India Remains United in Diversity
India – world’s biggest democracy and the only surviving ancient civilization – is going through a lot of changes and turmoil, due to both forces from within and outside. While much of its past glory got ruined due to centuries of Islamic dark-age and then British colonial plunder, but it is heartening to see some revival of the fundamental principles of Hindu/Buddhist culture that made India what it was when the world had not seen any medieval god-fiction called ‘religion’.
Though much truncated post colonialism, as a country India is still unparalleled in its diversity – cultural, religious, social, lingual and economic — but all united by the ancient ideals of non-violence and respect for human life and tolerance of differing viewpoints. If the influence of Netaji Subhash Bose and his Azad Hind Fauz led early departure of the colonial British post WW-2, visionary Sardar Patel gets the credit for creating the geographic boundaries of modern India.
Indian society has a great preserving quality. It not only preserves comrades’s ideology of the early 20th century, it also preserves the flavors of the Islamic dark age that was formally ended by the British in 1857 but left a nasty mark in 1947. Along with the ruins of forts and minars and signs of Islamic barbarism in the form of Mosques over destroyed Temples from the Islamic Era, the flavor of ossified Islamic theocracy also stays preserved in human form. Though their 1400 year old Mohammadan ideology prevents them from respecting the non-Islamic humanity around them, yet they also enjoy freedom of life and prosperity granted by the Vedic wisdom rooted in the respect for whole humanity as one single global family.
Communism came, as a reactionary political ideology, after the Industrial Revolution and gone. Even China discarded communism along with Mao’s indigenous version but red-comrades are still active in the tribal belt of India (called the Red Corridor)! Since there is hardly any taker of their Marx-Lenin-Mao cocktail in the mainstream Indian society, learned comrades live disguised as professors, doctors, lawyers and human rights activists — and do their best to sustain the naxal violence by in the Red corridor. Media has coined a phrase for them — Urban Naxals! Even the presence of left-leaning intellectuals and self-professed so-called ‘ultra-liberals’ in academia underline the nurturing qualities of the Indian society — although they rightfully belong to history museums! On their part, the godless leftists are trying to stay relevant by forging alliance with ‘nothing-but-god’ Mohammadan jihadi lobby that sees divinity in social disruption and terrorizing common people. For both a strong and united India is enemy.
India’s socio-cultural-linguistic diversity is also truly mind boggling. In fact, there is no other society in the world with such extraordinary concentration of diversity; it never stops baffling Foreigners. When the colonial British decided to quit India after WW2 they were highly skeptical of the political stability of India, even after carving out Islamic Pakistan for a group of power hungry Muslim separatists.
However, as things unfolded, the highly diverse Hindu-India is still going strong unitedly at 70, but the mono-cultural (and mono-theist) Islam failed to keep Pakistan united for long. It broke in two pieces in 1971 and the leftover Sharia paradise too is decaying and inching closer to further fragmentation! The difference between a civilization and an artificial country becomes further clear by the history of past seven decades. While India gained global recognition for its scientists, doctors and engineers and is now seen as a fast emerging global economic power, the Islamic Sharia-paradise gained notoriety as a global capital of jihadi terrorism. It is now maneuvering hard to prevent black-listing by the FATF and wishing that somehow Allah prevent its eminent economic collapse and bankruptcy!
The unity of 1.33 billion Indians and the strength of democracy is firmly rooted in the highly humane and all-assimilating life philosophy of 1.1 billion Hindus (in geographical sense), they are Indians who still follow indigenous born ideologies — Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. They all believe in the way of life grounded in the ancient wisdom of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” (respect of all communities and sects). The common denominator of what they practice is “Dharma” which offers a universal moral guidance to humanity, transcending all narrow boundaries faith, race of tribe. It is markedly different from the authoritarian god-theories (born in the medieval middle east and called ‘religion’ by the West) and the juvenile absurdities of “my-god-is-bigger-than-your-god” or “my-god-is-the-only-God“. Unlike the divisive and restrictive qualities of foreign religions, ‘Dharma’ is integrative and encourages free rational thinking respect for divergent views. Seen from the Indian perspective, only Muslims, Christians or Jews who practice their faith strictly in a spiritual sense for personal evolution come closer to Indian way of living.
Perhaps the best person who really understood “Dharma” was Dr B R Ambedkar whose life was devoted to eradicating untouchability from the Indian society. If he chose Buddhism for conversion, he had the capacity to understand the Sublime teaching of the Great Buddha who taught “pure Dharma” to humanity – untainted by faiths and beliefs and away from the mumbo-jumbo of imaginary ‘Gods’ and God-fictions (called ‘Religion’ in the West). For the uninitiated, a ‘Buddha’ symbolizes attainment of the highest form of human purity through personal human efforts — never through so-called ‘miracles’ or ‘blessings’ of some imaginary god or his messengers.
