Sanatan relationships through Ages - Sat to Kali

"किं भ्राता सद्यद् अनाथं भवति? किमु स्वसा यत् निरऋतिः न गच्छात्" - यमी (ऋग्वेद)
For the benefit of my fellow Sanatanis , let me give a context to this sentence quoted. This is what Yami said to her brother Yam or Yamraj as we know him. They were siblings. For the uninitiated in Sanskrit, this when translated into english would mean..What is (the use of) brother, who keeps me "Anaath (Uncovered/Unprotected)?" What is (meaning of being) Svasaa who cannot even follow her drive?"


Now puzzled as everyone is, let me explain the context through the usage of word 'Svaasa' . Yami refers to herself as "Svasu". स्वान् सरति इति स्वसा. One who imitates (अपभ्रंष for Anusarana which means to behave in accordance to) her "own" (in hindi "Apne"). जो अपनों का अनुसरण करती हैं वह स्वसा. Here, it means one who cohabits with one's kin is svasaa.


It simply means, yami wanted to cohabit with Yamraj and he refused thus earning the sobriquet of 'Dharamraj' . What it also means that It was not uncommon for siblings to engage in fornication & thus the refusal of 'Yam' surprises & hurts 'Yami'. It is hereafter that a fertile sibling was referred to as "brother" or "sister" and was off limits for procreation. Relationship with a fertile sibling got a "name". 


This shows evolution of man.It also means that our sages were indeed truthful & brave to write, mention the trials and tribulation as a society that we went through. they have recorded the 'Yug Dharma' as it changed over the years.Greatest of the warriors & one of the most learned mind 'Pitamaha Bhishma' said the following in 'Shanti parva' .. dialogues between him and Dharmaraj Yudhsthir


न चैषां मैथुनो धर्मो बभूव भरतर्षभ
संकल्पादेवैतेषां अपत्यं उपपद्यते - 37


ततः त्रेतायुगेकाले संस्पर्शात् जायते प्रजान
ह्य भूः मैथुनो धर्मस्तेषां अपि जनाधिप - 38


द्वापरे मैथुनो धर्म प्रजानां भवन्नृपःतथा
कलियुगे राजन द्वन्द्व मापेदिरे जनाः - 39

"In satya yuga, intercourse happened as desire arose in minds of fertile men and women. There were no words for mother, father, sibling etc. In Treta Yuga, when men and women touched each other and welcomed the touch, dharma allowed them to copulate for time-being. (this is stage where concept of "favourite" mate started emerging). IN Dwapara Yuga, Men and women started cohabiting as couples but not as stable and committed pair-bonding couples. In Kali Yuga, the stable pair-bonding (what we refer to as institution of marriage) emerged."


Also remember what Sutaji said to Sage Saunak while he narrated 'Garud Puran' at naimisaaran teerth.
Lord Vishnu's eight incarnation was Rishab dev, the son of Naabhi & Meru devi. This incarnation he set the norms of 'Grihastha Ashram' which became the guidelines for Dharmis. It also essentially means that Sanatan Dharmis had moved beyond the male - female relationships & it became imperative to lay down some rules for their dealing with each other. 


This is the time when you see the use of the word, 'Sahodar' meaning lived in the same womb.In fact Garud purana is a treasure trove of our history along with other Purana. It also brings out the story of Brahama & his 10 'Manapsputra' .


The story of Daksha prajapati , After being reborn in the clan of 'Dhruv' the child worshiper of Lord Vishnu post the curse of Lord Shiva.Daksha was born to Prachetraas & Merisha. He married the beautiful Asikni, daughter of Viran and had 60 beautiful daughters & 1000 sons in the begining. Then a brahmachari Naarada appears and counsels them about economy. This discourse of Narada found in Harivamsha is first of its kind in human history which talks about economics and necessity to keep numbers less and spread across different regions for efficient utilization of resources without burdening the earth.


Those 1000 sons agreed with Narada and scattered in all directions looking for the circumference of the earth and settled in distant lands, never to return. Seeing that children are gone, Prajapati and Asikini gave birth to 1000 more kids who also spread in all directions like their predecessors. This not only shows expansion of aryans all over earth from here, but also shows how certain individuals by sacrificing their primal drives earned knowledge and respect from rest. So it also settles the nonsensical Aryan invasion theory.


"Thus this prajapati system resulted in 3 important changes in humans and dharmiks.
1. Emergence of Gotras
2. Tendency to spread out and colonize other lands
3. Tendency of few to indulge in Brahmacharya willingly.


