the UK which were going downhill with their socialistic policies did course correction under Thatcher and prospered.

India’s Self-Inflicted Poverty,
thanks to Nehruvian Socialism

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,
in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
—Milton Friedman

Near home, see the unfortunate and the pathetic fate of India and its poor thanks to India's socialistic policies, which are, unfortunately for the India’s poor, only very gradually getting dismantled.
We know how communists wrecked West Bengal during their 34-year rule! Those who still advocate socialistic policies do so not because they are innocent about these facts, but because it suits them politically, so what if those policies actually amount to being anti-progress and anti-poor.

Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari.
— Indian proverb

Nehru uncritically accepted socialism. It is strange that while Nehru’s books approvingly talk of Marxism and socialism, there is no comparative analysis by him of much more proven competing economic thoughts. It was as if Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, JS Mill, John Maynard Keynes and others did not exist for Nehru. Economics is a serious subject for its affects the lives of millions, and for Nehru to take up a firm position on one trend of economics without critical appraisal of the alternatives was not only unwise in the academic sense, it proved disastrous to the nation in practice. Further, even if Nehru mistakenly believed that communism was doing good for one country, the USSR, how was it that he did not notice the many countries prospering under capitalism, like the US, the Western-European and the South-East Asian countries. Was Nehru—the scientifically-minded person—going more by personal bias than by facts!

A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart;
an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

—David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister in 1920

Post independence, and till the early 1950s, India did command great respect and prestige around the world, and there were lots of expectations from democratic India as a beacon for other developing countries, particularly the erstwhile colonial ones, to follow. Unfortunately, Nehru’s policies proved so disastrous on the ground that all hopes stood belied. Nehru’s socialism delivered a monumental tragedy lacking not only in growth and poverty alleviation, but also in delivering social justice.

“He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy.”

—Chester Bowles, US Ambassador to India during Nehru's time

Nehru, through his anti-private-sector policies, throttled industrialisation. Further, not learning anything from Japan and others, who had dramatically prospered with their outward-looking, export-led growth, India under Nehru went in for inward-looking, import-substitution model, denying itself a world-class, competitive culture, incentive for production of quality products, share in the world-trade, and the consequent prosperity. Instead, India invested heavily in the inefficient public sector, over-regulated and strangulated private enterprise, shunned foreign capital, and ignored better technology. India under Nehru also neglected the two vital sectors—agriculture and education.

“Nehru’s inability to rise above his deep-rooted Marxist equation of Western capitalism with imperialism, and his almost paranoid, partly aristocratic, distrust of free enterprise in its most successful form as ‘vulgar’, cost India dearly in retarding its overall development for the remaining years of his rule, as well as for the even longer reign of his more narrowly doctrinaire daughter.”

—Stanley Wolpert

Nehru and the socialists never understood what it really took to create wealth and banish poverty, and persisted with their sterile, copycat methods. Socialists concerned themselves more with the distribution of wealth, than with its creation. They shunned understanding the complexity of wealth creation. Nations which understood this raced ahead, created wealth and also managed to distribute it, while India failed to create the wealth itself, what to speak of distributing it: India stagnated.

Being not a communist state, we cannot fully throttle private enterprise, but we can certainly keep them on a tight leash—thought the thrilled, socialist bureaucracy, sensing all power coming to them. It is the State which has to be dominant, and has to achieve Commanding Heights. Still, if anybody is foolish enough to still wish to set up private industries and businesses, they need to first take our permission, and we would make it so complex for them that most would give up even before they got permissions, and those who manage to get permissions—of course, after greasing palms—would face so many regulatory hurdles, in practice, that they would give up later; except, of course, those who continue to grease palms.
It would be wrong to call babus mere babus and not entrepreneurs. They have been running very efficient private enterprises of loot for themselves and their netas based on very skilful investment of their authority. It was Rajaji who had so rightly coined the term licence-permit-quota raj, and alleged that to be the reason for the Congressmen and the officials getting rich.

Rather than doing a course correction, Indira Gandhi made the things far worse by indulging in more of socialism, nationalisation and bureaucratisation; Rajiv lacked competence to do anything worthwhile; while the UPA set about undoing or reversing the Narsimha Rao—Vajpayee legacy. Rahul Gandhi still mouths the failed old socialistic clap trap! The Congress and the Dynasty seem to be incorrigible!!

Whom does socialism benefit?

Socialism and leftism is something which benefits large sections of vested interests, but not the intended beneficiaries. Why do poor, who can ill-afford, prefer private schools to Government schools, private hospitals to Government hospitals? They know that this socialist claptrap is for the babus and politicians to make money, not to help them. Communism and socialism assume the State as a kind, empathetic mai-baap, meant to do good for the people; when the experience and the practical reality is that very often it is the State—through its agency of politicians, babus and police—that is the biggest exploiter and mafia around.

The real beneficiaries of socialism are the politicians, bureaucrats, and the leftist academia, intellectuals, NGOs and media that stand to gain by aligning themselves with the establishment.

Why did India fail?
Not socialism!
The Alibi...

Leftists are amazingly innovative in manufacturing a slew of excuses. India didn’t fail because of socialism! In fact, there wasn’t enough of it. Nehru was too soft. What about Indira? Yes, she did ram through things, but there were so many other factors. Actually, it’s a problem of national character. We are not disciplined enough; nor hard-working. We are lazy. See the Japanese. We are too self-centred and selfish. We lack collective spirit. Besides, it was that wretched “Hindu rate of growth!”… Leftists are capable of being one up even on the colonialists or the colonially-minded Nirad Chaudhurys, and can dish out reasons far more wild. That’s because, for them, facts don’t come in the way. They overstep and sidestep the facts with their shrill rhetoric.

Why is the economy doing relatively much better since Narsimha Rao led liberalisation in the early nineties? Have the lazy of the old days suddenly become very hard-working? Has the national character changed for the better? Are people now more disciplined? Why are Indians now considered more hard-working and more capable than many Americans, English and Europeans?

Despite all the evidence, the leftists would not admit that it was a plain, bad, borrowed Nehruvian economic model of socialism that did us in. The Western-European countries devastated by the Second World War—particularly West Germany, which was reduced to rubble—recovered from the ashes, progressed and became highly prosperous. Japan was totally ravaged by the War and the Atomic Bomb. Remember that Raj Kapoor song of the fifties, “Mera joota hai Japani ...” pointing to the torn shoes, representing the condition of Japan then. Japan recovered, quickly industrialised, and grew at over 9% for over twenty-three years, to become one of the largest economies of the world. India, in contrast, was untouched by the war and the devastation. Yet, India remained a poor third-rate third-world country.

