Russians are losers

History of Russia- as an American sees it.

For all the sneerings there was a time when the Americans were scared shit about communism. Millions of people (including Bangladeshis, majority Hindus) were killed because America either stood by its bastards or actively participated in the tortures and massacres. And yes, the only people to launch a nuclear attack of dubious purpose was the Americans. Perhaps PJ can find time to write a funny article about that. History always sounds better when it is written by the victors.
………
The original Russian state, “Old Russia,” was established at Novgorod in
A.D. 862 by marauding Vikings.
They’d set off to discover Iceland, Greenland,
and America, took a wrong turn, and wound up with their dragon boat stuck on a
mud bar in the Dnieper. (Historians have their own theories, involving trade
and colonization, but this sounds more likely.)



The first ruler of Old Russia was the Viking Prince Ryurik. Imagine being so
disorganized that you need marauding Vikings to found your nation—them with
their battle axes, crazed pillaging, riotous Meade Hall feasts, and horns on
their helmets. (Actually, Vikings didn’t wear horns on their helmets—but they
would have if they’d thought of it, just like they would have worn meade
helmets if they’d thought of it.) Some government it must have been.


Viking Prince Ryurik: “Yah, let’s build Novgorod!”


Viking Chieftain Sven: “Yah, so we can burn it down and loot!”



The Russians weren’t converted to Christianity until A.D. 988—a thousand
years late to “Peace be unto you” party, the basic principles of which still
haven’t sunk in. (And maybe never had a chance to. Russia’s conversion came at
the hands of St. Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev, who was reputed to maintain a
harem of 800 concubines.)


..
The death of St. Vladimir, and every other ruler of Old Russia, was followed
by assassinations, mayhem, civil strife, and the other hallmarks of change in
Russian leadership evident to the present day. Oxford historian Ronald Hingley
notes that “the first and only Russian ruler to fashion an effective law of
succession” was Tsar Paul I (1796-1801). Tsar Paul was assassinated.


Anyway, things went along pretty well for almost 400 years. (Pretty well by
Russian standards—a free peasant was known as a smerd, meaning
“stinker.”) Then, in 1237, when the rest of the West was having a High Middle
Ages and getting fecund for cultural rebirth, a Tatar horde invaded Russia.


..
The Tatars were part of the Mongol Empire founded by Genghis Khan. They had
a two-pronged invasion strategy: Kill everybody and steal everything.
Kiev, Moscow, and most of Russia’s towns were obliterated. Tatar
control—part occupation and part suzerainty over impotent, tribute-paying
Russian principalities—lasted more than 200 years.


The Russians have heroic stories about fighting off the Tatars, but in fact
it seems like the Tatars gradually lost interest in the place and went off in a
horde back to where they came from.


Professor Hingley says the “Tatar Yoke” left Russia with “a model of extreme
authoritarian rule combined with control through terror.” It also left Russia
with a model of leadership best summarized by a passage from John Keegan’s A
History of Warfare:


..
“Genghis Khan, questioning his Mongol comrades-in-arms about life’s sweetest
pleasure and being told it lay in falconry, replied, ‘You are mistaken. Man’s
greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total
possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding
[and] use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and support.’”



Why Putin wants Angela Merkel for a nightshirt is beyond me. But that’s a
Russian dictator for you.


Around the time Europe was getting a New World, Russia was getting tsars.
Several were named Ivan, one more terrible than the next until we arrive at
Ivan the Terrible in 1533.



Ivan created a private force of five or six thousand thugs, the oprichnina,
who wore black, rode black horses, and carried, as emblems of authority, a
dog’s head and a broom. (The hammer and sickle of the day, presumably.)



Oprichniks were entitled to rob and kill anyone, and did so with a
will. Ivan suspected Novgorod of disloyalty, and the oprichnina spent
five weeks in the city slaughtering thousands and driving thousands more into
exile.


Ivan presided over and sometimes personally performed the roasting,
dismembering, and boiling alive of enemies and people who, left unboiled, might
possibly become enemies.


He killed his own son and heir by whacking him over the head with the
monarchal staff in a tsar-ish fit of temper.


He conducted a 24-year-long war against Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, and the
Teutonic Knights, and lost.


Russia’s economy was destroyed. Drought, famine, and plague beset the
country.


….
But Ivan put Russia on the map as an international player. He defeated what was
left of the Tatars, mostly by conniving with leaders of what was left of the
Tatars. He expanded Russian rule into Siberia, his success due to almost nobody
being there. And, draw what parallels you will, Ivan the Terrible’s popularity
rating was very high among the smerds.


….
After his reign, Russia, if you can believe it, got worse. “The Time of
Troubles” featured more drought, more famine, more plague, foreign invasions,
massacres, the occupation and sacking of Moscow, and tsars with names like
False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II. The population of Russia may have been
reduced by as much as one-third.


….
The remaining two-thirds reacted to increasing anarchy in traditional
Russian fashion, by increasing autocracy. The Russians aren’t stupid. We’re
talking about a country where chess is a spectator sport. Autocracy is just a
Russian bad habit, like smoking three packs of cigarettes a day and drinking a
liter of vodka.


….
In 1613 the Romanov dynasty was installed, providing Russia with a range of
talents from “Great” (Peter I, Catherine II) to “Late” (Ivan VI, Peter III, and
Paul I killed in palace intrigues; Alexander II blown to bits by a terrorist
bomb, and Nicholas II murdered with his family by the Bolsheviks).


The Romanovs adhered to what Harvard historian Richard Pipes calls a
“patrimonial” doctrine, meaning they owned Russia the way we own our house
(except to hell with the mortgage). They owned everything. And everybody. The
Romanov tsars imposed rigid serfdom just as that woeful institution was fading
almost everywhere else.