Our memories have stories when there were no "names" for relations. Only relation was that between a fertile man and woman. In fact here have been references to The references of free cohabitation, sibling cohabitation, offering one's "stri (woman)" to friend OR guest" (Kindly note that the word "patni" had not evolved), references towards intercourse with alive and dead animals, intercourse with wife of one's guru, cohabitation with multiple males, temporary cohabitation, contract marriage all these are mentioned in Puranas & is the history of Indic people."You can also add Shiva's Aasakti on Mohini & the chase. Subsequently the birth of Harihara.


Here we have stories of Brahmadeva and his daughter Sandhya indulging in coitus in beginning of time. There are many stories as such. This may sound incestous to today's minds but the fact that we all originated from Brahma &  his 10 manasputras.


Later as man graduated to social hunter-gatherer, we slowly see emergence of matriarchal identities. There was yet no need for an offspring to be identified by its father as no one was sure who the father was. But one was sure about one's mother. Here we see the categories of people referring to themselves  as sons Daanav or Daitya as per their mother's name. Even during the younger days Arjun refers to himself as 'Kaunteya' (meaning Son of Kunti) & Karan refers to himself as 'Radheya'. These were the end days perhaps as Bhishma mentioned, quoted above.


All these are "स्त्री   of Prajapati" but none of the offsprings are identified by father's name & that is logical considering the Prajapati's responsibility was to populate the earth & thus cohabiting or having intercourse with many women. The fact that the necessity arose to have some "clan name" also shows evolution of man into higher level of social organization. The evolution seen from Indian scriptures from early human to modern human is somewhat as follows.

"Alpha male system (one dominant male owing all females in clan) >> many males many females cohabiting together without defined pair bonding >> many males and many females of same lineage cohabiting together without defined pair-bonding >> one male cohabiting with multiple females of same lineage AND one female cohabiting with multiple males of same lineage >> multiple females cohabiting with with one male of different lineage (emergence of Gotra system)."


Out of 60 daughters, Daksha prajapati gave 14 to Sage kashyap Aditi, Diti, Danu, Kala, Anayu, Sinhika, Muni, kadru, Saadhya, Ira, Vinta, Surabhi & Khaga. remember the Danavs or Rakshas are sons of Danu & Kashyap. They did not descend from anywhere, they were brahmins, may be following their own set of rituals which later on became unacceptable. It is interesting to note that Aditi's sons were called AAdityas, Diti gave birth to two 'Daityas', Hiranyakshyapu & Hiranyaksha. Prahalad was 3rd son of Hiranyashyapu. Similarly offsprings of Danu called themselves 'Daanav'. Note the lineage from Mother.

Considering our Puranas record the history till Maurya dynasty & Chandragupta being 126 generation from Mahabharat (Fought between grandsons of Ved Vyas - Kaurav/Pandav) , I being of Parashar gotra (meaning born of Sage parashar, father of Ved Vyas), will fall to 225th generation from Mahabharat (Every generation being 25 years average.


As mentioned by Kal Chiron in his blog too, Emperor Janamejaya was justly shaken and expressed horror and disgust at earlier stories of copulating siblings, parent-offspring duos, parent-siblings with offsprings along with others. Rishi Vaishampayana replied, "Oh king, in those ancient times, that was the yuga-dharma"


So let me ask you again what Yudhisthir asked Bhishma & later asked by Janamejaya (Son of Parikshit), What is Dharma?


Continuation of pursuit & acceptance of history , the way Ved Vyas did without shame & embarrassment even though co habitant had started in Dwapar & Gotra system was established with certain relationships with certain women off limits. Still what stands out is Draupdi marrying all the 5 brothers. The practice was not prevalent but was in the memory as stories from grand father's times.


Bhishma also said O, King, just as the foot of an elephant covers every other foot, so does Rajdharma cover every aspect of Dharma, in all conditions, (chap.63/25). Among all Dharmas, Rajdharma is supreme, as it provides nourishment to people of all Varnas (professions). Rajdharma encompasses all sacrifices. The sages, since ancient period, praise sacrifice as the best form of Dharma, (63/27). The Sanatan Dharma got destroyed hundreds of time, but (each time) it was redeemed and spread again by Kshatra-dharma. In every age, Kshatra-dharma has to be active. Therefore, Kshatra-dharma is the best in the world, (64/26). Sages praise sacrifice or renunciation, but the greatest sacrifice is that of the kings who lay down their body in fulfillment of their Raj-dharma, (65/3).


Bhishma also said that 'Kama' is the जननी (mother) of all 'purushaasrtha'. may be that is the reason that Abrahamic memes have woven around norms to control 'kama' through control of women. Since X'tianity reformed itself, it has moved beyond but Islam's power structure is such that change is difficult till such time women rise against it & free themselves.

Lessons for Indian politicians & hair brained anglophiles who read Tsu-tiyapanti books & hold on Machiavelli as some sort of christ of real politic. Yes Raj Dharma defines to "Yug Dharma" too. So if the kings desired to have population, they did that.