As per the article “World’s Only RDC” in India Today’s issue of 12 August 2013, Japan, which had almost the same GDP as India in the early 1950s, grew so fast that by 1980, India’s GDP was a mere 17% of Japan’s. Japan grew at massive 18% annually during the 15-year period starting 1965 and took its GDP from 91 billion dollars to a mammoth 1.1 trillion dollars by 1980. In 1982, India’s per capita income was 39% higher than China’s; but, by 2012, it had become mere 24% of China’s—during the period China’s per capita income grew 30 times, while India’s grew mere 5 times. South Korea’s per capita income is currently 1400% that of India, although at the time of our Independence it was on par! While India is variously terms as a Developing Country or as LDC, Less Developed Country, or as UDC, Under Developed Country, the article finds India uniquely as an RDC—Refusing-to-Develop-Country.

“Unless people change... can’t progress!” argument

“People are like that… Unless people change… Unless the society improves,... Unless the society takes active interest... nothing would change… Politics is but a reflection of the society...” goes another argument.

However, there is little evidence to show that the prosperous countries have become prosperous thanks not to the competence of its leaders, but to its amorphous public and civil society which suddenly decided to improve itself and take active interest in the well-being of the nation. There is no evidence to show that it was not Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent leaders, but the suddenly awakened common Singaporeans, who, by themselves, took Singapore to such heights. Yes, good leaders choose competent teams, inspire people, motivate them and take the nation ahead with their cooperation; but it is rare that general public by itself, without a competent leadership, transforms a nation. India’s tragedy has been a lack of genuinely competent leadership. Our so-called great leaders were really Lilliputs.

Common man is busy earning his or her livelihood. They are working on their chosen vocations and thus contributing to the society. They have outsourced supply of water, electricity and other utilities to companies at an agreed payment. Similarly, they have outsourced development of the nation and maintenance of towns, villages, cities, provision of security, and so on to elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats and technocrats. Each of them, whether a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat, is getting paid by the public (indirectly through taxes) to perform its allocated work. Just as each member of the public is doing its job (as a banker or an IT professional or a factory worker, and so on), so also each of its (indirectly) appointed persons (a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat) ought to do his or her work. It is because these appointed or elected politicians and babus, whose cost is borne by the public, are failing to perform their tasks that the nation is going to dogs. Hence, it is illogical to blame the society or public. Of course, having elected or appointed these politicians and babus, it is the duty of the electing/appointing authority—the general public—to take them to task for non-performance and ensure they serve them and do their allocated task.

Unless “people with character”, can’t take off!

So goes the plea of many. Including that of the organisation devoted to “character building”, and which claims monopoly on patriotism, on “what is good for India”, and on prescriptions for setting the country right.

These advocates of “character building” need to be asked: “Has the Indian character changed for the good or for the worse during the last 66 years after independence? Their answer would mostly be: it has changed for the worse. If so, where is the guarantee it would improve in the future. And, what if the character continues to remain the same for the next 1000 years? Is India then doomed for another millennium?”

Among the best cities in the world are several from Australia, which is now a first-rate, first-world country. It has no great civilisational heritage. Nor can it boast of “character” that has propelled it to where it is now. Their “character” heritage comprises murderers, rapists, dacoits, thieves, debtors, fraudsters, and the like, who were herded in ships in Britain and brought to Australia to undergo their jail terms. January 26 is celebrated as Australia Day, because in January 1788, eleven ships packed with convicts from Britain landed at Botany Bay in Sydney leading to the formation of the colony of New South Wales in Australia.
Priests, reformers and character-builders did not land in Australia to uplift the characters of the settler-convicts who made Australia their home. However, Australia dramatically progressed despite the “bad” characters and despite the absence of “character-builders”. Why? How? That’s what one must try to understand, and apply the lessons learnt to India, where applicable, rather than advancing silly pet theories like “requirements of character”. Competitive capitalism lies at the root of their prosperity. They never touched socialism even with a long pole.

Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent leaders of Singapore were not “Character-Builders”. They didn’t have that luxury of time, nor did they believe in those crazy notions. They knew what mattered was forward-looking economic policies and good governance. They therefore focussed on implementing solid competitive capitalism, coupled with developing well-paid, merit-driven and competent bureaucracy.

In the process of building and enhancing competitive capitalism, and with increasing prosperity and peace both in Singapore and Australia, the “character” automatically “improved”! It is well to remember that character is also shaped by economic condition. You can’t have millions in hunger and poverty and in wretched condition and with little to look forward to, and expect people to develop “good character”!

What is required is “the spirit of sacrifice”

Not true.

It would suffice to quote Ayn Rand:

“America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.”

Said Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Why are poor countries poor?

Are one or more of these the factors that make a country poor or prosperous: climate, geography, location, abundance of natural resources, race, religion, history, “type of people”, “character of people”?
No. None of these.

Poor countries are poor because those who have power
make choices that create poverty.

—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
in ‘Why Nations Fail : The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’

The determining factor are the human-made institutions. ‘Extractive Institutions’ cause poverty and misery, while ‘Inclusive Institutions’ lead to prosperity and freedom. Extractive institutions are normally the feature of monarchy, feudal system, political or military dictatorships, fascism, socialism and communism. Capitalist societies that are not fairly capitalist, or where crony capitalism prevails, may also lead to extractive institutions. Characteristics of inclusive institutions include: encouragement of investments; harnessing the power of markets by better allocation of resources; allowing entry of more efficient firms; ease of starting businesses and provision of finance for them; and generating broader participation in the economy through education and ease of entry for new entrants. Growth under inclusive institutions involves both creative destruction (replacement of the old methods, technology, industries by new) and investment in technology. Inclusive institutions are not compatible with socialism, communism and feudal societies, or with dictatorships and monarchies. Only a society with competitive capitalism is capable of having inclusive institutions.

“It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth. They certainly don't feel any ‘obligation’ to learn economics ...”

—Dr. Thomas Sowell

Could India have been a first-world country by 1980?

Yes, certainly. Extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan to become first-world countries by adopting competitive capitalism, and the time it took West Germany and Japan to rise from the ashes of the Second World War by adopting capitalist economy, it seems reasonable that India would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world country by 1980 had it too adopted competitive capitalism and befriended the West.

Why Persist with the Failed Model?

Just because India, thanks to the lead given by Nehru-Indira, chose the disastrous economic model of socialism, it does not mean we need to persist with those defective and failed ideas of mankind. Sadly, Nehru’s legacy lives on—his socialist way of thought still flourishes—and it remains a challenge to uproot it.

The socialist monster unleashed by Nehru is worse than Frankenstein’s. Frankenstein’s monster voluntarily decided to disappear after its creator’s death. Not so the socialist monster. It continues with its insidious ways. And so also India’s Kaliyug fashioned by Nehru’s socialistic dreams gone sour.

Outlook wise and also materially, India is still largely feudal, and  it appears that the feudal ways and the Marxist-socialistic ways gel well, as both are driven by paternalistic mai-baap mentality: Sarkar knows best.

That Japan achieved what it did, and so also South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, was because their leaders refused to follow the politically convenient and self-serving populist socialistic path to nowhere. Thanks to the wisdom that dawned upon China, it  junked its socialistic past, tremendously improved its governance, and is now a super power both economically and militarily. That India remains an RDC is thanks solely to our politicians, economists and intellectuals of the socialistic and leftist variety.