Decay of Nehruvian Dynastic Politics
Immediately after independence, Mahatma Gandhi had advised dissolution of the Indian National Congress and forming two parties, each headed by Sardar Patel and Nehru so that Indian democracy gets grounded on healthy roots with a strong opposition party. But Nehru failed to appreciate the depth of his advice and Patel died soon. As a result, right since independence the Indian democracy got distorted under a single party rule. And, more foolishly Nehru planted his dynasty on the Congress Party.
Dynastic tendency is a serious threat to any vibrant democracy; it spoils meritocracy and excludes the ordinary and the poor. The contrast between Sardar Patel’s ‘Nation First’ and Nehru’s ‘Family First’ is very clear. If Patel dissolves 565 dynastic royalties to create a unified India, Mr Nehru ended up creating a new dynasty of his own! But as all dynastic rule end with incompetent heirs, so is the case with the Nehru dynasty. His Italian grand kids have turned the Congress Party into a play ground of corrupt and anti-national elements. It is more like a national liability now.
If autocratic Indira Gandhi kicked out all mature freedom fighters and leaders with grass root following, her Italian daughter-in-law — an ultra corrupt power hungry lady who still can’t speak Hindi properly or connect with ordinary Indian folks — turned the Party into an instrument of corruption and dirty anti-Hindu politics. Her son (age 48) comes across like a 15 year old buffoon who has pathological obsession for lies and deceits. He has taken the political discourse of the country to the gutter level. Most dangerously, today Congress leadership is routinely seen in cahoot with Pakistan and its anti-India propaganda. Perhaps it is time to revise the eligibility criteria for entry into electoral politics, to keep unhealthy foreign connections away from Indian politics.
Decades of Nehruvian socialism and leftist policies made India globally famous for three things: high poverty, high population, and high corruption. But as India shifted towards the capitalistic economy in the early 1990s things started to change though much too slowly for comfort. The year 2014 was another landmark — it gave another blow to the self-serving Nehruvian politics and brought in a highly dynamic nationalistic leadership that is honest, bold and decisive — and more significantly, free from the handicap of Muslim appeasement and dynastic politics.
India Under Visionary Narendra Modi
Honest and Inclusive Nationalist Government
Year 2014 will go down in the history of independent India. It gave a severe blow to the three pillars of Indian politics — dynastic politics, Muslim appeasement and deep-rooted corruption. Narendra Modi brought in the culture of honesty, hard-work, dedication and respect for the armed forces and the country through his ‘India First’ policy. His dynamic and charismatic personality, insightful understanding of Indian society, unparalleled skills to connect with people and forge personal ties with global leaders and the ability to take bold steps made Indians feel proud as Indians. His style of clean governance threw out all middlemen from the power corridor — they had been at the core of corruption as siphoned off public funds in collaboration with politicians and bureaucrats.
The 2019 Lok Sabha elections reaffirmed India’s resolve to continue with the efficient, honest and decisive Modi government and gave him a still bigger majority. With no handicap of Muslim appeasement politics, the BJP re-established itself as a Party that stands for a Strong, Secure and Prosperous India. But Modi’s re-election with thumping majority sent shock waves not only in the Congress Party and others whose relevance solely rested on the Muslim vote-bank, but also in Pakistan and other anti-India lobbies — they desperately wanted Congress comeback and a spineless government controlled by Sonia family. All these anti-India lobbies had a golden period under the UPA for ten years, when they were dictating Indian policies, particularly those related to defense and security.
Achievements of Modi Government
Narendra Modi’s actions speak for themselves — that he wants a united and strong India with a global voice. Implementing the long pending GST meant economic integration of India with highly desirable long term consequences. Passage of anti Triple Talaq Act gave an almost unthinkable sense of empowerment and freedom to 9 crore Indian women (Muslim women). It was a tremendous step towards gender justice. Suddenly, India’s 8 percent population came out of the iron grip of Maulvis who mentally live in the 7th century Arab tribal society, where women get treated like personal property, objects of sex pleasure and breeders to multiply Muslim population. It was the height of nonsense to see Muslim husbands dumping wives through SMS, Whatsapp, email, facebook, twitter and on phone, even from abroad!
Modi’s aggressive stance against Pak sponsored terrorism is a major shift from the ‘do nothing’ passive policy of the Nehruvian era. The surgical strike of September 2016 after the Uri and Pathankot terror attacks and Balakot air strike of 2019 after cowardly Pulwama terror attack stand in stark contrast with the 2008 Mumbai terror attack that provided a golden opportunity for counter offensive but the Family controlled Indian government did nothing beyond making empty noise, betraying the public sentiment.