Let me go back to the root of it all. The root is 'Sanatan' . the word itself can be broken down to Sat -anant or as some bifurcate it as, Sat + Aa + Tan.The meaning is, 'Pursuit since Sat' . Wherin Sat can be construed as Satyug or Truth. So the continuity of civilization is the 'Dharma'


Quotes from Kaal Chiron's brilliant blog article on evolution of marriage.. Consider it an extension,addition of the thoughts he initiated..

State of Union goes FUBAR

There used to be a term, 'FUBAR' used by the yankees during the Vietnam war. What it basically meant was 'FU#@$d up beyond any repair'. This was essentially used for the fellow combatants if their revival was beyond reach. This shows the extent of dehumanisation & sense of hopelessness that seeped into American soldiers during that war. It sanitised the soldiers to the point where they devised their mechanisms to deal with everyday trauma.

Why do I think of this term today? well, I am at a point where i just cant decide the right term to describe the state of India. The problems are plenty and the solutions nowhere in sight. Indian Union is going through a similar state & our Vietcong is no one else but the grand old party of india, the CONgress. There are lot of erudite commentators making the case of sending current Manmohan led thug regime to ICU. I am not the one to disagree with them on the state of their health but on the prescription only.

This government/Cabinet is fit case to be sent to  a mental asylum. The amount of skullduggery they have involved in can put Goebbels along with his Nazi stormtroopers to shame. No wonder Hitler saw cultural similarities with India and Indians as his blood brothers. Like the Nazi Propaganda machine, CONgress party & its loyal foot soldiers  in the english media have started spinning a new story of conspiracy against the government. The ink on the last story (Greece is responsible for economic meltdown) has not even dried and they are back to old days in more than 1 ways...

1. They are back to their lying, bluffing & paranoid socialism days

2. They are back to Indira days of seeing a CIA conspiracy in everything that happened in the country.

3. The solutions that they propose or propound in through loyal foot soldiers in media, are only 2 kinds. Terrible and more terrible.

Let me talk about the economy first by looking at Q4 growth rate of 5.3% and thus the whole year of growth coming down to 6.5%. Let us jog our memories a bit back to the statements made by the 'dream team' of Manmohan singh & Pronob making tall statements during last budget speech of making a growth of 8.5%. Even this year, Pronob was making an estimate of 6.9% growth.

The most favored reason touted for this insipid performance is meltdown of greece. That is laughable to the best of my knowledge. The problem with Greece started in the month of April(mid) while we are talking about growth of Jan-March. Actually, we can thank greece for helping reduce the Import bill of Oil & electronics.

Look at the quarterly trends to see a better picture. Q1 2011-12 we grew at 8%, Q2 at 6.7%, Q3 at 6.1% and eventually landing at 5.3% for Q4. remind ourselves of the response of Govt post every qtr. "Q1 the response was, "This growth of 8% is an aberration. It's only matter of time before we hit back on 9% plus" to consolation of "We should not be skeptical to grow at 6.7% when the whole world is slowing" in Q2. We did a tad better in Q3 (in terms of statements), "We will see a pullback in the last quarter" and for the Q4 we have greece story.

Let us look at the issues plaguing the economy sector by sector. Considering the Government either cant understand why we are growing or degrowing in any case. Look at 2 sectors, agriculture &  manufacturing. the decline has been the steepest in both. Agriculture decline from 3.7% in Q1 to 1.7% in Q4 (contribution 18% approx to GDP) and manufacturing from 7.3% to -0.3% in same period. For a country growing consumption & churning out graduates like nobody's business, we need more products to consume thus increasing employment opportunities for young.

lets look at the holding sector, Services & more specifically financial services. In careful number gazing the biggest growth in this sector comes in Community, social & personal services. So what's the aphrodisiac for this sector? Well it's the Government silly as it includes the Government services. In simpler terms, government is bloating like never before thus squeezing the private sector to grow.
Private consupmtion expenditure contracted from 59.5% of GDP in Q1 to 52.2% in Q4 while the Government did one better as it bloated from 10.6% to 11.4%.

Let me tell you dear Indians, (Who say Govt ke pass bahut paise hain) when govt corners so much , it increases the borrowing costs for everyone and that includes private sector, which by stretch of every data has proved to have given better returns on investment than the public sector.

So the problems we face can be summarised as, Bloated government, falling growth, rising inflation & falling ruppee. so the picture that emerges out is that the pain has just begun. What is causing this bloated government us another area to look at..