China bid good bye to Marxism in 1979; Berlin wall came down in 1989; USSR fell apart in 1991; host of Eastern-European countries have given up the communist ghost; Cuba is lately struggling to liberalise; poor North Koreans, thanks to continuing communism, remain condemned; yet, in India, the killing fields of socialism are yet to be fully exorcised—socialism is still respectable in India, many advocating it are still considered intellectuals, while many socialists-communists continue to win elections. Nehruvian socialism has yet to be given a burial. Unfortunately, several prominent members of even young political outfits like the Kejrival’s  AAP mouth the same stale jargon that has taken India to dogs.

Why socialism-leftism still remain popular?

“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields…

“...the vast majority of intellectuals don’t really originate any ideas, but they peddle ideas that other people have originated.  And that gives them a great deal of freedom, because ideas are so malleable. Words are so malleable.  Reality is not malleable.  And so, they can believe in all sorts of things which have no realistic possibility, and which are fatal time and again in history. But because they know how to rephrase it and repackage it, they can just keep right on going…

“Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.”

—Thomas Sowell

It remains popular because it has very smartly been projected as pro-poor. Who popularise it to be so? Of course, the ones who have vested interest in it. The politicians and the babus and the parasitic intellectuals and the media that have been benefitting from it have  publicised it as benefitting the masses. And they have succeeded!

Although liberalisation since 1993 has resulted in a  sea change, it has not delivered enough, and the growth has not been inclusive enough. The reason is not liberalisation—it is very insufficient liberalisation. The necessary preventive, detective,  regulatory and penal systems to control corruption have not kept pace with the massive economic changes post-1991, thanks to the rapacious politician-babu combine, who have retained the pre-1991 setup.

The human cost of delayed economic reforms is tremendous—additional millions unemployed or under-employed, additional millions of infant deaths, additional millions in poverty and misery. But, all these, the Jholawallahs would not appreciate. They would stick to their self-serving poverty-for-ever agenda, lest they become irrelevant. People trapped in the mindset of Nehruvian socialism fail to appreciate that India’s poorest would benefit substantially from economic reforms.

Socialists strut around pretending they are pro-disadvantaged and pro-oppressed. Nobody can beat them in sheer hypocrisy. They are still engaged in their hopeless fight against progress, and are committed to make a West Bengal of India.

Lack of Rightist Leadership

It is India’s tragedy that rational, bold, no-nonsense, rightist leadership and influential intellectual class that unapologetically supports competitive capitalism is absent. It is a crucial handicap in tackling poverty and in India’s rise to a prosperous first-world nation.

It is high time the general voting public was educated to realise that leftism, socialism and sops would take them nowhere and would condemn them further to a life of want and misery; and that the jholawallahs, like the religious and communal fundamentalists and the casteists, belong to the past, and have no relevance for modern India.

Sadly the leftist “intellectual” brand and the leftist politics predominate in India. It’s a vicious cycle. Leftist-socialist vote-catching-sops create poverty and misery. In turn, poverty and misery fuel further socialism and sops. The worse you get, the more leftist and socialist you become!

Practically all regional parties—SP, RJD, JDU, Trinamool Congress, ...—profess to be socialists. The Congress is anyway an opportunist socialist and “electoral secular” party. Even the BJP had once professed to be a Gandhian socialist party. AAP, a young party, with many young professional faces, was expected to be different. But, they plan to be more socialist that all the other parties put together!

Is it that Indian intellectuals and politicians—both young and old—lack courage, and want only to play the safe, populist way, and socialism comes in handy.

Much was expected of Narendra Modi. He had made all the right noises. “Maximum governance, minimum government”, “Government has no business to be in business”, and so on. But, you don’t find much movement on ground. After overlong six decades of criminal wastage of time and opportunities, an urgency in rectifying the wrongs was being eagerly looked forward to. The hopes are again being belied! Congress or BJP or over a dozen major regional parties: all seem content with the status quo of socialistic populist mumbo jumbo. If the heavy cost of the same is India dragging itself slowly towards prosperity, while missing available opportunities, and millions of India’s poor persisting even longer in their poverty and misfortune—so be it! But, of course, Modi's government has been in control for only the last 18 months; and they have already demonstrated that they are far, far superior to UPA. They still have many months to go to fulfil their promises before the 2019 elections. Modi is a capable leader, and much is expected of him. Hope he would junk the socialistic path to nowhere, and propel India into a prosperous first-world country!

Conclusion

The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate empirical evidence…

…When the world fails to conform to their vision, then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not that their vision is uninformed or unrealistic.

—Thomas Sowell

Given that not a single socialist-communist country has ever been prosperous, and given incontrovertible proof of all-round global failure of socialism-communism, one has to agree with Thomas Sowell, the noted American economist, philosopher and author: “Leftism or socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” And, if an intellectual continues to live in denial despite glaring proofs, can the person be considered an intellectual in the real sense? Doesn’t “Leftist intellectual” then sound like an oxymoron?

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
November 1, 2015
www.rkpbooks.com

Nehruvians / Leftist "Secular-Liberals": Their Shallowness & Lamentable Lack of Integrity

Nehruvians / Leftist "Secular-Liberals"

Their Shallowness & Lamentable Lack of Integrity 

“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields… "

"...the vast majority of intellectuals don’t really originate any ideas, but they peddle ideas that other people have originated.  And that gives them a great deal of freedom, because ideas are so malleable. Words are so malleable.  Reality is not malleable.  And so, they can believe in all sorts of things which have no realistic possibility, and which are fatal time and again in history. But because they know how to rephrase it and repackage it, they can just keep right on going… "

"Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.”

—Thomas Sowell

The more you hear or read the statements of the Sahitya Academy Awards returnees, the harangues of the anchors on TV, the comments of the commentariat on the MSM, the headlines in print-media, the challenging tweets of a section of the twitterati the more you wonder at the quality of the intellectual discourse in India. Often, it’s not an intellectual discourse, but an agenda-driven political discourse. It comprises less of facts, past history, experience of other regions and countries, telling examples, cause and effect, in-depth analysis, convincing arguments, well-founded conclusions, and illuminating way forward. Instead, it is more of highlighting selective facts, or distorting facts, or economising on facts, sweeping generalisations, unfounded theories, innuendoes, name-calling, labelling, type-casting, grandstanding, and rubbishing or elevating something or somebody. What is worse is the dishonesty! Subtle dishonesty to extreme cases of brazen, shameless dishonesty. Driven by some selfish agenda, commercial purpose or grouse.

We would take up the defining attributes of this class of (Nehruvian Leftist "Secular-Liberals") intellectuals who dominate MSM, academia, Sarkari or Sarkari-sponsored institutions, and so on. But, first let us briefly look at a few recent cases.