In fact, Modi government has shown its ability to hit back at the rogue neighbor in every conceivable manner. The master stroke of August 5, 2019 when the article 370 was abrogated and converted J&K into two Union Territories firmly established that people can trust Modi for toughest actions. It was a bolt from the blue for the rogue neighbor — it suddenly lost the very facade that facilitated its dirty jihad using disposable jihadi humanoids — aided by the Islamic comradery of Abdullahs, Muftis and Azads along with Hurriyat traitors.
People of both the new UTs now stand convinced that they can now look forward to good times as private investment flows in and economic development speeds up. They are now entitled to get benefits of over 200 Central Laws, not available under 370 that only gave them terrorism and poverty.
Contents on the remaining page include:
1. India’s Independence and Imperfect Partition
2. Threat of Islamic Separatism
3. Menace of Jihadi Terrorism
4. Dangers of Perverted Secularism
5. Development Beyond “Economic Growth”
6. Poverty in India
7. Population Stabilization
1. India’s Independence and Imperfect Partition
1a) Why the Colonial Britain Decided to Leave India in 1947
This is a particularly pertinent question because Gandhi’s ‘Quit India Movement’ of 1942 had already tapered off by 1944, lakhs of Indians joined the British Indian army despite Gandhi’s call for non-cooperation and there wasn’t really any compelling opposition from Indians that would necessitate a hasty departure. Here is the truth:
When the WW2 ended, Britain had to consider two new realities.
One: The war with Hitler had completely destroyed the British economy (as of all allied nations) and it no longer had the financial and military potency to continue to rule its subject colonies. So, Britain would have quit India purely for this reason anyway!! Thus, it withdrew not only from India but had to relinquish its entire colonial portfolio:
It left Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, Egypt in 1952 and Malaysia in 1957. For the same reason another colonial looter, France, got out of Laos in 1949 and Cambodia in 1953; it left Vietnam in 1954. Netherlands came out of its colonies called the Dutch East Indies, giving birth to Indonesia in 1949. Thus, without Hitler and his war, it would have taken several more decades for India and other slave colonies to see the light of freedom.
In fact, Britain was in such a bad shape that after the war, under the Marshall Plan for restoration of war torn allied nations, it had to be given a large chunk — around one-fourth of the total package, to rebuild itself. Records show that the decision to quit India was already taken before the end of 1945. Therefore, major credit must be given to the second world war and Hitler as well!
Two: Weakened by the WW2 the British were also alarmed by the military activities of the Indian National Army (INA) of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Although defeated, their influence among people was eroding the loyalty of British Indian army-men and navy personnel. When the British charged 20,000 INA soldiers with treason publicly at Delhi’s Red Fort in November 1945, there was a strong reaction across the country. The trials also catalyzed the 1946 rebellion in the Royal Indian Navy, making the British further nervous. Since racial discrimination was rampant in the Royal Indian Navy and the service conditions were very bad, widespread rebellion became a lurking possibility. Further, as the 23 Lakh Indian soldiers returned from the Big War, the possibility of their joining the nationalists and revolutionaries became yet another potential nightmare for the colonial looters. They concluded that staying any longer would threaten the lives of the entire 60,000 70,000 White people across India. The uprising of 1857 had already given them a glimpse of such slaughter. Thus, in order to save the “White lives” they decided to look for the earliest opportunity to quit India. Therefore, major credit must go to the ignored Subhash Chandra Bose and his INA.
So, what was the role of Gandhi and Congress Party that claims to have brought independence? Minimal! This was the response of the then British PM Attlee, when this question was posed to him.
1b) Why was India Partitioned?
Two Nation Theory (Islamic Separatism) Supported by British Interests
Right since the decay of Mughal rule after death of fanatic Aurangzeb, Muslims were looking to revive the Islamic rule. But when the British brutally suppressed the rebellion of 1857 they lost all hopes. Yet, the desire for ‘Islamic rule’ remained alive and they often tried imagining the situation if the British rule ended.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Muslim University, a British loyalist and proponent of modern education in the Muslim community often asserted that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations who shared nothing except a common territory. This led his disciples to worry about the fate of Muslims (20%) in a Hindu dominated India, post British. Looking at their past dominance over Hindus, they wanted that Muslims should not be treated as a minority community (20%), instead they should be treated as a ‘separate nation’ at par with the Hindus!