….
Russia never had a Renaissance, a Protestant Reformation, an Enlightenment,
or much of an Industrial Revolution until the Soviet Union. Soviet
industrialization produced such benefits to humanity as concrete worker housing
built without level or plumb bob, the AK-47, MiG fighter jets, and
proliferating nukes. (Although the only people the Soviets ever killed with a
nuclear device was themselves at Chernobyl, located, perhaps not
coincidentally, in what’s now Ukraine, for the time being at least.)


…..
Russia was out in the sticks of civilization, in a trailer park without
knowledge of how to build a trailer. But Russia kept getting bigger, mostly by
killing, oppressing, and annoying Russians.


Peter the Great (1682-1725) led a military expedition against the Turkish
fort of Azov that was a disaster. But Peter came right back and, getting more
Russians killed, overwhelmed the Turks. The same thing happened in the Northern
War against Sweden. Although it took 21 years after Peter ran away at the battle
of Narva, Russia finally got a Baltic coastline. Which Peter didn’t know what
to do with, so he built St. Petersburg in a swamp with conscripted serf labor.
The number of Russian serfs who died building things in the swamp equaled the
number Russian soldiers who died in the Northern War.


….
Peter the Great raised taxes, made the Russian nobles shave their beards,
and caused the death of his recalcitrant son and heir, like Ivan the Terrible
did, but on purpose.


….
Catherine the Great (1762-1796) doubled taxes on the Jews and declared they
weren’t Russians, as if anyone would want to be. She was the first but not last
leader of Russia to annex Crimea. NATO member alert, code red—she won two wars
against Turkey and partitioned Poland. (Like Peter the Great on the Baltic, she
got the swampy part.)


….
Under Catherine, Russian settlements pushed all the way east into Alaska,
the most valuable land Russia has occupied. (Annual GDP per capita, Alaska:
$61,156. Annual GDP per capita, Russia: $14,037.) But—E.U. shame alert—when
Russia was facing financial difficulties and geopolitical conflict, Tsar
Alexander II was forced to sell Alaska to the United States in 1867 for 2 cents
an acre. Later, as mentioned, Alexander got blown to bits.



And that’s pretty much it for Russia’s Golden Age. After the 18th century,
Russia devoted itself mostly to being big fat loserland, losing pace with the
modern world, wars, Alaska, a communist utopia, a million victims of Stalin’s
purges, 6 million victims of the famine of 1921, 8 million victims of the
famine of 1932-33, a “Kitchen Debate” between Nikita Khrushchev and Richard
Nixon, ICBMs in Cuba, the space race, the arms race, the Cold War, and finally,
14 independent countries that were once in the USSR.


….
Napoleon actually won the war part of his war with Russia. If “General
Winter” and the general tendency of Moscow to be periodically destroyed hadn’t,
for once, sided with the Russian people, you’d be able to get a good bottle of
Côte de Volga and a baguette in Smolensk today.


Russia began a series of wars in the Caucasus that it has yet to win.


…..
In 1825, the Decembrists, a reform-minded group of military officers, staged
a demonstration in favor of constitutional monarchy and were hanged for taking
the trouble.


Political oppression, censorship, spying, and secret police activity reached
such a level of crime and punishment that Dostoyevsky himself was sentenced to
death for belonging to a discussion group. He was standing in front of the
firing squad when his sentence was commuted to exile in Siberia. (Whether to
thank Tsar Nicolas I depends upon how weighty a summer reading list you’ve been
given.)


….
“Exiled to Siberia” says everything about Russian economic and social
development in that land of mountains, lakes, and forests with a climate, in
its lower latitudes, no worse than the rest of Russia’s. I’ve been across it on
the Trans-Siberian Railroad. If this were America, the route from Irkutsk to
Vladivostok would be lined with vacation homes and trendy shops, and “exiled to
Siberia” would be translated as “exiled to Aspen.”


……
Russia lost the 1853-56 Crimean War. NATO member alert, code green—Russia
lost to Britain, France, and Turkey.


….
In 1861 Tsar Alexander II freed 50 million serfs. If “freed” is the word
that’s wanted. The serfs had no place to go except the land they were already
farming, and if they wanted any of that, they had to buy it with the nothing
they made as serfs. Later, as mentioned twice already, Alexander got blown to
bits.

Russia lost the Jews. Being robbed, beaten, and killed in pogroms was not a
sufficient incentive to stay. 

More than a million Jews emigrated, taking what
common sense the country had with them.


Russia lost the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War in the best Russian loser fashion
at the naval battle of Tsushima.



Japanese Admiral Togo Heihachiro “crossed the T” of the Russian fleet, a
rare execution of a tactic where you get your ships in a horizontal line so
that your guns can be aimed at the enemy, whose ships are in a vertical line so
that their guns can’t be aimed at you.


The Russian fleet was demolished. Eight battleships and most of the smaller
ships were sunk. More than 5,000 Russian sailors died. Just three of 38 Russian
vessels escaped to Vladivostok.


….
Russia lost World War I, not an easy thing to do when you’re on the winning
side. After the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was too much of a
mess to keep fighting Germany. The Soviet government signed the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk surrendering Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russian Poland, and
Ukraine—containing in total a quarter of the population of Imperial Russia—to
the Central Powers just eight months before the Central Powers had to surrender
to everybody.

……………….
Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/11/russian-history-is-on-our-side-putin-will-surely-screw-himself.html
…..

regards

The honorable Maulana is a traitor

Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a good man who can be persuaded to change his beliefs by suitable application of green wax. Tariq Ali fondly calls him Maulana Diesel based on his past dealings with the powers that be.

So, the remarkable news is that JUI-F knows about an “ISI within ISI.” It is one sense a dangerous comment to make and the honorable Maulana and his compatriots may suffer at the hand of true patriots. OTOH this frank talk may have been at the direction of Mian Nawaz Sharif who wants to grab the bull by the horns and finish off the deep state actors (before they finish him).