1. Oil Subsidies : Diesel subsidy is around Rs13 per liter, Kerosene is insane at Rs30 odd & LPG at Rs390. SO more the clamour to balance the budget and you can expect

• increase in diesel prices - which should be done but a mechanism should be evolved where govt does not make a windfall (due to tax structure)  due to hike. Fid the taxes at absolute Rs rate rather than %
• Tax on Diesel vehicles - Pure insanity & kill the golden Goose. Already Auto industry is grappling with falling petrol vehicle sale. the consumption of Diesel by private vehicles is just 6-14%(various estimates) of total diesel consumption in India. hardly any impact on subsidies.
• LPG price rise - Till the time NDA govt came in 1999, India had only 310 Mln LPG connections and they gave out more than 320 mln in 6 yrs of their rule. with the current inflation ruining household budgets, more pain. 

2. Value of Rupee : Well at the current account deficit level & economic climate with a Communist government at helm, you can very well kiss the global investor confidence good bye so no $ in and Rs statys at 53-56 level thus higher import bill and god help.


3. Lunacy of subsidies by soup alphabets : NREGA , Food security bill , NRHM , Fertiliser subsidy Minority welfare and the total bill runs into

• NREGA - Rs 40000 Cr
• FSB - Rs 140000 Cr
• NRHM - Rs17000 Cr
• Fertiliser subsidy - Rs 70000 Cr

Add Oil subsidies of Rs140000 Cr , it comes to frightening Rs 420000 Cr . Add the loan write off havoc & Power subsidies, it will cross Rs 500000 Cr, almost 50% of our entire budget and where does this leave the interest rate for the private sector if the govt mops up all the funds and then dumps it in subsidy . The leakage of this around 55%.

The story of NREGA is legendary now. For the Rs40000 allocated to it every year, Only Rs1500 odd crores were distributed as wages for to the rural poor while rest of money has gone into a blackhole. the arguement for starting the scheme was

1.  To provide jobs for rural poor 100 days a year

2. Help create local assets - only assets created under this scheme are the SUV's of village pradhans (all CON men)
You can read rants of Jairam ramesh, rural development minister against the scheme.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/nrega-unproductive-and-creates-no-assets-says-jairam/1/199002.html

Another nonsesne that needs to be kicked on the backside is the story floated of 'Policy paralysis'. The problem is not policy paralysis, Problem is wrong policies. There are policies being debated and implemented everyday i.e capital gains on old, RTE, FSB . However, the problem is they only give 2 choices..

1. Terrible

2. More terrible

So it again boils down to have consistency in economic policies, conceived & implemented with a long term vision. To begin with, We should refrain from putting any tax on diesel vehicles till the time we improve public transport.

I have given up even trying to slot the policies in 'Terrible' category. The whole government including the head of executive , Prime minister, inspires no confidence and talks about inane and archaic ideas of 1991. He forgets that we are in 2012 and lot of water has flown down the Thames or Rhine. That time, West was not going through such economic crisis and IMF & WB were willing & capable to lend money. FII/Corporations were waiting for India to open up. Today, they are bankrupt.

There only solution is to correct & erase profligacy & tighten our belt by cutting subsidies. Promote sensible policies, reduce budget, current account deficit. Most important have consistency & stop this vindictive attitude towards the industrialist and behaving like a Bulldog kicked in the balls (Vodafone tax case).
Stop this nonsense of NREGA, NHRM & bankrupting FSB. If you want to support poor anyhow then look at direct cash transfers.

Look at implementation of GST. Get the states to rally around by allowing them greater control on their finances. Out of 38 odd Cabinet ministers, CONgress has around 30.

These half brained NAC members along with former waitress as their boss will beggar this nation. More than anything, stop blaming Greece as everyone with an iota of brain knows that govt are lying and with the trajectory of growth, no need to wait for August. Answer is Q1 2012-13 numbers will only go downhill.


“It is not an exaggeration to state that the magnitude of the economic damage and mismanagement by the Congress party under Dr Singh’s watch will be embarrassing for even a student of introductory economics,” as Malik, Sr Columnist as Business standard wrote. 

Manmohan off course is no PV Narsimha rao, inarguably one of the 2 best prime minister this country had along with Atal behari and we have none to blame but this Thug , scam a day govt to blame for not being able to realise our dream of lifting more & more poor out of poverty this decade.

As a Business Standard editorial notes, “Indeed, UPA-II’s policy activity is, in some ways, more worrying for the economy than its paralysis —for it reveals that this government does not understand the scale of what is needed, nor does it possess the follow-through required for good policy-making.”


With Insipid Manmohan & mentally bankrupt but politically ambitious & influential Pronob (Only Vimal) the country is going FUBAR .

Law & order would require another full day to think & write.