The British rulers certainly exploited this mindset to destroy all signs of Hindu-Muslim unity by nurturing the Muslim League as the sole voice of Indian Muslims and as their close ally. They also knew the traditional Muslim hallucination of being superior race and their difficulty to live peacefully with other communities. Therefore, right since the formation of the Muslim League in 1906, two movements appeared to proceed simultaneously. One was the nationalist mainstream movement of the Gandhi and the Congress Party that wanted freedom from the British rule and the other was the separatist movement of Jinnah led Muslim League that wanted separation of Muslims from Hindus!
When the Muslim League started demanding a separate ‘Islamic Pakistan’ in the 1920s most people saw it merely as a bargain chip, for better terms for Muslims. Outside the Muslim League, this idea had little support and even the Muslim scholars and Maulavis rejected it outright.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad criticized the idea of Pakistan saying “The word ‘Pakistan’ itself suggests that in the world some places are pure and others are impure. Islam recognizes no such division of territories. The Prophet says, ‘God has made the whole world as a mosque for me.’ Thus, the demand for Pakistan loses all force.”
For Dr Ambedkar the idea of Pakistan was “worse than useless.”
But since the Muslim League was a British baby, the colonial rulers gave it disproportionate importance while protecting their own larger colonial interests. In fact, they worked for their own future interests using Jinnah and ML as front cover. But did they decide to create Pakistan for sake of Muslims? Or was there another colonial game plan?
Their intentions became clear when their architect Mr Cyril Radcliffe presented the partition plan on the paper. He merely divided Bengal and Punjab provinces to create a Pakistan in two pieces separated by over 1000 miles. When Jinnah saw it he mocked it as “a maimed, mutilated and moth-eaten” Pakistan! The only thing that interested him in Bengal was Calcutta — that he did not get and the East Pakistan was of no use for him. Half of Punjab was fine but not sufficient.
But when the British helped Jinnah grab Sindh and Pashtun provinces, their plan became clear. Soon Jinnah also grabbed Balochistan (in 1948) that wanted to join India. So, the West Pakistan next to Afghanistan was their baby — it was meant to serve their strategic geopolitical interests in the future. No wonder, Pakistan was born to be a Western puppet.
1c) Three Serious Failures of the Congress Leadership
In 1947, the Congress leadership failed on three counts: first, it failed to prevent county’s partition along communal lines; second, after it accepted the idea of partition it failed to plan for perfect Muslim / Non-Muslim partition and third, it failed to plan for peaceful and safe systematic migration of Hindus and Muslims over longer period of time. The imperfect and hurried partition of the country led to an unprecedented human disaster of the 20th century – at least a million dead and traumatic migration of 12 – 15 million people. It really made Gandhi’s non-violence movement look silly; eh clearly failed as a Statesman.
Legacy of Imperfect Partition
Both Gandhi and Nehru failed to visualize the long term consequences of the imperfect partition for India that got saddled with a sizable Muslim population. In practical terms, presence of Islamic Pakistan next door would always inspire a section of Muslims to go for yet another Islamic division. Further, there is the issue of safety of non-Muslim minorities in Sharia-Pakistan. Sadly, they were 25% at partition; seventy years later they are just 2%. Abductions, rape and forced conversions are trademarks of Islamic societies.
It is unfortunate that Sardar Patel’s long term pragmatic wisdom – that India would rather live in peace without the permanent headache of a Muslim problem – was superseded by myopic Gandhian idealism that seeks solution of every Hindu-Muslim conflict in Muslim appeasement. Post 1947, the appeasement gimmick has failed assimilation of leftover Muslims in the national mainstream Indian society. Moreover, their craze for medieval Sharia culture can never allow satisfactory integration of Muslims in the modern liberal national mainstream.
1d) Why was the Indian National Congress (INC) formed?
Most Indians grow up learning that the Congress Party gave us freedom by throwing out the British occupiers and that it was actually born for that purpose only. A common image on the mind is that the history of the Indian National Congress is “The History of the Freedom Movement”. But a little unbiased study of the history after the First War of Independence in 1857 could unsettle most readers.
British Officer Alan Octavian Hume, supported by Viceroy Lord Dufferin, conceived the idea of Congress. The idea was to prevent repeat of ‘1857’ like uprising with the help of a forum of “brown Sahibs” as unofficial British allies. Hume convened the first meeting of educated Indian elites in December 1885. It included 72 prominent Indians such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, S Subramania Iyer, Dinshaw Wacha, etc and was presided by Womesh Chandra Bannerjee.
Bannerjee concluded his presidential address by emphasizing that “the Congressmen desired the permanence of British rule in India, and that their ultimate aim was only to gain a share in the administration of its government.”
Three years later, he emphasized that “the principle on which the Indian National Congress is based is that British Rule should be permanent and abiding in India.”