Also the following is a most profound statement. Can someone wise enough decode it for the rest of us?

“It was not decided since the independence (of Pakistan) that
who will rule the country … either it will be the Parliament or those
institutions whose employees get pays from the taxes of the nation,” he
said.

………………
The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam – Fazl (JUI-F) on Tuesday alleged
that there is an “Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) within the ISI”
which is involved in kidnapping and killings of innocent people across
Pakistan.


Commenting on a motion in the Senate regarding
ongoing political situation in the country, JUI-F Senator Hafiz
Hamdullah said the ISI was behind the incidents of missing persons and
mass graves in Balochistan.

Former military ruler Gen (retd)
Pervez Musharraf had said that there were some people within the ISI
ranks who were not under the control of its chief while former chief
justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry also said in his verdicts that the
ISI was involved in the cases of missing persons, the JUI-F senator
said.

“It was not decide since the independence (of Pakistan) that
who will rule the country … either it will be the Parliament or those
institutions whose employees get pays from the taxes of the nation,” he
said.

Hamdullah said it was an alarming situation that the
violators of Constitution were being considered as faithful and those
who introduced the Constitution of 1973 were being considered as traitor
in the country.

He also criticised the leadership of Pakistan
Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) which was protesting against the alleged rigging
in the May 11 elections.

“Imran Khan is dangling between the Parliament and the establishment,” he added.
The
JUI-F senator said that the survival of Pakistan was only in prevalence
of justice and supremacy of Parliament, adding that the JUI-F will only
support democracy in the country.

……..
Link: http://www.dawn.com/news/1107531/jui-f-blames-isi-within-isi-for-kidnappings-killings
……….

regards

Geo TV ordered off air by ISI (not yet)

Who ordered these private members – Israr Abbassi, Mian Shams and Fareeha
Iftikhar
– to take illegal decisions in such haste?
 
It appears that there is a tussle going on between Nawaz Sharif and Deep State and Mian Sahib intends to win this battle. The GEO vs ISI boxing match will be watched with intense interest. Our bet is that GEO will die but will come back stronger after the pause. The reason is that while people may worship the army (just like in India they worshipped the Nehru family), secret power centers will eventually fade away. The army will one day return to its rightful place- within the barracks. We can hope.
……………….
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) on
Tuesday disowned the decisions announced by its three members regarding
cancellation of licences of three television channels owned by the Geo
TV network.

In a press statement
issued here, the media regulatory body referred to the media talks held
by three private members – Israr Abbassi, Mian Shams and Fareeha
Iftikhar – in front of Pamra headquarters earlier today.


The members of the committee had announced the suspension and also ordered that Geo TV offices be sealed down.

A
spokesman for the regulatory body had also said in a statement that the
meeting called today had no legal validity “since it was not called
officially in spirit of Rule 3(4) of Pemra Rules 2009.”

According to the Pemra rules listed on its website, a meeting of the regulatory body can be convened on the request of at least one half of its total membership.



The press release issued by Pemra said the majority of authority
members in 95th meeting held on May 9 had decided to refer the case to
the ministry of law for legal opinion.

“The decision of seeking
opinion from the Law Division was taken in all fairness to avoid any
future legal consequences in such a critical issue.” The complaint against Geo Entertainment was already referred to the Council of Complaints (CoC) Sindh.

“The
CoC in its meeting called on Tuesday had already recommended about the
status of Geo’s licence. The minutes of the CoC were awaited and the
Authority would consider this matter in the next scheduled meeting,” the
press release added.

The Pamra clarified that Tuesday’s meeting was called without following the laid down procedures and thus had no legal standing. According
to Rule 3(4) of PEMRA Rules 2009, the Chairman or as the case may be
more than half of the total members can call the meeting i.e. out of
twelve members at least seven members can call a meeting. This was an informal meeting attended by five members, said the regulatory body.

“The
Executive Member was not even asked to officially convene the meeting
and notify it through the Secretary to the Authority, which was the set
procedure,” the release said.

The meeting convened by these
members was without any official intimation or invitation to other
members in accordance with the procedure, it added.

“The
Authority’s committee was functioning and was exercising the power of
Chairman in day to day affairs and taking decisions with requisite
quorum,” it said.


Speaking at the press conference, private Pemra member Israr Abbasi,
who attended the meeting, had said that one-third members were present
today, which he claimed was enough to complete the quorum.

Abbasi said government members did not attend the meeting.
During
their announcement, the members said that a final decision on the
revocation of the licences will be announced following a meeting on May
28, which will also be attended by government representatives.

The
committee formed by Pemra was tasked to review the Ministry of
Defence’s application filed against Geo TV network for leveling
allegations against an intelligence agency of Pakistan.


“All members (present) today unanimously decided that the licence for
Geo News be cancelled. However, due to a legal formality that could not
be completed, we have sent our recommendations to the Council of
Complaints, advising that they respond before May 28, the date for our
next meeting,” said Mian Shamsur Rehman, a member of the committee.

The
suspension is to stay in effect until May 28, when another session of
the committee will be called to decide on the final decision regarding
cancellation of the licences, they said.

“On May 28 during our
next meeting, we will give a final decision on (cancelling licences of)
Geo News, Geo Tez and Geo Entertainment,” said Shamsur Rehman.

Abbasi
said there were members representing the public and the provinces at
the meeting which resulted in the suspension of Geo News, Geo Tez and
Geo Entertainment.

Speaking to a private TV channel, Abbasi added
that in the next meeting the legal process against Geo would be decided
upon, and until then, the group’s licenses will remain suspended.

He
said that there was no need to refer this decision to the law division
as Pemra has been given the authority to take such a decision.

…….
Link: http://www.dawn.com/news/1107528/pemra-disowns-members-decision-to-suspend-geo-licences
…….

regards

History of modern India (without scare quotes)

Pankaj Mishra knows all this stuff very well but will never write it (because of monetary not ideological reasons- as Omar points out) so the task goes to Chandrahas Choudhury do pen it down. Excellent precis. Well done.