Secret diary - Neeli Pagdi

Secret Diary of Neeli pagdi:

Thank you Notes

1. Mumbai Police - Diverting attention from the bill to muzzle internet by bringing a Kid's 'Rave party' on front page

2. Delhi Police - For raising the skirt, I mean bar by getting confession from LUKE and saving me from hiding on failed economy

Salary raises :

Bakara Doott - For making irrelevant statements & saving the attention of Indians from Economy , Jobs, Controlling Internet

Hamam buoy - For making profound statements like 'Big blow to Modi' every time a DOG died in Gujarat , Keep the Bas#@$d busy there

Injured Puppy Nasal twang wife (Oceanic Ghoose) - Making Maomata the real villain of economy in eyes of Public

To Nail :
1. Army chief - Yaar Jab dekho Goliyan mangta rehta hai . Woh to main Public ko de raha hoon usko kahan se doon

2. Smarty Pants Veshti - Quietly shiphon off some documents to Sub Swamy to keep him busy. Wants my chair.. O Main kya Khote to ruk

Flowers:
1. MadamJi - A big bouquet on the death anniversary of her husband. Thank you hai ji for adopting me to warm the Chair for Raul baba

2. Raul baba - Thank you note for doing a great work in UP. Abhi AP, Maha ke life best of luck. Do you want me to buy new shoes & under garments

You reminded me

On this lazy Saturday morning

What can I read her

How can I read her

Tell something that will Pearce

Walls, Rivers, Oceans & Ego

I' read her the dreams that I wove

May be let her read

Show her sea turtles that bleed

I’ll read her the Mahabharata

Full of criss-cavalry, blood
& gore

Stories to tame & charm
& more

What can i read her

On this lazy Saturday morning

I met a dream

Met a dream last night
Saw her come down the eye lane
walking to me
holding the hand of dream
reminded of life, smiling
Did not come alone
Necklace of dream!

stop chasing moonlight Poet
live in the moment
gather your blanket
sleep now
me , mine & mine alone
Living she was , Living I am

Clothed in sunlight
Let me chomp off the sky
Will start from the edge
Middle is hot
Wanton, willful & passive
Married to doubt
Saw the devil run dream aground

Dream time women.
Wondrous sacraments of doubt
Sprang sullen in bursts of fear, hope
& guilt in the womb’s pit hole
below the beast's belt

Living she was, Living I am

Sonea-nomics & Cheese eating monkeys

Going by the decible levels raised by Sonia Gandhi's mouthpeices aka UndieTV , sorry NDTV and Hammam boy's CNNIBN alongwith the Jesuit Jholawallahs, one may get the feeling that Sonia gandhi is on her way to sainthood. These Wine drinking cheese eating monkeys who live in flats thanks to CONgress largese are pure rhetorical. All these rhetorics have convinced me that Socialism is pure evil and melodramatic.

This food security bill will simpley beggar this country along with NREGA and loan wiping off.

Despite the objections of many in the UPA cabinet and the advice of economists, Sonia Gandhi is shoving the Food Security Bill down our throats.
It is tempting to conclude that all this is prompted by a desire to see the poor fed, but the truth is that the Food Security Bill (FSB) – like many of its predecessors – will end up achieving the exact opposite of what it wants to. It will achieve food insecurity and a devastated economy.
The FSB’s bills will fall due only later, but Sonia Gandhi’s old bills are already costing us plenty – not least inflation and a busted budget.
Let us add up the real cost to the country when Sonia Gandhi’s party feeds itself off someone else’s money: ours. This is the true cost of keeping the Dynasty in power.
The following are Sonia Gandhi’s political bills that have been paid by all of us – taxpayers and consumers.
# 1 Farm loan write-off of Rs 72,000 crore in 2008. All that the UPA needed to do to help farmers in debt was to waive interest, freeze the outstandings, and allow them to pay it all in easy instalments. But what could have been a bill of less than Rs 10,000 crore of interest waivers, which would have helped maintain a proper climate for loan recovery while providing real relief, ended up with a cost of Rs 72,000 crore for the exchequer. The political part of the bill is thus Rs 72,000 crore minus interest waiver costs – say around Rs 60,000 crore. The cost of damaging the repayment culture is incalculable – and will be paid by subsequent generations and banks.
# 2: Subsidies paid for keeping diesel, cooking gas and kerosene prices low:Rs 2,23,203 crore in 2005-11. Add this year’s under-recoveries of another Rs 1,32,000 crore, and the total bill is Rs 3,55,000-and-odd crore. Let’s further assume that all politicians would have subsidised petro-goods to some extent. But the NDA did not subsidise half as much. If we take 50 percent of the amount as subsidies that every politician would have paid to consumers, the subsidies paid only to humour Sonia Gandhi would be around Rs 1,75,000 crore.
# 3: The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) has cost all of Rs 1,00,000 crore so far, and by March, 2012, it will have cost around Rs 1,40,000 crore. Assuming, once again, a more sensible kind of populism would have ended up with only half the expenditure on such schemes, Sonia’s bill would work out to Rs 70,000 crore.
The Sonia-Rahul re-election bill so far thus amounts to Rs 3,05,000 crore.