This club of loyalists was derided by the nationalists as an organization of Anglicized Indians and pseudo-imitators of English culture. Lala Lajpat Rai ridiculed the Congress as an institution of beggars that pleaded for charity from the Government. He knew that “the congress was created only for the purpose of saving the British Raj from any impending danger from the Indian people.”
Read in detail about the nature of Congress in the first 20 years.
Only after the turn of the century, the arrival of nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat and Bipin Chandra Pal (Bal-Lal-Pal) converted the Congress Party into a nationalists’ party. They dumped the culture of submissiveness and sycophancy to promote Swaraj – self rule through strikes and boycotts. Partition of Bengal in 1905 provided them the opportunity to spread the Swadeshi movement among masses. Gandhi’s arrival on the scene in 1915 introduced the Gandhian angle and the national movement intensified further. The evolution of Congress before independence can be divided in three phases, dominated by the British loyalists (1885-1905), nationalists (1905-1919), and Gandhian (1919-1947).
2. Threat of Islamic Separatism
With the cosmic count of 200 million and rising the fastest, the Muslim community can surely try breaking India whenever there is a dysfunctional union government or a weak military, as nothing would stop the power hungry Maulvis to create Mujahideens (Holy Warriors) seeking Martyrdom through Jihadi violence and terrorism against the 100 crore non-Muslims whom their ideology labels Wajabul-Qatl (lowly creatures, worth killing). Petro-dollar rich global Wahhabi/Jihadi lobby, along with Pak ISI and terror groups, would be always there to fight alongside their ‘persecuted Muslim brothers’ against the Hindus and Shias in India.
They can even derive inspiration from history and turn to inviting “outside invaders” (for example, Pakistan) to help them rule India. The Third Battle of Panipat (1761) is a shameful example of Islamic treachery when a Sunni Maulana Mohammadan cleric (Shah Wali Ullah) from Delhi invited the Afghan ruler (Abdali) to attack India and ‘rescue’ them the dominance of Hindus (Marathas) and Shias. It was the period when the Mughal rule was decaying after the death of fanatic/barbaric Aurangzeb and the Maratha influence had spread to Delhi and beyond.
After the victory, the Afghans unleashed their typical Islamic trademark signs — massacre of civilians, loot, rape and capture of women in Delhi and surrounding areas. Then they walked away back with mind boggling booty. The lecherous Mughal dynasty got few more decades of life as a result of Wali Ullah’s treachery. But the ultimate gainers were the British who got an opportunity to strengthen its hold across India, while the Mughal elites remained confined to their Harems.
The treacherous Aligarh Muslim University still has strong propensity towards radical Islam and isolationist tendency. Given the global Islamic connections of this institute, it can easily become nucleus for another divide-India movement — in the name of Islam.
Modern day Jihadi terrorists are true photocopy of the barbarians of the past 14 centuries. Their Islam is a political ideology in which ‘terror’ is the central theme. How they distort their religion is mentioned in this video.
3. Menace of Jihadi Terrorism
No One But Islam, Nothing but Islam!
The Islamic quest to conquer the world is as old as Islam itself and Muslims, who practice Islam as a pure political ideology, have been fighting for territorial domination ever since. Bringing the whole world under one global Islamic caliphate is a 1400 year old dream of these violence loving Muslims. They call territory under their control and governed by Islamic laws, Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam): for example, Iran and Saudi Arabia; and the lands where they are fighting to promote Islam, Dar al-Harb (The House of War). They would continue to fight to expand the territories under Muslim rule at the expense of territories ruled by the non-Muslims. This is an endless war since the 7th century, it will go on until the whole world is under their domination. Rich gulf States like the Saudi Arabia have been spending a great deal of money to propagate their expansionist agenda using charities. Now the global terror outfits such as the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Taliban extensively employ the social media for jihadi propaganda, radicalization and recruitment.
The dream of global domination was badly shattered when the last Islamic Caliphate (Ottoman Empire, responsible for genocide of over a million Armenian people) was defeated in the WW1 in 1918, when Muslims lost the capacity to conquer whole nations as a time. Therefore, since then they have been trying to expand in small steps: one migration at a time and one terror attack at a time. Each committed Muslim is destined to wages jihad to convert, enslave or kill infidels. Here is why they kill in their own words.