The only thing that could have improved the article is to point out that majoritarian impulse will always be a danger (and remains so) till minorities gain enough strength in enough pockets. 
It would be incorrect to think of muslims as the only minorities that are at risk. Manipuris (Metei tribe) are Hindu and the culture is just as rich as any mainstream Hindu one. Yet they are threatened with laws just as brutal as in Kashmir. 

Today the greatest resistance against Modi/Hindutva will come from Bengal/Kerala (unchanged pattern since at least 50 years).  
The counter challenge for Modi will be to establish enduring relationships with Naveen Patnaik (Odisha) and Jayalalitha Jayaram (Tamil Nadu) at par with the current alliance members: Nara Chandrababa Naidu (Andhra), Ram Vilas Paswan (Bihar) and Parkash Singh Badal (Punjab). If he can keep things simple and keep these alliances in place there is no reason why BJP cannot rule India for a good majority of the next few decades before a left-secular alternative is strong enough to challenge it.
………………..

In August, Indian
democracy will turn a weather-beaten 67 — an astonishing validation of
the leap of faith made by the nation’s founding fathers in 1947, when
they decided that the logical follow-up to colonial rule was a secular
democratic republic and universal adult suffrage. But just as a
67-year-old person remembers many stages of his or her life, so, too,
Indian democracy has had many phases and progressions on its long march.


Here,
then, is a short, splintered history of Indian democracy. Let’s start
with the smallest meaningful unit in our frame: the five years since the last election cycle.

Even
at that small remove, it’s clear that Indian democracy is vastly more
networked than it used to be. The widening reach of cable television and
the Internet, as well as the revolution in personal communications
brought about by mobile phones, have made for “imagined communities.”
It’s not just young people who speak to one another on social media.
Politicians are suddenly much more accessible, too — and targetable.

Ten years ago,
Indian democracy was younger, but the electorate was less youthful, its
expectations more modest. For the 2014 election, more than 100 million
voters were eligible to vote for the first time, greatly recasting the
tenor and themes of the election. This infusion of new blood has been
good for Indian democracy.

These first-time voters are no older
than 23 — all born after the liberalization of the Indian economy in
1991. Their material expectations are worlds away from those of their
parents’ generation, which often decries their worldliness and cynicism.
But the youths of India are also more impervious to the temptations of
stridently religious politics, which had a long run in the ’80s and
’90s. Their eagerness to vote is one of the reasons voter turnout in
this election was more than 68 percent (the highest in any Indian
election). This “demographic dividend”
is also what will present the next government with a headache bigger
than any other, as it strives to integrate nearly 1 million new entrants
into the workforce every month.

As compared to 20 years ago, Indian democracy seems more resistant today to the virus of religious provocation and majoritarianism.

In
1994, it had just been badly unbalanced by religious tensions and
political apathy. When a mob of belligerent Hindu rioters brought down
the Babri Masjid mosque in the north Indian city of Ayodhya —
considered by Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama, the legendary king —
in 1992, the secular cast of Indian democracy was knocked out of shape.
The use of inflammatory religious rhetoric turned the right-wing BJP
from a fringe group to the main opposition party in the ’80s and early
’90s, a position it then consolidated to win a majority in Parliament
for the first time in 1999.

It seemed that India might take a
permanent majoritarian turn, dividing its citizens into first and second
classes, as some of the other, smaller nation-states of south Asia had
already done. Today, it would seem that India has ridden out that phase.
Even Modi, once an unapologetic chauvinist who frequently made jeering remarks about Muslims
in election speeches, has recognized that the politics of religious
incitement only go so far, and he is trying to win this election on a development plank.

Looking back 30 years,
Indian democracy might see itself as much more sentimental and naive
than it is today. In 1984, the country was thrown into crisis when Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi was suddenly assassinated by her bodyguards. In
the election that followed, the ruling Congress party put up as its next
prime ministerial candidate her son, the political novice Rajiv Gandhi.
The sympathy wave for Rajiv among voters resulted in a landslide,
with the Congress winning 401 out of 508 seats. That effectively
cemented the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, leading to Rajiv’s wife, Sonia,
eventually leading the party. Their son Rahul is being projected as the
party’s prime ministerial candidate.

Today’s Indian voter is much
more resistant to democracy’s idea of the divine right to rule. When
Rahul speaks earnestly of “women’s empowerment,” he’s mocked mercilessly
because people see it as one of India’s most powerful men trying to
cast himself as an outsider trying to fight “the system.” To them, Rahul
is the system, which is one of the reasons the Congress party — which
continues to be excessively dependent on the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty — is likely to be booted out of power this week.

Speaking of systems, 40 years ago,
India had a most unusual democratic system that has disappeared
forever. In an influential essay written in 1964, the political
scientist Rajni Kothari called it the “Congress system.”
For more than three decades, starting in 1947, the Congress party was
so far ahead of its competitors in national elections that all other
parties were reduced to pressure groups, and genuine opposition to the
policies of the day came from factions within the party.

In those
40 years since, Indian democracy has become vastly more diverse,
especially as lower-caste groups, historically never close to political
power, have gradually tuned in to the music of democracy and used the
ballot box to bring about what the scholar Christophe Jaffrelot calls “India’s silent revolution.” Simultaneously, the BJP has become a national party whose power and influence now rival that of the Congress.

From 1989 onward, every government in New Delhi has been a coalition, with many smaller parties
shoring up a larger one. This has fragmented Indian democracy, making
it hard for governments to frame a clear agenda. But 50 years from now,
voters might see these years as a necessary phase in the evolution of
Indian democracy.

And finally, looking back from today to its point of origin,
Indian democracy seems so much more … well, so much more real. Then,
there was something of the miracle about it: a newly decolonized country
of a few hundred million people, most of them poor and illiterate.
 