Dadri Case

Take the case of Dadri beef-lynching. On the night of 28 September 2015 in Bisara village near Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, a mob of people attacked a Muslim family, and killed 52-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi (Ikhlaq) and seriously injured his son, 22-year-old Danish, on suspicion of killing of a cow, and consumption of its meat.

It is obviously a condemnable, unlawful act deserving of harshest punishment. Even assuming the rumours were correct (which does not appear to be the case), the mob had no business to take the law into their hands: they should have complained to the police, if they had an issue.

Who should be taken to task? Those involved in the actual crime. Those responsible for rumours and for vitiating the atmosphere that led to the heinous act. The local UP police and administration which failed to nip the problem in the bud, even though the atmosphere was being vitiated over the last few days before the happening of the actual incident.

Besides the above, those who have since been milking the incident for their own agenda also need to be shown their place. You can’t be allowed to whip up wider disaffection. Such groups must be taken to task.
On the other hand, you can’t blame or slam those who cannot legitimately be blamed for it. How is the PM Modi responsible? Law and order is a state subject. The responsibility clearly lies with the UP government headed by the Samajwadi Party. How can the PM be made answerable for a law and order incident that happens in a state? And, if so, there have been scores of as heinous or worse incidents that have happened in West Bengal, Kerala, and several other states over the past 16 months. Why not blame Modi for them too? Why blame for this alone?

Did anyone in the Central government defend the incident? No. Everyone, from the HM to FM to others, has condemned it in strongest terms. President Mukherjee also condemned it. But, why did Modi not condemn it? Well, he did—quite unambiguously. But, why so late? That’s true. He should have done it earlier.

But, can that be reason enough to pan Modi and the Central government. It can be an excuse to condemn him, but not reason enough. Far worse things have happened on numerous occasions during the reign of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv and Manmohan Singh. Why was there no similar condemnation. There were far more compelling reasons earlier to return the awards. Why that never happened?

A well-known anti-cow slaughter activist was attacked and beaten by a Muslim mob in October 2014 in Bangalore (in Congress-ruled Karnataka) for merely distributing his book arguing against cow slaughter. Was there an outrage? Recently, an anti-cow slaughter activist Prashanth Poojary was hacked to death in Moodbidri in Mangaluru on 9 October 2015 by a gang of six Muslims. The eyewitness was also killed later. Initially, the case was ignored by the MSM and the English TV channels, but when there was a furore in the social media, the TV channels were left with no alternative but to show it on TV. So much for the partisan, agenda-driven coverage of the major section of the MSM and TV!

A group of female Muslim activists from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) requesting vegan Eid were threatened with stoning and stripping by a mob of Muslim men in September 2014 in Bhopal. Was there an outrage?

Kalburgi Case

This is a law and order matter of the state of Karnataka ruled by the Congress. How can Modi and the Central government be held accountable?

Further, both the Kalburgi case and the Dadri case are under investigation by the respective (non-Congress) state governments. Is the Modi government trying to shield the possible culprits. No! They have no say or jurisdiction. Is there even an informal attempt to save specific groups or individuals? There is NO such allegation even! Then, on what rational or factual grounds are the awards being returned or Modi being panned?

Incidentally, Dabholkar was murdered in 2013 when the Congress was in power both at the State and at the Centre. Why was there no outrage against the Congress then?

Growing intolerance? Freedom-of-Expression situation worse?

There is now a bandwagon effect: the whole cabal is being encouraged and prodded to protest and return awards. Reportedly, Salman Rushdie and Amitav Ghosh have also joined them condemning restriction on freedom of expression. Have Rushdie or Ghosh cared to ascertain the truth? Day-in and day-out these groups have been freely (and without any valid reason) panning Modi and his government on MSM and TV—no holds barred—without any repercussions whatsoever! And, yet copycat Rushdie and Ghosh join them in condemning restriction on freedom of expression. Let them give at least one specific instance of the Modi-government having curbed the freedom of expression.

Such protests could have been legitimate during the reign of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv and Sonia-Rahul-MMS, when these very people maintained stony silence! What was the stand of these people during the Emergency?

Is the communal situation worse?

The communal position in the BJP-ruled states seems to be relatively much better. There appear to be relatively more communal incidents in non-BJP ruled states like UP, Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and Karnataka. Communal incidents are not only what Hindus do to Muslims, they are also what Muslims or Christians do to Hindus.

There have been numerous terrible communal incidents during the Congress rule at the Centre. Here are some of the major ones: 2013 Muzzafarnagar riots, 2013 Canning riots in WB, 2012 Assam violence, 2008 Tumudibandh massacre in Odisha, 2006 Doda massacre, long-running riots in Gujarat prior to 2002, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, 1984 anti-Sikh attacks, 1983 Nellie massacre, 1980 Mandai massacre of Tripura, 1980 Muradabad riots, and so on. One would like to be enlightened on the stand taken by these intellectuals on the incidents.

What of These Much-Worse Incidents/Situations?

It’s good to see writers becoming such activists in the interest of the freedom of speech and tolerance so precious for all of us. However, why such sudden, belated waking up? There have been many, many more, and much, much worse incidents in the past. What had been the stand of various persons in this group in respect of those incidents? Let us list just a few from that very long list:

Riots

There have been numerous terrible communal incidents during the Congress rule at the Centre. Here are some of the major ones: 2013 Muzzafarnagar riots, 2013 Canning riots in WB, 2012 Assam violence, 2008 Tumudibandh massacre in Odisha, 2006 Doda massacre, long-running riots in Gujarat prior to 2002, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, 1984 anti-Sikh attacks, 1983 Nellie massacre, 1980 Mandai massacre of Tripura, 1980 Muradabad riots, and so on.

Communists vs. “freedom of expression”

How does their demand for “freedom of expression” fit-in when many of them are supporters of dictatorial, anti-democratic organisations like Maoists and Naxalites. Since when did communists started worrying about “freedom of expression”?

Intellectual freedom is a function of the free market. As Ayn Rand said: “Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

Taslima Nasrin Case

People like these and those whom they support or sympathise with hounded out the brilliant outspoken writer Taslima Nasrin from West Bengal in 2007. Incident much worse than face-blackening of Sudhindra Kulkarni was perpetrated on her in Hyderabad by the Muslim organisation AIMIM. Fatwas to eliminate her were issued. Even the Central Government under the Congress behaved in the most cruel and unbecoming fashion with the poor lady, who had no one to protect her; forcing her ultimately to move to Sweden in 2008.

Where were these freedom-of-expression-wallas when all this had been happening over the years? Not one of them either protested or returned the award! Hypocrisy, opportunism and grandstanding seem to know no bounds.

Terror Attacks

26/11 terror attacks that showed total lack of preparedness by the Congress at the State and the Central level, and grossly poor response that prolonged the period of attack and resulted in increased casualty and loss of property. Not just that—no accountability of those responsible, no proper punishment! Did you protest? Similar position in numerous other terror attacks.