Jihad Against the West
The 911 attack was a declaration of Jihad against the West by the same gang of Jihadi fighters that the US trained (with active support of Pakistan) to fight the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It forced the American forces to move into Afghanistan. They threw away the Pak supported Taliban. And, they are still there in 2018. The jihadi violence, however, continues. In 2003, Americans and their NATO allies attacked Iraq to punish its dictator Saddam and converted the middle-east into a war zone. After a decade of senseless violence, a new Caliphate, the Islamic State (ISIL) was born in 2014 only to be defeated in 2017. The group is now emerging in the Afghanistan, right next to ‘terrorist paradise’ called Pakistan, with 200 million Muslims. This area is fast turning into the “Middle East” of the world!
Polarization: Muslims vs the Rest
The senseless jihadi violence around the world has clearly polarized the world: Muslims against the rest. Every act of Islamic terror strengthens the anti-Muslim sentiments in non-Muslims around the world. As a result, anti-Islam groups and political parties are emerging all over the world. Election of Donald Trump as US president from an anti-Muslim platform is a significant event and perhaps the best indicator of how anti-Muslim global politics is shaping for the future. His ban of immigration from several Muslim countries and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital point to new emerging world order. Even Europe that used to be liberal towards immigrants is now hardening its approach looking at the emergence of “no go” Muslim zones and aggression of “new arrivals”. Explore: A German View on Muslim Immigration
Here is some interesting info on Muslims’ behavior change with growth of their population.
4. Dangers of Perverted Secularism
It’s funny! How dividing Hindus on caste lines is called ‘social justice’, uniting Muslims is called ‘secularism’, uniting Christians is ‘assertion of minority rights’ but uniting Hindus is called ‘communalism’ in India. – Shefali Vaidya
In the amphitheater of India’s “secular” absurdity Muslims and Christians must dictate; Hindus must submit. It would embrace shari’ah and Vatican, but not Vedas or Gita and Ayodhya or Kashi. It made skull cap and namaj ‘secular’, but shunned yoga and meditation as ‘communal’!
Foreigners are amazed by Indian politicians and their unique ‘freestyle’ use of word ‘secularism’ to malign Hindus. Used to knowing secularism as separation or religion and State and Hinduism as a religion that inherently accommodates diversity, they just can’t understand why India’s ‘secular politicians’ donning Tilak on the forehead attack their own community and go into ‘secular silence’ when Hindu culture or symbols are mocked. They are almost awestruck when they discover that glorifying mass murderer Mughal kings is ‘secularism’ but even mention of Rajput or Maratha warriors becomes ‘communal’!
The Nehruvian secularism is plainly an absurd anti-Hindu ideology. While it aims to appease the minority community, in reality it empowers no one and brings injustice to all. Instead of uniting Indian society, it has been sowing seeds of fragmentation and alienation. In India, the word ‘minority’ is synonymous with Muslims; but Christians can be added when needed. These two communities are the privileged minority of India!
Until 70s, Indian politics was largely “minorityism” when Hindu interests were best treated through neglect. It was largely the “ignore-Hindu” brand secularism. Then during Emergency, Indira Gandhi inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Constitution in 1976 without defining the word. It was quite unusual because nothing had happened in the country to suggest that Hindu-Muslim relation was a major national problem. But her intentions became clear in later years when the Congress politicians began to polarize the discourse into secular-communal debate. You are secular if you take pro-Muslim stance, else you are ‘communal’ – a bad adjective.
The ‘secular politics’ of Muslim “appeasement” was on open display in the mid 1980s during the Shah Bano case when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. Two years later, he banned Salman Rushdie’s book Satanic Verses (which neither he, nor his colleagues nor protesting mullahs had read) – much before the Islamic world could act! What appeared to be “Muslim appeasement” was in reality just “mullah appeasement” because they controlled Muslims votes. These politicians remained blind to the rights and dignity of Muslim women. When Jihadi Muslims drove away around 4 lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the Kashmir valley in late 1980s the ‘secular’ politicians went into ‘secular silence’!
Secularism turned “Anti-Hindu” since the 90s
Thus, the majority Hindus continued living as unimportant ‘ignored community.’ But then in the 1990s, the secular politicians became aggressive and Hindus became ‘undesired community.’ Indian secularism turned “anti-Hindu.” It became particularly evident after installation of Italy born Sonia Gandhi as “Royal Empress” of the Congress Party, who was alien to both Indians and Hindi language. Her secular buddies taught her Hindi through phrases like “Maut Ka Saudagar” and her son picked up street slang like “Khoon Ki Dalali.” The mother-son duo also learnt to maintain ‘secular silence’ over incidences like Godhra Hindu massacre or Mumbai terror attack. As more and more Congress Darbaris joined the anti-Hindu tirade, they began echoing Pakistani hate narrative against Hindu India! Whenever the open their mouth, it comes out almost like a ‘secular jihad’ against Hindus or Hindu India!