Many
influential voices in the West were confident that the experiment
wouldn’t last long. They were probably greatly amused when more than 2
million newly enfranchised female voters could not be listed on the
electoral rolls for the first national election simply because they
refused to supply any identity other than that of their husbands or
fathers. This was a democracy?

The first Indian election in 1952, the historian Ramachandra Guha writes,
was described by some as the biggest gamble in the history of
democracy. The current one is merely the biggest in the history of
democracy. And that shows how far democracy has taken India — and
India, democracy — in just under seven decades.

…..
Link: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/india-s-democracy-is-all-grown-up
……..

regards

Shudra is king!!!!!!!!!!!

OK this is an emotional moment for us. We never thought this day would come. 

A Brahmin president (who could have been PM if only the fucking dynasty did not interfere) hands over the baton to a Shudra- representing majority India (yes, this is one of the privileges of democracy). It is no less a moment than Obama ascending the throne, except that there is some unfinished business. A Dalit PM should happen (fairly soon) and a Muslim PM as well. Why not? All Indians should be allowed to dream.


Narendra Modi, generally perceived as a ‘strong’ leader, turned
emotional and broke down on Tuesday as he welcomed his election as the
leader of the BJP Parliamentary Party. He choked and had to take water
before regaining his posture.

To PM-elect Modi we have only  two requests – we are not amongst his supporters (but we wish him all the best) so we count for very little – please stay focused on economics and please break down the wall that exists between you and muslims. You are the strong-man in spite of your tears on the stage, you need to be gracious in victory. 
….
Link: http://indianexpress.com/photos/picture-gallery-others/narendra-modi-breaks-down-during-emotional-speech-at-central-hall/#modi-157
…..
regards

PS Advani’s expression as he witnesses Modi’s emotions running over is an all-time classic  

Modi Sarkar Predictions

I am no expert on Indian politics and am in no position to seriously make predictions based on detailed knowledge. So this is just about “general principles”.

1. The latent potential for capitalist development in India must be HUGE. No matter how messy, how ugly and how corrupt it turns out to be (and it will probably be all three), if there is no war and no civil war and a “capitalism friendly” government, some people will make a LOT of money. And by some, I mean a lot of people (which still leaves many many more who wont make much). Neither war nor civil war seem very likely (though neither is ruled out), so this one is easy: there will be money. Lots of it. (and that is not always a good thing, but whatever…its coming). If you own a decrepit house in some big city in India and its not already worth a ridiculous amount, hold on to it and sell it for BIG bucks in a couple of years.

2. Having a man with real power and the willingness to use it in charge (instead of the lovely Dr Manmohan Singh, of whom I am a most devoted fan, but whose lack of power was rather obvious) will mean that dozens and dozens of projects and initiatives that are already set to go or inching along will accelerate dramatically. That means the sarkar will be able to show LOTS of fancy shmancy projects in relatively short time (and will probably forget to say “Thank you” to Dr sahib).

3. Relations with Pakistan will not be good. Not just because the Hindu Right has a really hard time with that one, but because poor Nawaz Sharif is being put in his place as we speak and may not be able to hold up his end of the table in spite of the best intentions.

4. Finally, this is India. This is the BJP. This is the RSS. Is it really likely that they are so incredibly disciplined and far-sighted and sagacious that they will not do anything self-destructive or stupid? Just on general principles, that seems unlikely. So the question, dear pundits, is this: what will be the first really bad decision that needlessly sets off a chain reaction of bat shit craziness from all sides? and who will be responsible for it? And will Modi be able to tamp it down (or will he actually be the one to start it!)?

Inquiring minds want to know…

William Dalrymple: Afghanistan > India

His view has some merit, the problem is we just finished with an Oxford qualified top-notch Prime Minister who had no vote-base and thus no authority. What is happening in Afghanistan is similar to that of 1950s India, elites being imposed top-down on the electorate. Eventually some Imran Khan like charismatic, hardline person will rise up from  the ranks, thus disappointing Dalrymple once more. OTOH a much more likely scenario is that the Taliban will force out democracy and we will have a Caliphate/Emirate once more.
……………………..
Award
winning author William Dalrymple has said that the top three electoral
candidates in Afghanistan during their recent general elections are far
superior intellectually to India’s three leading political figures –
Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal.

In an
exclusive interview to TOI at the Scottish Parliament on the sidelines
of the inaugural conference of the Edinburgh India Institute, Dalrymple
expressed his “deep apprehension” about Modi and said he finds Modi
“frightening” and a “big mystery”.

Dalrymple said that
Afghanistan’s three leading contenders, Ashraf Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah
and Zalamai Rassoul were all doctorates and had hugely cosmopolitan CVs.


“The three front runners in Afghanistan were deeply
sophisticated men. All of them were highly educated and held doctorates.
Ghani is a former World Bank official, a PhD from Columbia, a finance
minister, and an ex-university chancellor. Compare that to the
intellectual level of three of India’s top candidates,” Dalrymple said.

He further said, “I consider India my first home and the love and
adoration I feel for the country is immense. But India, a country of
heaving beauty and filled with youth and talent, with majority of its
diaspora dominating the world can’t produce impressive and intellectual
politicians. India is a country alive with geniuses but it is
unfortunate that the best talents don’t go into politics.”

According to him, Gandhi – the grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru is “a
complete disappointment who is dim and concerted in public debate and a
complete washout. Congress has some young talents in its ranks and
should find a new leader”. Dalrymple said he found Kejriwal “hugely
disappointing”.

He added, “I hoped he would be effective and
given a choice, I would still vote for him with a heavy heart. But his
49 days in office is a missed opportunity. He missed his chance.”