Now let me get this food security bill into analysis. there are various estimates doing rounds. the most commonly dished out number is 127000 Crores. Ashok Gulati and Jyoti Gujral wri=ote in Economic times that the real cost of FSB direct as well as indirect (Accompanying investments in Godowns etc) is 200000 Cr.

Now let’s assume that even this money is worth spending to feed the poor. But the existing public distribution system (PDS) leads to a leakage of nearly 60 percent.
Says a World Bank study prepared at the instance of the UPA government: “Leakages and diversion of grains are high. Only 41 per cent of the grains released by government reach households, according to the 2004-05 National Sample Survey (the latest data available), with some states doing much worse. In 2001, the Planning Commission has estimated this leakage of BPL (below poverty line) grains at 58 percent nationally.”
If 58-60 percent of Rs 2,00,000 crore spent on the Food Security Bill is going to be lost due to leakage and pilferage, this is a humongous Rs 1,20,000 crore loss every year. Since it is Sonia Gandhi who insists on the FSB in its current form after rejecting every other alternative (including cash transfers to the poor), it means this bill ought to be sent to her and the National Advisory Council (NAC) she heads. Since we have two years of food security to finance before the next election, the real bill will be Rs 2,40,000 crore for 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Add Rs 2,40,000 crore to the Rs 3,05,000 crore bill the dynasty has already racked up to keep itself in the good books of the electorate and to get Rahul Gandhi the gaddi in 2014, and the true cost of Dynasty is Rs 5,45,000 crore.
NAC’s annual budget in just around Rs 4 crore. But the bill it is sending taxpayers is as much as Rs 5,45,000 crore.
Can India really afford dynastic politics of this irresponsible sort?
Let’s return to the economics of the Food Security Bill (FSB) again. It’s worth beginning with the old saying, slightly modified for our purposes: Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life. Give him a fish every day, and you will have him eating out of your hands. You would have created a permanent dependency and ultimately run out of fish.
This is what Sonia-nomics will achieve with the FSB: a population dependent on the dole, and an economy ultimately unable to feed itself.
To be sure, let’s give Sonia the benefit of the doubt and assume she has a heart of gold and weeps buckets at the thought of anyone going hungry. But nothing in the policies she has backed so far suggests she has her head screwed right.

However, the damage caused by the FSB will be with us long after the UPA is gone. The Bill will result in the following dangers:
1) It will damage the exchequer and stoke inflation – causing the subsidy bill to go higher and higher every year, leading to a pile-up of debts. India will be Greece by 2014.
2) The huge procurement targets needed to feed 75 percent of rural households and 50 percent or urban ones will call for regular increases in food procurement prices. This will again feed inflation.
3) If the monsoon fails in any particular year, we will have to import grain. International food prices are already well above Indian levels. If we enter the market – which we have seldom done – prices will go through the roof. High imports will send the rupee crashing – raising prices again. This is a recipe for disaster.
4) High procurement means closing down three-fourths of the market system in grains since the government becomes a monopoly buyer everywhere.
5) Both poor and rich farmers will try to game the system. If the market gets you a price of Rs 20 a kg for rice, and you can get 35 kg of rice per family per month at Rs 3, who will not buy from the PDS and sell to the market? This is cash transfer by another name: graft will be the only result.
6) The massive bill of Rs 6,00,000 crore for the FSB over three years is essentially money down the drain. It works against the fundamental argument about teaching someone to fish as against feeding him indefinitely. It will create dependencies, when the amount could have been spent to create rural infrastructure to improve agricultural productivity, and incomes. What we have essentially done is consumed the seedcorn of the future by spending money to feed instead of investing in rural infrastructure.

Moreover Look at the mathematics of it..


The government expenditure in Subsidies and NREGA grows at 20% each year .

We ll spend close to 200b on in in fiscal 12. So if the spending increases @ compounded 20% per annum , by 2022 we cauld spend 200b * Σ (1+0.20)^n where n= number in years . (formula for compound interest A=P(1+R/100)^n .. where n = number of years r = rate . Money wasted till 2022 = sum of it wasted every year starting from 2012.


32 * 200 B = 6.4 TRILLION .

So at the present rate , gov't would splurge 6.4 trillion till 2022 . I have made 2 critical assumptions here. 1) government spending shows a secular (in statistical sense) trend of increase ,by 20% per annum. 2) UPA gets re elected and carrys on splurging.

Note the magnitude of the figure. The total endowment of all American Universities is 327 billion dollars. This figure is 20 times the total worth of all American univs .Imagine the productive areas the money could have been spend.