5. Development “Beyond Economic Growth”
Shift From Socialistic Idealism To Capitalistic Pragmatism
After the collapse of the global communist bloc in 1990, India also was forced to shift from the Nehruvian socialistic economy to private sector led capitalistic economic model. Indian economy was so fragile that for the first time, in 1991 India was forced to pledge gold with international lending agencies for loans – needless to say money came with attached conditions. It, thus, started the era of liberating businesses from state control. It was wonderful, except that now the humanistic approach to development gave way to economists’ favorite GDP growth model of development. From here began the obsession for GDP growth and the craze for evaluating everything in money terms.
The Fetish for GDP Growth
The development of a nation has several dimensions, but the money obsessed economists have reduced it to mere economic growth – measured in terms of the gross domestic product (GDP) which is just the sum total of all market activities. They have highly devalued the importance of wholesome human well being. As a result, people are now mere tools of economic expansion – first as labor providers and then as piggish ‘consumers’ with insatiable greed. It has also unleashed technological savagery on nature’s resources. The result is clear before us all: extreme focus on individualism, ever increasing social discord with degradation of human values and climatic and ecological disturbances.
Their model demands the GDP to grow eternally, quarter after quarter and year after year. ‘Produce more and consume more’ is the only wisdom. It is fueled and sustained by consumerism; in fact, obsessive consumerism using borrowed money. As a consequence, consumption has become the sole yardstick of development. When economists talk of research perhaps they only want to know newer way to convert ‘consumers’ into ‘bigger consumers’. But what we need today is Development ‘Beyond GDP’.
Looking at the state of the world, it is time that we put the concept of development in the right perspective.
What is Real Development
Perhaps the most comprehensive definition of development is given by Nobel winner economist Prof. Amartya Sen in his capability theory. Sen put people above economy. Amartya Sen’s theory is an eye opener for people who have grown up learning that GDP growth is the only meaning of development. Sen clearly highlights the dangers of equating GDP growth with development. He sees people as multifaceted human beings whose well-being depends upon both material and non-material needs. He sees development as the process of enhancing people’s well-being by enhancing their freedom and capabilities. His model is both comprehensive and flexible. Worldwide governments are trying to include his ideas to give proper direction of development.
In Sen’s approach, poverty is seen as lack of development which means denial of opportunities and choices for living a tolerable life. If in today’s world of sheer abundance people living in poverty, they are living in a system that denies them access to means to realize their capabilities. Today’s poverty is all due to exploitation and denial at the hands of those who have the power and authority.
You may like to explore: What is Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach of Development and Well-Being
An Eco-friendly Development Model – Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH)
The tiny Himalayan country of less than a million people has been following perhaps the most humane development model in the world. In fact, it is also in the true spirit of Buddha’s wonderful teaching. Its development model even has place for spirituality and cultural engagement along with environment health. Bhutan is the only country in the world that does not use GDP as a measure of progress; instead it uses what it calls the gross national happiness (GNH).
Way back in the 1970s its king declared that “Gross National Happiness (GNH) is more important than Gross National Product (GDP).” Therefore, Bhutan’s state policies are not made purely from the monetary angle, as in the rest of the world. Westerners are most intrigued by Bhutanese policy making because their brains are hardwired to plunder nature and cultural heritage to make money. While ‘experts’ are busy dreaming sustainable development models, this minute kingdom is already doing it, mandated by its Constitution!
6. Poverty in India
The 200 year colonial plunder of India laid the solid foundation for long term poverty in India. In 1947, when the plunderer British left India, they left 70 percent Indians in abject poverty and a tiny elite class that controlled everything. It was clearly among the poorest nations in the world. The situation continued for almost 4 decades as long as the Nehruvian socialistic economic policies continued. However, India was practically broke by the end of 1980s and it had to switch from agrarian to industrial-capitalistic model of economic growth in 1991.
Two decades later, poverty fell to around 30% despite population rising from 40 to 125 crore. Since then the pace of poverty reduction picked up. In 2016, the official poverty figure was down to 21%, the World Bank poverty line of $1.90 a day put it at around 12.4% and the comprehensive Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) of 2017 estimated India’s poverty at 41%. The differences are due to different methodologies for counting the poor.
But positive news has started to arrive in 2018!
A study from the Brookings Institution, a US based think tank, has put poverty estimate for India at 5.3%. It listed India among countries where the extreme poverty is steadily falling. Using NSSO 201/12 data it estimated that about 44 people are coming out of poverty every minute and if the trend continues, then by 2022 India’s extreme poverty would be below 3 percent! It uses World Bank’s $1.90 a day poverty line as threshold for extreme poverty.