…….
Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Dalrymple-ranks-Afghan-leaders-over-Indian-ones/articleshow/35176161.cms
……..

regards

Ummah firster vs. Dharma firster

People, in general do not have the fortitude to digest Pankaj Mishra’s million word masterpieces. Thanks to Omar we now have a primer so to speak. But what is still needed is a pithy  picture-in-a-box. We have described this epic fight for India’s soul as one between the Ummah-firsters and Dharma-firsters.

The Ummah firsters are firm in their conviction that the masses will any day rise in revolt against the diabolical ruling class composed of upper-caste baniyas and brahmins (this is also the view of leading thinkers such as Pankaj Mishra and Arundhati Roy). A lower caste-Muslim alliance will bring back the fading glories of the Delhi Sultanate. These people need to study carefully the case of Jogendranath Mandal. To make a long story short, during Partition I, Mandal betrayed his fellow Hindu “enemies” and was in turn betrayed by his Muslim “friends,” his community of low-caste (kaibarta) Bangladeshi Hindus would either face genocide (in Partition II) or ethnic cleansing in the coming decades. 

The Dharma firsters basically want to apply the old-fashioned Abrahamic principle to all minorities: re-convert or die. In doing so they disavow the Hindu rule book which does not allow for re-conversion (caste will remain indeterminate, so the newcomers can only be out-castes). As far as mass killing goes, India is clearly not China. There will be plenty of massacres but nothing that will make any dent in the demographics. Minorities will not only grow in India, at some point (just like in the USA) the minorities will turn into majorities in Bengal, Axom, and elsewhere. If the BJP wants to become the natural ruling party of India (taking over from the Congress) then it will need to find a way to seek muslim votes without inflicting pain (or fear of pain).
…….
Ummah Firster view: Modi’s
election marks the beginning of a dark period of Indian history. Modi is
a fascist, who has every tendency to become a dictator. He is a
bedfellow of corrupt tycoons like Ambani and Adani. He is a leader of
khaki wearing, stick wielding gangs of the RSS (modeled after Hitler
Youth). Those who are celebrating Modi’s rise to power should remember
that Modi is after all a member of RSS, the organization that was
responsible for assassinating M.K. Gandhi, the father of independent
India. Let us not forget that Hitler was once elected by the German
people. The rest is history. Those who don’t learn from history are
condemned to repeat it. My heart bleeds for India. I hope India survives
Modi.

…………….
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/16/indias-election-isnt-as-historic-as-people-think/

……..

regards

Epicycles of the Elite Left; The Price is Too Damn High..