India could easily build US styled infrastructure. Triple its power generation capability to 600k MW (50% MORE than khanate ) . Build thousands of KM of HSR . etc etc etc. And it could be all done in a decades time.

But instead it will be wasted on subsidies and nrega .

You cannot burn this kind of money and hope that there will be no consequence

Now add the social consequences. Think of Indians 67% of the households who are being denied the greatest Prize of life, WORK that you love. Krishan said in Geeta "karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana" . He taught us to be Karamyogis, Work without thinking of results.

We are simply creating populations that will be too lazy to work and learnt nothing from the collapse of Europe. Watch my prediction,we are going back to the yardsale of IMF in 2012 as wea re the next Greece. One more generation of Indians have been denied their rightful place in world by CON party and its socialism espousing poor hating journalists.

For them Poor look good in pictures, allows them to indulge in rhetorics and reduce their guilt of corruot money. I have nothing but contempt for these.

Great Indian liberal rope trick

I read somewhere minds free of dogmas and full of rational matter are more productive as they have a different way of looking at things, free of prejudice and non-judgemental. What a noble thought and history is resplendent of examples justifying the statement too. The important thing to note however is that most of the examples are western I.e. Einstine , openhiemer.
Coming to India, our liberals are a different breed altogether. I was watching some news program where some secular diva was espousing her innate nose of fairness and ideas of liberalism. Mind it, she has a large following and generates lot of positive feedback from the younger generation of viewers .She is a public intellectual. Why only she, there are lot many and if my guess is alright, it is the new trend for young urban middle class. However, I heard her and tabulated views of her ilk on what is the most liberal and true religion and modern too

Pre islamic Arabia & the age of Jahiliya

This is a term used extensively in Muslim Arab terminology which actually means “time of ignorance”; that is, ignorance of a revealed book, and hence the revelation of the unity and oneness of God. Before the advent of Muhammad, the Arabians had religious and social traditions that were later almost completely incorporated by him into Muhammadan theology with minimum if any modifications. Unlike the South Arabians who were a more urban group, the North Arabians of Najd and Al Hijaz, were mostly nomadic.
The sedentary populations of the above developed no ancient culture of their own. They had no system of writing and the only information about them comes from oral traditions, proverbs, legends and mostly poems that were orally transmitted down the decades. Most of these were later committed to writing two to three hundred years later (822/922 CE), that is two to four hundred years after the events that they were supposed to represent. It is a recorded historical fact that the North Arabians did not develop a system of writing until after the death of Muhammad c.635CE.
Arabs before Islam…

The Arab tribes of the Jazeerah (Peninsula) – Christian, Pagan or ‘Jewish’ – fought each other over the acquisition of water resources, over blood feuds and over supremacy. Each individual Arab was known and identified by the name of the tribe to which he belonged.

Although all the people of the peninsula were Arab, there was no such thing as a sense of unity or nationalism. Each tribe was a separate and independent entity, with different dialects and religious beliefs and had no feeling of affinity or loyalty to any other except in terms of mutually beneficial and convenient alliances. The sense of the ‘Umma al Arabia’, the nation and people of Arabia, was achieved only after all of Arabia was subjugated and united under Muhammad.

Social structure…

The Bedouin tribe (Qabilah) was organized in clans. The nucleus of the tribe was the tent (Khaymah) which represented a family; an encampment of tents formed a (Hayy). Members of one (Hayy) constituted a clan (Qawm). A number of kindred clans grouped together formed a tribe (Qabilah). The members of each clan are invariably blood-related.

The Bedouins are very democratic as far as their leadership is concerned. Only the wisest and most experienced of the clan members is elected leader (Sheikh); they are not hereditary. The leader is only primus inter pares; one among equals. His tenure in office lasted during the good will of his constituency. The name of each clan starts with the prefix Banu-, which means the children or descendants of. Tribal members share in common all pasturage, water and cultivable land; only the tent and its contents belong to the individual.

The Muslim state made full use of the tribal system for its military conquests and settlements purposes. The army was divided into divisions based on tribal affiliations to keep their cohesion and loyalty. The conquered territories were settled by tribes that treated the new converts from among the subjugated peoples as ‘clients’ (Mawali).

Religion…

In general, the pagan Arabs – the majority in Arabia – had a very primitive and simple astral and animistic religion of at least 360 gods and goddesses. Among the gods of the pagan Arabs, Allah was one of the most important. In Mecca, Allah was the principal though not the only deity. He had three daughters: Al Lat (Crescent); Al Uzzah (Venus) and Al Manah (Fate) (53:19/20). Besides the Ka’ba of Mecca, caves, trees, waterholes, wells, etc., were also venerated especially in a bleak, arid and desolate land as theirs. There were other ‘holy’ sites also called Ka’ba besides the one in Mecca, such as the ones in Petra, Sana’ and Najran.