These findings are based on the World Poverty Clock which is updated each April and October, to accommodate newest household surveys. The study points out that Nigeria has displaced India from the top position. At the end of may 2018, Nigeria had about 87 million (44% population) people living in extreme poverty, compared with India’s 73 million (about 5% population). If the trend continues, very soon the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) would again knock off India from its newly acquired 2nd position too!!
While these reports are reassuring, it must not be forgotten that poverty is actually a human development issue; not a statistical game.
Poverty is a state of constant deprivations, shortages, hardships and lack of well-being. In the extreme case, it is a miserable condition characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy. It is a state of powerlessness and voicelessness that is beyond any reasonable definition of human decency.
The one dimensional income poverty line, such as the $1.90 a day line of the World Bank does not tell anything about the hardships of the poor. They merely divide people into two: poor and non-poor. The extent of poverty depends upon where the poverty line is drawn. In reality, it is just a number game of experts to justify their arguments and publish papers.
Research of past few decades has firmly established that poverty cannot be properly understood in economic terms alone – divorced of personal, social, cultural and political perspectives. People are social beings; therefore, the processes and activities of the society affect their state of well-being. Clearly, there are multiple factors that often feed one another to trap people in poverty.
Fortunately, debates of past 2-3 decades have now established that poverty must be seen as a state of multiple deprivations, particularly deprivations related to basic essentials of human life. Therefore, poverty is as much about lack of proper nourishment, employment, shelter, health, and education as it is about involvement in social and political processes. Therefore, poverty must be seen from the angle of human development. A good attempt to gauge various deprivations is the multidimensional poverty index (MPI). It lays down a landscape of various deprivations people are facing, which is very useful for the policy planners. Several nations have adopted this measure to better reveal the nature of poverty in different regions.
The theoretical foundation for the MPI is provided by Amartya Sen’s capability theory of development: It see poverty as failure of the most basic human capabilities needed to live a tolerable life. Seen in this comprehensive perspective, poverty becomes an issue of lack of sufficient freedoms to lead a tolerable life.
7. Population Stabilization
Current population of India is around 1.33 billion (China 1.40 billion), which is about 17.5% of world population. India is a young country: over 50% population is below 25 years of age and over 65% people are below 35. Indian population grows annually by about 16 million. In the past decade (2001-2011), India’s population growth rate has declined sharply. In fact, the trend of falling birthrates prevails all over the world (except in some pockets), not only in India.
7a) Latest Fertility Trend
In 2013, the Sample Registration System (SRS) statistical report mentioned a sharp decline in fertility, to 2.3 children per woman. It is fair to assume that in 2018 it must have fallen to around 2.1. It means that India has already reached the replacement fertility level. It marks an important demographic transition, implying that the population would peak in next 30-35 years and then begin declining. Experts think that India’s population would peak in the range 1.55 – 1.60 billion around 2050, and then decline to around 1.45 billion by 2100. While achieving average replacement fertility at national level is a welcome sign, there are still regions where the fertility is still high. Highest fertility rate is in Bihar (3.4) followed by UP (3.0) which is also the most populous state in India.
Community wise fertility data revealed that population growth is largest in the Muslim community. During the decade 2001-2011, the Muslim population increased by 24% compared with national growth of 18%, although lower than the 29% rise in the previous decade. Thus, in 2011 Muslims formed 14.2% of Indian population, compared with 13.4% in 2001.
Assam witnessed the biggest rise in Muslim population, from 31% in 2001 to 34% in 2011. A big part of it must be due to illegal immigration from Bangladesh. For the same reason, West Bengal Muslim population 25.2% in 2001 to 27% in 2011. Uttarakhand also registered significant rise, from 11.9% to 13.9%.
Almost half (47%) of Indian Muslims live in just 3 states: UP, West Bengal and Bihar. These states are mentioned because the ISIS and Pak sponsored Jihadis generally look for local support in high Muslim density poor areas of these states. Now Rohingya Muslims have also infiltrated in these areas.
7b) Reasons of Population Growth
India’s population is growing not because people are having large families, but simply because there are too many people in the reproductive age group – population momentum. The right strategy to curtail such population growth is to delay all births. The correct ways to counter the population growth due to momentum are:
- Late marriage: Stop all girls’ marriages below 18. In India, about 47% girls are already married before the legal age of 18 and a significant proportion has already given births. This one action alone can not only bring fertility down significantly, but have several other positive effects.
- Delayed pregnancies: Delay first pregnancy by 2-3 years after marriage, and
- Space further births: Keep at least 3 year gap between births. Often, quick pregnancies result from non-availability of contraceptives, particularly in the rural areas. Almost a quarter of all births take place for this reason alone.