First published at 3quarksdaily.com
This was to be an article about the latest outbreak of
Blasphemy-mongering in Pakistan but after several friends brought up Pankaj
Mishra’s article about the victory of the BJP in the Indian elections, I
decided to change direction. I think far too many educated South Asian people
read Pankaj Mishra, Arundhati Roy and their ilk. And I believe that many of these readers are good, intelligent people who want to make a positive contribution in this world.  And I believe their consumption
of Pankaj, Roy and Tariq Ali (heretofore shortened to Pankajism, with any
internal disagreements between various factions of the People’s Front of Judea being ignored) creates a real opportunity cost for liberals and leftists, especially in the Indian subcontinent (I doubt if there is any significant market for their work in China or Korea yet; a fact that may even have some bearing on the difference in development between China and India).
In fact, I believe the damage extends beyond self-identified
liberals and leftists; variants of Pankajism are so widely circulated within
the English speaking elites of the world that they seep into our arguments and
discussions without any explicit acknowledgement or awareness of their
presence. In other words, the opportunity cost of this mish-mash of Marxism-Leninism, postmodernism, “postcolonial theory”, environmentalism and emotional massage (not necessarily in that order) is not trivial.
This is not a systematic theses (though it is, among other things, an appeal to someone more academically inclined to write exactly such a thesis) but a conversation starter. I hope that some of you comment on this piece and raise the level of the discussion by your response. And of course, I also apologize in advance for any appearance of rudeness or ill-will. I have not set out to insult anyone (except, of course, Pankaj, Roy and company; but they are big enough to take it).
The argument is more or less on the following lines:
1.    There are some people who have a consistent, systematic and well thought out Marxist-Leninist worldview (it is my impression that Vijay Prashad, for example, is in this category). This post is NOT about them. Whether they are right or wrong (and I now think the notion of a violent “people’s revolution” is wrong in some very fundamental ways), there is a certain internal logic to their choices. They do not expect electoral politics and social democratic reformist
parties to deliver the change they desire
, though they may participate in
such politics and support such parties as a tactical matter (for that matter
they may also support right wing parties if the revolutionary situation so demands).  Similarly, they are very clear about the role of propaganda in revolutionary politics and therefore may consciously take positions that appear simplistic or even silly to pedantic observers, as long as they feel that such a position is in the interest of the greater revolutionary cause. Their choices, their methods and their aims are all open to criticism, but they make some sort of internally consistent sense within their own worldview. With these people one can disagree on fundamentals or disagree on tactics, but either way, one can figure out what the disagreement is about. In so far as their worldview fails to fit the facts of the world, they too have to invent epicycles and equants to fit facts to theory, but that is not the topic today. IF you are a believer in “old fashioned Marxist-Leninist revolution”, this post is not about you.
2.   But most of the left-leaning or liberal members of the South Asian educated elite (and a significant percentage of the educated elite in India and Pakistan are left leaning and/or liberal, at least in theory) are not self-identified revolutionary socialists. I deliberately picked on Pankaj Mishra and Arundhati Roy because both seem to fall in this category (if they are committed “hardcore Marxists” then they have done a very good job of obfuscating this fact). Tariq Ali may appear to be a different case (he seems to have been consciously Marxist-Leninist and “revolutionary” at some point), but for all practical purposes, he has joined the Pankajists by now; relying on mindless repetition of slogans and formulas and recycled scraps of conversation to manage his brand. If you consider him a Marxist-Leninist (or if he does so himself), you may mentally delete him from this argument.
3.   The Pankajists are not revolutionaries, though they like revolutionaries and
occasionally fantasize about walking with the comrades (but somehow always make sure to get back to their pads in London or Delhi for dinner); They are not
avowedly Marxist, though they admire Marx (somewhat in the way “moderate
Muslims” admire the Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him. Tribal loyalty is there, but it does not stand in the way of living a modern life. The prophet is more or less an icon, and the prophet’s hardcore followers have serious doubts about the “moderates” bona fides); They strongly disapprove of capitalists and corporations, but they have never said they would like to hang the last capitalist with the entrails of the last priest. So are they then social democrats? Perish the thought. They would not be caught dead in a reformist social democratic party!
 Pankaj Mishra Photo: On Being/Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
4.   They hate how Westernization is destroying traditional cultures, but every single position they have ever held was first advocated by someone in the West (and 99% were never formulated in this form by anyone in the
traditional cultures they apparently prefer to “Westernization”).  In fact most of their “social positions” (gay rights, feminism, etc) are anathema to the “traditional cultures” they want to protect and utterly transform at the same time. They are totally Eurocentric (in that their discourse and its obsessions are borrowed whole from completely Western sources), but simultaneously fetishize the need to be “anti-European” and “authentic”.
Here it is important to note that most of their most cherished prejudices actually arose in the context of the great 20th century Marxist-Leninist revolutionary struggle. e.g. the valorization of revolution and of “people’s war”, the suspicion of reformist parties and bourgeois democracy, the yearning for utopia, and the feeling that only root and branch overthrow of capitalism will deliver it; these are all positions that arose (in some reasonably sane sequence) from hardcore Marxist-Leninist parties and their revolutionary program (good or not is a separate issue), but that continue to rattle around unexamined in the heads of the Pankajists.
The Pankajists also find the “Hindu Right” and its “fascism” and its admiration of “strength” and machismo alarming, but Pankaj (for example) admires Jamaluddin Afghani and his fantasies of Muslim power and its conquering warriors so much he promoted him as one of the great thinkers of Asia in his last book. This too is a recurring pattern. Strong men and their cults are awful and alarming, but also become heroic and admirable when an “anti-Western” gloss can be put on them, as long as they are not Hindus. i.e. For Hindus, the approved anti-Western heroes must not be Rightists, but this second requirement is dropped for other peoples.
They are proudly progressive, but they also cringe at the notion of “progress”. They are among the world’s biggest users of modern technology, but also among its most vocal (and scientifically clueless) critics.  Picking up that the global environment is under threat (a very modern scientific notion if there ever was one), they have also added some ritualistic sound bites about modernity and its destruction of our beloved planet (with poor people as the heroes who are bravely standing up for the planet).  All of this is partly true (everything they say is partly true, that is part of the problem) but as usual their condemnations are data free and falsification-proof. They are also incapable of suggesting any solution other than slogans and hot air.
Finally, Pankajists purportedly abhor generalization, stereotyping and demagoguery, but when it comes to people on the Right (and by their definition, anyone who tolerates capitalism or thinksit may work in any setting is “Right wing”) all these scruples fly out of the window. They generalize, stereotype, distort and demonize with a vengeance. You get the picture…or rather, you do not, because there is no coherent picture there. There are emotionally satisfying and fashionable sound bites that sound like they are saying something profound, until you pay closer attention and most of the meaning seems to evaporate. My contention is that what
remains after that evaporation is not that far from what a “bourgeois” reformist social democrat aims for..
. Pankaj and Roy add no value at all to that discourse. And they take away far too much with sloganeering, snide remarks, exaggeration and hot air.
5.   This confused mish-mash is then read by “us people” as “analysis”. Instead of getting new insights into what is going on and what is to be done, we come out by the same door as in we went; we may have held vague but fashionable opinions on our way in, and if so, we come out with these opinions seemingly validated by someone who uses a lot of words and sprinkles his “analysis” with quotes from serious books. We then discuss said analysis with friends who also read Pankaj and Arundhati in their spare time. Everyone is happy, but I am going to make the not-so-bold claim that you would learn more by reading “The Economist”,  and you would be harmed less by it.