— Sanjay Gandhi’s bestial sterilisation drive.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 1984 resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries.

The Congress state government under Arjun Singh and the Congress central government under Rajiv Gandhi surprisingly facilitated the escape of the one of the culprits, Warren Anderson of Union Carbide. Did they protest?

What was even more amazing, and beyond all bounds of sensitivity (particularly for a poet), was the organisation of World Poetry Festival in Bhopal in December 1984 after the Gas Tragedy by their colleague and award-returnee, the poet from MP and a culture bureaucrat Ashok Vajpeyi! (http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-literary-mafia/200102) Uday Prakash, another of your colleague, Hindi poet and short story writer, considers Vajpeyi unworthy of the two awards given to him, and calls him a “power broker” disguised as a poet. “Nobody takes Vajpeyi seriously in Hindi literature. History will remember him as a culture czar who doled out patronage,” says Prakash.

— Rajiv Gandhi's regressive stand in Shah Bano Case.

Massive Corruption Cases during Nehru/Indira/Rajiv/Sonia-Rahul-MMS period

Multiple mega corruptions and open loot during UPA-I and II of a poor country of hungry millions. Didn’t it prick the conscience of these poets and writers and artists? Did they protest?

Reduction of Democracy into Corrupt Dynacracy (Dynastic Democracy)

Shameless continuance of the Dynasty rule, so detrimental for the Congress and the country. Has the group ever raised its voice against it?

— Brutal chopping off of hands at the wrist of TJ Joseph, a professor in Kerala, by  members of Popular Front of India, a radical Muslim fanatic organisation in 2010.

— Nirbhaya case.

Cow-Slaughter & Beef-Ban

As for beef-ban and such matters, The Indian Express, Mumbai of 8 October 2015 (http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-no-beef-nation/) clarifies the position state-wise. In all states, except West Bengal, Kerala and some North-Eastern states, there has largely been a ban on cow-slaughter or consumption of beef since last many years. There is little new that the Modi or the BJP state governments have done.

Told senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh: “I am surprised the BJP does not know that out of the 29 states, cow slaughter is banned in 24 states. And in most of these states, the prohibition was imposed by Congress governments. The Congress Working Committee had passed a resolution in the 1930s seeking a ban on cow slaughter. There was a ban on cow slaughter during Mughal rule. In the Bhopal riyasat of the Nawab, there was a ban on cow slaughter.”

On the claim that India is the “largest beef-exporting country”, and the challenge of the UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav daring the Central government to end beef-exports, the Union Minister of Commerce Nirmala Sitharaman has clarified that the export of beef (meat of cow, oxen and calf) is already prohibited, and that only boneless meat of buffalo, male and female (not beef) and meat of goat and sheep is permitted to be exported. Many who claim to be eating beef may actually be eating buffalo meat. On states stipulating bans and dictating people's dietary preferences Digvijaya Singh of the Congress said: “First of all, there should be a debate on the definition of beef. Is buffalo meat beef? Then, every section should be consulted as sentiments of a particular community are involved.”

Would it not be more fruitful for the award-returnees and a section of the MSM and intellectuals to relentlessly pursue the matter with the UP and the Karnataka governments to ensure the culprits are brought to book? But, have they done anything of the sort? No. What then would any reasonable person conclude? There is a section which is influential, articulate and inventive enough to deflect all blame and responsibilities onto the Modi government, irrespective of the source or cause of the issues.

Over the last month, one also witnessed certain senior journalists, media personalities and intellectuals aggressively advertising their beef-eating and “dripping blood” meat-eating preferences. Among the provocative tweets was: “I just ate beef. Come and murder me.” That amounts to incitement! To what pathetic standards have these “secular-liberals” have fallen!! If cow-slaughter or beef-eating is forbidden by law in a state, would you incite the public to break the law? You are, of course, free to carry out a peaceful agitation to change the law. But, these “secular-liberals” are in competition to prove their “liberal”-“secular” credentials by being as abusive as possible towards the Hindu sentiments, and be as favourable as possible towards those of the Muslims. It’s another matter that a large number of Muslims themselves may not subscribe to their nonsense! This group behaved in a similar disgraceful and obnoxious manner with regard to ban of a few days on slaughter/sale of meat keeping the feelings of Jains (the most compassionate, peaceful and least-demanding group of India, which has contributed tremendously to India’s growth) in mind. No wonder this cabal is referred derisively as “Sickulars” and “Fiberals” meaning fake-Seculars and fake-Liberals.

A liberal state should not direct or dictate what one should or should not eat. But, gone are the days when westernised, colonially-minded Indians were dismissive of everything Indian and Hindu, and used to contemptuously refer to vegetarians as “ghas-foos” eaters. A growing number of persons are turning vegetarians and vegans out of their concern for personal health, environment and compassion for animals.

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth, as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
-- Albert Einstein:

“I've been a vegetarian for years and years. I'm not judgemental about others who aren't, I just feel I cannot eat or wear creatures who once lived.”
-- Drew Barrymore

“If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.”
-- Paul McCartney

One may remain non-vegetarian, but would one aggressively show off being one in such crude terms as demonstrated recently by a section of Indian journalists and intellectuals?

Attributes of the Dominant
(Nehruvian / Leftist "Secular-Liberal")
Intellectual Class

Who are these people? What sort of intellectuals are they? If one tries to discover some commonalities one finds that they do answer to one or more of the following descriptions:

It has been said that “Intellectuals tend to have uneasy relationship with the status quo.” However, the class we are focusing on are those who have become uncomfortable with the change in status quo. They feel comfortable only when cocooned in their good, old “secular”, socialistic, I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, mutually beneficial, quid pro quo milieu.

Socialists

They are light pink to deep red communists, Marxists or socialists, or some sort of leftists. They find ways to defend Maoists and Naxalites, and present rationale for their indefensible actions. Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned, self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism as a science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has failed—it has been proven wrong both in theory and in practice. Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. (Nehru was one such person.)

Many became Marxists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, rational, progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to the dismay of the Marxists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the wrong side; and their science—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be an alchemy!

Facts, figures, statistics and ground-level experiences of various countries prove that all brands of leftist politics—Communist, Socialist, Fabian, Nehruvian, and so on—are inherently incapable of delivering anything positive for any nation or for its poor. In fact, they have actually been at the root of poverty, want and stagnation. There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose poor were better off under communism or socialism. The general experience is that while capitalism and free markets create prosperity, socialism invariably creates poverty. Thomas Sowell has stated: “Leftism or socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” These are such intellectuals.

In an interview, Nayantara Sahgal, who has returned the award, claimed, rather proudly, that she was a socialist. Shows the frozen state of these intellectuals—still living in the bad old Nehruvian times! If they are indeed true intellectuals they should have studied the state of socialism around the world and in India, and should have known its gross failure, and that as the reason for continued poverty and misery in India. Margaret Thatcher had said long back: “To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

“It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth. They certainly don't feel any ‘obligation’ to learn economics ...”