6.   Pankajism as cocktail party chatter is not a big deal. After all, we have a human need to interact with other humans and talk about our world, and if this is the discourse of our subculture, so be it.  But then the gobbledygook makes its way beyond those who only need it for idle entertainment. Real journalists,
activists and political workers read it. Government officials read it. Decision
makers read it. And it helps, in some small way, to further fog up the glasses
of all of them.  The parts that are useful are exactly the parts you could pick up from any of a number of well informed and less hysterical observers. What Pankajism adds is exactly what we do not need: lazy dismissal of serious solutions, analysis uncontaminated by any scientific and objective data, and snide dismissal of bourgeois politics.
7.  If and when (and the “when” is rather frequent) reality fails to correspond with theory, Pankajists, like Marxists, also have to come up with newer and more complicated epicycles to save the appearances; and we then have to waste endless time learning the latest epicycles and arguing about them. All this while people in India (and to a lesser and more imperfect extent, even in Pakistan) already have a reasonably good constitution and, incompetent
and corrupt, but improvable institutions. There are large political parties
that attract mass support and participation. There are academics and
researchers, analysts and thinkers, creative artists and brilliant inventors,
and yes, even sincere conservatives and well-meaning right-wingers. I think it may be possible to make things better, even if it is not possible to make them perfect. “People’s Revolution” (which did not turn out well in any country since it was valorized in 1917 as the way to cut the Gordian knot of society and transform night into day in one heroic bound) is not the only choice or even the most reasonable choice. Strengthening the imperfect middle is a procedure that is vastly superior to both Left and Right wing fantasies of utopian transformation.
I personally believe that the system that exists is not irreparably broken and can still avoid falling into fascist dictatorship or complete anarchy (both of which have repeatedly proven to be much worse than the imperfect efforts of modern liberal democracy) but you don’t have to agree with me. My point is that even if the system is un-fixable and South Asia is due for huge, violent revolution, these people are not the best guide to it.
Look, for example at the extremely long article produced by Pankaj on the Indian elections. This is the opening paragraph:
In A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth writes with affection of a placid India’s first general election in 1951, and the egalitarian spirit it momentarily bestowed on an electorate deeply riven by class and caste: “the great washed and unwashed public, sceptical and gullible”, but all “endowed with universal adult suffrage.
Well, was that good? Or bad? Or neither? Were things better then, than they are now? That seems to be the implication, but in typical Pankaj style, this is never really said outright (that may bring up uncomfortable questions of fact). It also throws in a hint that universal adult suffrage was a bit of a fraud even then. But just a hint. Because on other occasions he wants to be free to valorize that very system while claiming to be defend it against “fascism”. Anyway, I doubt if any two readers can come up with the same explanation of what he means; which is usually a good sign that nothing has been said.
There follows a description of why Modi and the RSS are such a threat to India. This is a topic on which many sensible things can be said and he says many of them, but even here (where he is on firmer ground, in that there are really disturbing questions to be asked and answered) the urge to go with propaganda and sound bites is very strong. And the secret of Modi’s success remains unclear. We learn that development has been a disaster, but that people seem to want more of it. If it has been so bad, why do they want more of it? Because they lack agency and are gullible fools led by the capitalist media? If people do not know what is good for them, and they have to be told the facts by a very small coterie of Western educated elite intellectuals, then what does this tell us about “the people”? And about Western education?
Supporters will say Pankaj has raised questions about Indian democracy and especially about Modi and the right-wing BJP that need to be asked. And indeed, he has. But here is my point: the good parts of his article are straightforward liberal democratic values. Mass murder and state-sponsored pogroms are wrong in the eyes of any mainstream liberal order. If an elected official connived in, or encouraged, mass murder, then this is wrong in the eyes of the law and in the context of routine bourgeois politics. Those politics do provide mechanisms to counter such things, though the mechanisms do not always work (what does?). But these liberal democratic values are the very values Pankaj holds in great contempt and undermines with every snide remark. It may well be that “a western ideal of liberal democracy and capitalism” Is not going to survive in India. But the problem is that Pankaj is not even sure he likes that ideal in the first place. In fact, he frequently writes as if he does not. But he is always sufficiently vague to maintain deniability. There is always an escape hatch. He never said it cannot work. But he never really said it can either… To say “I want a more people friendly democracy” is to say very little. What exactly is it that needs to change and how in order to fix this model? These are big questions. They are being argued over and fought out in debates all over the world. I am not belittling the questions or the very real debate about them. But I am saying that Pankajism has little or nothing to contribute to this debate.  Read him critically and it soon becomes clear that he doesn’t even know the questions very well, much less the answers… But he always sounds like he is saying something deep. And by doing so, he and his ilk have beguiled an entire generation of elite Westernized Indians (and Pakistanis, and others) into undermining and undervaluing the very mechanisms that they actually need to fix and improve. It has been a great disservice.
By the way, the people of India have now disappointed Pankaj so much (because 31% of them voted for the BJP? Is that all it takes to destroy India? What if the election ends up meaning less than he imagines?) that he went and dug up a quote from Ambedkar about the Indian people being “essentially undemocratic”. I can absolutely guarantee that if someone on the right were to say that Indians are essentially undemocratic, all hell would break loose in Mishraland.
See this paragraph: In many ways, Modi and his rabble – tycoons, neo-Hindu techies, and outright fanatics – are perfect mascots for the changes that have transformed India since the early 1990s: the liberalisation of the country’s economy, and the destruction by Modi’s compatriots of the 16th-century Babri mosque in Ayodhya. Long before the killings in Gujarat, Indian security forces enjoyed what amounted to a licence to kill, torture and rape in the border regions of Kashmir and the north-east; a similar infrastructure of repression was installed in central India after forest-dwelling tribal peoples revolted against the nexus of mining corporations and the state. The government’s plan to spy on internet and phone connections makes the NSA’s surveillance look highly responsible. Muslims have been imprisoned for years without trial on the flimsiest suspicion of “terrorism”; one of them, a Kashmiri, who had only circumstantial evidence against him, was rushed to the gallows last year, denied even the customary last meeting with his kin, in order to satisfy, as the supreme court put it, “the collective conscience of the people”.
Many of these things have indeed happened (most of them NOT funded by corporations or conducted by the BJP incidentally) but their significance, their context and, most critically, the prognosis for India, are all subtly distorted. Mishra is not wrong, he is not even wrong. To try and re-understand this paragraph would take up so much brainpower that it is much better not to read it in the first place. There are other writers (on the Left and on the Right) who are not just repeating fashionable sound bites. Read them and start an argument with them. Pankajism is not worth the time and effort. There is no there there…
PS: I admit that this article has
been high on assertions and low on evidence. But I did read Pankaj Mishra’s
last (bestselling) book and wrote a sort of rolling review while I was reading
it. It is very long and very messy (I never edited it), but it will give you a
bit of an idea of where I am coming from. You can check it out at this link: Pankaj
Mishra’s tendentious little book
PPS: My own first reaction on the
Indian elections is also at Brownpundits. Congratulations
India
Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate for India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), shows his ink-marked finger to his supporters after casting his vote at a polling station during the seventh phase of India's general election in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.
Graphic of election results in 2009 and 2014

Get the White dude to analyse us

I find it pretty odd that the most consistent political analyst I’ve found expounding on the Indian election is William Dalyrmple.
It’s the the director Boyle winning acclaim for Slumdog Millionaire.
Desis are a gifted people and dime a dozen in the West, when did our stories & our news fail to translate outside the Subcontinent?

Brown Pundits