—Dr. Thomas Sowell

 “Seculars”

To qualify as a “secular” (as per their definition) is easy. Generally rubbish things Hindu or Indian. Invent arguments in support of anything related to Muslims, quite irrespective of its merits.

Maintain deafening silence on abductions, rapes, riots, violence by Muslims in West Bengal, Kerala, Kashmir and elsewhere; but play up even a minor or alleged incident against them.

It is a common knowledge that 99% of the conversions from Hinduism are illegal: based on monetary enticements or con-job or threat or violence. But, the conscience of these freedom-of-religion-wallas does not prick at these grossly illegal, irreligious and cruel acts. They can’t risk being dubbed anti-Christian or anti-Muslim. But, they have huge issues with “ghar-wapasi”(back to Hinduism), even when they are legal, ignoring the fact that aggregate “ghar-wapasi” is a miniscule percentage of conversions from Hinduism. They are too “secular” to consider the possible long-term effects of illegal conversions on national integrity; nor do they care to study history of India and other countries in this regard. That’s a taboo subject for them—likely to deprive them of their intellectual tag. For similar reasons, they are always keen to play down or explain away abnormal differences in population growth.

Terror & “Secularism”

These “seculars”, aided by their friends in the MSM, blow up stray incidents of (mostly retaliatory) violence by some Hindu fringe groups and present them as “Hindu Terror”. The purpose is to have something to counterbalance the real terror, which is the one conducted by Islamic groups. This allows them to posit “Hindu Terror” against “Islamic Terror” and show as if the two are on par. The so-called “Hindu Terror” in terms of deaths, injuries and destruction of property may be only 0.0001% of the “Islamic Terror” in India, and further far, far less globally, making the tag “Hindu Terror” itself a misnomer; but facts, figures and statistics do not matter for these “secular” intellectuals.

To further shield the “Islamic” part, assuming the general public are fools, or not as intelligent as they are, they have invented new ways to describe terror: “Terror has no religion!” or “These so-called Islamic terrorists don’t follow true Islam!” It’s another matter that the Islamic terror groups consider themselves to be the real followers of true Islam engaging in Islam-ordained jihad and implementing Allah’s Sharia law,  liberally quoting from the foundational scriptures of Quran, Sunnah, Sira and Hadith.

Israel & “Secularism”

All these worthies blindly support Arabs and Palestinians against Israel. Why? Their definition of leftist-secularist-liberal credentials demand they blindly support Muslims against people of all other religions, be they Jews or Hindus or Christians.

77% of the British Mandate for Palestine was hived off as an exclusive Arab/Muslim state of Jordan, leaving just 23% for the Jews, yet that tiny percentage for the Jews is resented by these “liberal” “secularists”. Why shouldn’t the Arab refugees/Palestinians be absorbed by the surrounding Arab countries, rather than creating on-going problems and headache for the Jews? Weren’t lacs of Jews from the Arab lands thrown out by the Arabs absorbed by tiny Israel? Did Israel demand a piece of land from those Arab nations who threw away the Jews living there for centuries?

Israel’s total area is about 21,000 sq km, which is about 0.12% of the area of Russia (the largest country by area), 0.22% that of USA, 5.88% that of Germany, 6.72% that of Poland; and 0.97% that of Saudi Arabia, 1.27% that of Iran, 2.09% that of Egypt, 4.79% that of Iraq, 6.79% that of Oman, 11.34% that of Syria, 23.5% that of Jordan and 25.12% that of UAE. Israel occupies a negligible 0.01% of the earth’s surface.

There are 126 and 49 countries where the majority religion is Christianity and Islam respectively, while there are only 2 countries (India and Nepal) where the majority religion is Hinduism, and just 1 country where it is Judaism—Israel.

Out of the estimated world-population of about 7.1 billion, mere 0.22% are Jews, while the Christians are 33.4%,  Muslims 22.7%, Hindus 13.8%, Buddhists 6.8%, Sikhs 0.35%, ...

Despite the above position, the “liberals” and “seculars” don’t seem to appreciate that we all—all countries and people of the world—have an obligation to protect the little that the Jews now have for themselves, and ensure they leave in peace and security.

“Liberals”

Without the burden of deep study and scholarship, they have a cheap and convenient way of self-certification as a liberal. As peace-loving, forward-looking, neutral intellectual (self-given adjectives) observers, they put India and Pakistan on par and wonder why the two can’t amicably resolve their disputes. Their grand and deep understanding is that there are good and bad people on both sides. What is needed is for the track-2/3 people like them on both the sides to get together periodically in 5 or 7 stars, and take forward the dialogue over single malts. Have these “liberals” ever questioned Pakistan on their suppression of the people of Baluchistan?  

Ignoring the incontestable legality of J&K’s accession to India with the signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26 October 1947, these intellectuals term the Indian Army’s presence in J&K as an occupying force and/or call for a plebiscite, even though during 1947-48 Pakistan had itself rejected it twice, and has never fulfilled the UN condition of vacating PoK for a fair plebiscite to take place. Unspeakable atrocities committed against Kashmiri Pandits has never disturbed them. They have never organised or protested to ensure justice for them. Why? Their code of conduct forbids them from empathising with the Hindus. Equally, they can’t be seen to be saying anything against the Muslims.

They are “liberals”, but fatwas that are illegal, curbing of freedom of expression on/in Islam, severe restrictions on women in Islam do not agitate them, because that kind of liberalism would be contradictory to their brand of secularism.

Fascists

These worthies love to call their opponents fascists. It’s their favourite term of abuse. Ironically, they fail to realise that no state or nation has been more fascist-like than that under communism and socialism. One knows the examples of USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the current regime, and so on. One is also aware of India of Emergency under the “great” socialist Indira Gandhi, heartily supported by the communists.

Distortionists of History

For them, the glorious period in the Indian history is the Mughal period. They paint it in liberal terms and go ga-ga about it, airbrushing the actual realities then and the gross cruelties committed. They come up with varied arguments on things like “why Aurungzeb Road in New Delhi should not be renamed”. There is a comment by Peter Drucker: “No one ever failed to find a reason one was looking for.” Vijaynagaram and South Indian kingdoms are normally ignored, or just mentioned in passing. Distorted and biased presentation of Indian history is their speciality. Many of them are also colonial lackeys. Have any of these worthies or a group of them attempted to compile something like “Black Book of British Colonialism in India”, “Black Book of Islam in India”, “Black Book of Christianity in India”, on the lines of “Black Book on Communism”?

One of the first tasks after independence should have been honest and faithful re-writing of Indian history that had been thoroughly distorted by the English. A competent team should have been set-up to do justice to it. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened. If anything the biased, distorted history written by the English continued. Rather than demolishing it, our “eminent” sarkari historians reinforced the nonsense. These self-serving, dishonest Nehruvian-Marxist academics, apart from the anglophiles, have done great disservice to the profession of writing history. They sidelined the genuine ones, sending them to oblivion. Why have they done so? It paid to be so. You came in the good books of Nehru, himself an anglophile, and thereafter in the good books of his dynasty. You got good positions and assignments. Academic mediocrity was no hindrance to promotions and plum positions as long as you toed the Nehruvian-Marxist-Socialist line. Not only that, by being pro-British or being soft on the British, you got invited by the West and the Whites for academic assignments, lectures, seminars, and so on. Also, your mediocre writings got published abroad, and were well-reviewed. You also got Indian and international awards. In other words, it paid to be dishonest, unprofessional and abusive to the real India.

Language Issue

On the language issue, they are generally pro-English. They felt disturbed about introduction or further promotion of Sanskrit in schools. They would rather the honour went to German! They, of course, have their strong logic for it, like they have in other matters. Of course, if it was Urdu instead of Sanskrit, perhaps no hue and cry would have been raised.

Be Discreet

They may be writers, journalists and historians, but “What really happened to Netaji Subhas Bose?” are unnecessary, dead issues for them; and they wouldn’t like the country to waste their time and resources on the matter. They, of course, have “their reasons”. Similarly, they look down upon clamour for “digging up” Henderson-Brooks/Bhagat Report on 1962-debacle.

TIM: Traditional Indian Medicine

In their opinion, Ayurveda is a “Hindu science” that doesn’t deserve any promotion or encouragement. Many government institutions and military establishment still do not reimburse expenses incurred on Ayurvedic treatment. Such a state of affairs does not bother these worthies. So what if a Chinese lady has got a Nobel in TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine)? Not until the West gives pride of place to Ayurveda, would these fellows take notice.

Birds of the Same Feather

It would not be out of context to also mention about the group of US-based Indian academicians (almost all from humanities, and not from science or technology) who cautioned the Silicon Valley czars on Modi, again on indefensible, flimsy, concocted grounds. All these Leftists, Nehruvians, “Secular-Liberals” lack originality, and are carbon-copies of each other.

“Gandhians”

This cabal is quick to call themselves Gandhians. Gandhism has been given such projection that even a scoundrel would like to seen as a Gandhian: it helps hide/wash off sins. A crazy leftie called Maoists as “Gandhians with Guns!” When flaunting their pro-beef stunts, it does not occur to these fake Gandhians, what was the position of Gandhi on cow, cow-slaughter and beef. Like fake-Seculars and fake-Liberals, they are also fake-Gandhians.

Selective Women’s Rights

These groups are very vocal about women’s rights, but the regressive Islamic practices of Burka, Nikab, Oral-Triple-Talaaq, and so on do not bother them. Not that anything should be forced, but shouldn’t intellectuals undertake a peaceful movement to educate the public and change the regressive practices?

Defining Attribute

There are many more such attributes of this class of intellectuals. However, without going further on-and-on with them, let us understand their major and most common attribute, rather, a defining highlight. It’s that an overwhelming majority of them are Nehruvians, and/or have been supporters of Indira Gandhi and/or Rajiv Gandhi and/or Sonia-Rahul-MMS. They have essentially been pro-Nehru-Gandhi-Dynasty. They have gained from the Congress rule in one way or the other, and are beholden to the Dynasty. Now that the Dynasty is on a political decline, quid-pro-quo demands that if they can’t help the Dynasty get votes, the least that they can do is discredit the current political dispensation at the Centre.

Label

For necessity of a term, and absence of a suitable pre-existing nomenclature for them, let’s use simple, uncomplicated labels for them: Nehruvian Intellectuals (NI), Nehruvian Intellectual Class (NIC) or "Leftist-Secular-Liberals" (LSL).

Samples/Examples

Here are some random samples from the deep wisdom of this NIC. A few older ones are also chosen to demonstrate their consistency over the years.

Karan Thapar in Hindustan Times of 9 May 2009:

“...Priyanka Gandhi will be Prime Minister of India one day. ...My hunch is we are going to see a messy outcome of the present elections...And the pain of endurance will determine the outcome of the next election. That could be as early as 2011...the process that brings Modi to power will fracture or shatter the NDA. ...And I’d say his government will probably serve its full term...So it’s seven years down the road that Priyanka Gandhi will step on to the political stage. It will be the shock of the Modi victory...that will overcome both her philosophical distaste for politics as well as her emotional reluctance to replace her brother...Convincing Priyanka won’t be easy and it won’t happen quickly. In fact, she’ll have to convince herself...by accepting, but perhaps never admitting, that Rahul, the brother she adores, cannot restore the Congress fortunes or India’s self-image and self-respect. She’ll have to convince herself that her party and her country need her. And now, why do I believe if Priyanka steps into politics she could end up as PM? Because she has a magical spark that makes her compelling. It’s a combination of charm, charisma, presence, appearance and intelligence. You see it on TV, you sense it in her interviews and, if my colleagues are correct, it captivates the audiences she speaks to. She has one further quality which is particularly rare. She understands herself and is comfortable with who she is. It’s a sort of Buddhist self-awareness and it’s reassuring to encounter. It makes you want to believe in her. Yet this is why she will struggle and agonise over becoming a politician but, when she does, this is also why she will rise to the top...”

Do you notice what the senior journalist Karan Thapar thought were her credentials to become PM: ‘charm, charisma, presence, appearance, intelligence... Buddhist self-awareness.’ The first four ‘charm, charisma, presence, appearance’ are all related to looks; ‘intelligence’ ...this he senses; and finally, having run out of any further attributes, you have the mystical ‘Buddhist self-awareness’. The critical and the most vital attributes for becoming a PM do not seem to figure at all: experience, proven achievements, competence for the job, track record, thought process, views on matters of national importance, ability to deal with complexities,... Only trivialities seem to matter!

Shobha De in The Times of India of 3 May 2009:

“Oh me, oh my... Phase 3 of the Great Indian Circus is over, and there are so many people one feels like giving jhappis, pappis and thappads to. Let's start with a pappi. Mine is reserved for the Princess of India, Priyanka Gandhi (forget all the Vadra-Shadra business—Gandhi she was, and Gandhi she remains). Clearly, the Congress backed the wrong Gandhi...

“Rahul baba, the Dimpled Darling is sweet and likeable (gelato or jalebi? You decide). But Rahul baba is not a patch on Princess Priyanka when it comes to people skills... Which raises the million-dollar question—why did Sonia push Rahul the reluctant debutant into the fray, when Priyanka ought to have been the obvious choice? Maa ki mamtaa? A mother's blind spot for the beta? It may remain one of those annoying mysteries. Can, Rahul, the nominated heir to the Gandhi gaddi ever deliver? How long is the seat going to be kept hot for the political greenhorn?...

“Meanwhile, let us throw in an extra pyaar ki jhappi for the charming sis who campaigned convincingly, sincerely and tirelessly for the son who may or may not rise. Priyanka's theme song should be, ‘Pari Hoon Mein...’...”

How amusing? Beautiful people deserve to be PMs. The only catch is, if it is the looks that matter, why not Priyanka Chopra, why Priyanka Vadra? She beats that Vadra-Shadra hands down. Besides, Chopra is a self-made person. She is beautiful, smart and intelligent. It is not a cake walk to win a world beauty contest, and it takes guts and stuff to survive the Bollywood. And hard work and talent to reach the top. What has the other Priyanka proved herself in?

Extracts from Various Writings of Aakar Patel

Given below are extracts from an Anand Ranganathan’s article
(http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/12/17/modi-magic/) which is actually a compilation from various writings of Aakar Patel:

“…His [Modi’s] simple views spring from his lack of knowledge. He’s not well-read, has little idea about the world or its history. It will be embarrassing, if he becomes prime minister, to have him in the same meeting as US President Barack Obama…

“…Modi has never been to college and his degree is from a correspondence course. His writing, which is all in Gujarati, is mainly hagiography. It is mediocre and shows little awareness of the world. He has not travelled much outside India. His poetry is shockingly banal. Personally, I am not enamoured of a man who thinks up such rubbish. Unfortunately, his English is also poor, which, in my opinion, has contributed to leaving his mind unopened because there is little access to the world for the Gujarati-only individual…

“…I predict the decline of the BJP and the fragmentation of its state units into regional parties based on caste…

“…The middle-class Indian thinks he’s civilised but he has no comprehension of the meaning of the word. The damage is done by a Hindi-medium world view. Trying to fight it with English-medium tools will end in frustration. When he was only 33, Thomas Macaulay began producing the Indian Penal Code. The code, a colonial set of laws, remains in force in free India. This is because an Englishman accurately assessed us, and predicted our behaviour and our reaction to external stimulus. This makes Macaulay a very great man. He could tell with confidence in 1837 how Gujaratis would go bestial in 2002…”

“…We are a Congress-minded nation. What I mean is that Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress...

“…It is only under Sonia Gandhi that the party has again become the standard-bearer for Ashokan secularism. She will go down in history as the finest Congress leader along with Nehru. The one asset that Sonia Gandhi built for her dynasty from the time she became its head was an image of reticence and service…

“…Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment…”

Amartya Sen

Amartya Sen lent intellectual legitimacy to UPA's disastrous socialistic give-aways masquerading as economic policies, that were designed solely for narrow electoral gains.

Did the Nobel Laureate ever question the legitimacy of the Dynasty in a democracy? Rather, he generally supported them. Could the wise Nobel Laureate not fathom the utter shallowness of Rahul Gandhi. As a responsible citizen and an intellectual, did he not feel alarmed about India being weighed down by such mediocre leadership? There was, of course, the mutual quid pro quo. The Dynasty gained some legitimacy, while you gained importance, prominence and plum positions.

Sen even went to the absurd extent of inventing a suitable intellectual deflection for the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks. “There is no philosophy of killing Sikhs in the Congress,” he told NDTV in an interview. So, the act of killing becomes grave provided there is a philosophy of killing behind it. If there is no such philosophy, it is possible to explain it away! But, what about punishing those who did the act—even though there was “no philosophy of killing Sikhs in the Congress”? What about punishing those who were then sitting in top positions in the Central government, and did nothing to prevent the carnage? What about punishing those who were then in top positions in the Congress, and actually directed the attacks and the carnage? Did Sen ever put his prestige or awards behind ensuring the perpetrators of the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks were brought to justice? Did he question the complicity of the Congress at the highest level for that heinous crime? These intellectuals are quick to pan Modi even on things unrelated to him, or for which he can't be held accountable; but for the Congress and the Dynasty they can go to absurd extent to invent an intellectual alibi.

Khushwant Singh

Khushwant Singh was yet another sample from this "Secular Liberal" class. A good writer, but look at the stands he took from time to time.

A literary festival "Khushwant Singh LitFest" (KSLF 2015) was recently celebrated between 9 and 11 October 2015 in Kasauli by many freedom-of-expression wallas. Ironically, the person in whose name the LitFest was being celebrated was the one who was instrumental in getting "The Satanic Verses" of Salman Rushdie banned in India. In his review of the book in Illustrated Weekly, Khushwant Singh had proposed a ban on the book! The book was published by Viking Penguin on 26 September 1988. Promptly, before the end of October, the import of the book was banned in India (although its possession is not a criminal offence). Many other countries banned the book subsequently, but India had the pride of place in taking lead, thanks to the great "Secular Liberal" Khushwant Singh, and the terribly muddle-headed and short-sighted, and too-eager-to-please-Muslims-and-get-political-mileage Rajiv Gandhi of the Shah Bano Case fame.

The freedom-of-expression soldier and revered "Secular Liberal" Khushwant Singh enthusiastically supported Emergency and Indira Gandhi on totally indefensibly specious grounds. Not just that, he became a promoter of the thoroughly corrupt and crude goon Sanjay Gandhi, despite his brutal sterilisation drive.

Those he had been doing chamchagiri of perpetrated Operation Blue Star in 1984, forcing him to return his Padma Bhushan award. But, he accepted Padma Vibhushan in 2007. Had the poor Sikh victims of 1984 anti-Sikh attacks got any justice that he accepted Padma Vibhushan?

Preservation of Rudyard Kipling’s Bungalow

A sub-set of NIC (Colonial-minded Nehruvian Intellectual Class) had recently demonstrated their shamelessness by advocating preservation of Rudyard Kipling’s Bungalow at the campus of the JJ School of Arts in Mumbai (Mumbai Mirror’s cover story of 18 July 2015). What had that character (Kipling), without any conscience, done? Claiming that [Reginald Edward Harry] Dyer (of Jallianwala Bagh massacre: Butcher of Amritsar) was the man who had saved India, he had started a benefit fund for Dyer, raising over £26,000! Kipling used to take pleasure in heaping ridicule upon the Indian people by the use of contemptuous expressions such as “a lesser breed without the law”, “new-caught sullen people half devil and half child”. Professor Gilbert Murray had this to comment on Kipling: “If ever it were my fate to put men in prison for the books they write, I should not like it, but I should know where to begin. I should first of all lock up my old friend, Rudyard Kipling, because in several stories he has used his great powers to stir up in the minds of hundreds of thousands of Englishmen a blind and savage contempt for the Bengali…”

Finally

All right-thinking persons, and 99.9% of Indians are like that, are above communalism, shun violence, believe in freedom of expression, wish to live in peace and want to prosper. They are also self-respecting, proud of their culture, languages, religions and civilisation. They have contempt for imitators, lackeys, show-offs, pretenders, holier-and-more-intellectual-than-thou types. They are not concerned with the concocted definitions of “secularism” and “idea of India”, nor do they have patience with the poverty-perpetuating and misery-multiplying socialism. Hypocrites and opportunists they certainly abhor. NIC would do well to quietly pass into history.

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
October 22, 2015
www.rkpbooks.com