The sun too was worshiped but not to the same level of importance as the moon. After all, Moon worship in general implies a nomadic and pastoral society, whereas Sun worship is invariably associated with an agricultural one. Most important of all is that in the scorching furnace heat of the Arabian Desert, the Sun is actually an enemy of the nomads depriving them of pasture, shade and water. On the other hand, the moon is their friend and ally providing them with light, coolness of the night, dew and shade; and this is reflected in its greater importance as a deity for them.

The pagan Arabs built no temples or special structures for their gods, unlike all the surrounding civilizations. They developed no elaborate mythology, no structured theology and no cosmogony comparable to that of any of their neighbours.

The pagan Ka’ba was a special but very simple cube-like building that housed a fallen black meteorite, which was venerated as a fetish. Because of its holiness, the area surrounding it was pronounced prohibited/sacred (Haram). Even before ‘Islam’, it was an object of annual pilgrimage and sacrifice.

Most of the ‘holy’ places of their other divinities were trees, wells, caves or fallen meteors. The pagan Arabs made sacrifices – both human and animal – to ‘Venus’ (Al Uzzah) and it is recorded that Muhammad participated in giving sacrifices to this goddess as a young man. The Bedouins also believed that the desert was full of living creatures/spirits called Jinn whose purpose was to blight their lives with mischief and difficulties. Since nomadic people bury their dead on the move and hence have no special resting-places such as graveyards, they subsequently had no special reverence for their dead nor any concept of an afterlife, of resurrection, a day of judgment or heaven and hell; these came with ‘Islam’.

The pagan Arabian calendar was a lunar one. The first three months of its Spring season coincided with the period of ‘peace’: dhu-al-Qa’dah; dhu-al-Hijjah and Muharram. These were the months of ‘Holy Truce’ when the usually warring tribes laid aside their hatreds and warfare and concentrated on offering sacrifices to their pagan gods and visiting their ‘holy’ sites. The Ukaz Fair in this period was used to trade and recite poetry. In pre-Islamic days, the annual fairs of North Arabia were followed by a pilgrimage in dhu-al-Hijjah to the Ka’ba and mount Arafat. Almost every one of those primarily pagan rituals, fetishes and traditions was later – out of desperation and for convenience – incorporated by Muhammad in his own version of ‘Islam’.

The Arabian Peninsula harboured, besides the indigenous tribes who followed the traditions of the Jews and the Christians, were the Sabeans and the ‘Hanifs’ who were believers in the One and Only God of Abraham; these latter must have been off-shoots from either the ‘Jews’ or the Christians or both.

Culture…

Contrary to all of Arab propaganda and historical falsifications, there was no Arab civilization to speak of where Muhammad grew up. Civilization requires a central government, administrative personnel and documentation, cities, art, sculpture, temples and priesthood, an army, etc. These were totally lacking in his days. The Arabs of Mecca and Medina did not have any of these attributes; they left posterity no monuments or temples and no records of their achievements. They had absolutely nothing remotely resembling either the Byzantine or Persian civilizations.

Tribes on the move can never bring about a civilization, neither can an extremely hostile and impoverished land.

The Arabs of Al Jahilyah (before Muhammad), left almost nothing in writing. No national epic was ever developed by the Arabians and no dramatic work of first-class importance. This is in unfavourable contrast to the Hebrews, Assyrians, Babylonians or the Egyptians who had a much more advanced literary, written and oral traditions; the Arabs on the other hand had mostly their oral one. They were the least literate among the peoples of the Middle East. Their language was their greatest legacy.

The Bedouins’ love of poetry was their only cultural asset and legacy. Their poets were held with great esteem and were extremely influential because of their mastery of the spoken word. They acted as the historians, propagandists and spokesmen of their tribes. They were in fact the equivalent of the modern news media reporters.

Although poetry reigned supreme among the Arabs of Al Hijaz and Al Najd (north-western and northern Arabia), prose was not well represented in the Jahiliyah literature since no system of writing had yet been fully developed and there is no trustworthy record of any Arabic literature before the Quran. This evolution started to occur just after the death of Muhammad as it was propelled by the imperative necessity to write down as much of the Quran as possible before all those who had memorised it had died of old age or killed in the battles of the civil wars that followed his death.

Despite all attempts by Muhammadan theologians to pervert the historical record, it is very clear that Muhammad did not get his ‘inspirations’ and the Quran in a vacuum; he was surrounded by all types of cultural influences: religious, material and intellectual emanating from Persian, Byzantine, Aramaean and the ‘People of the Book’, especially in the part of the peninsula (al Hijaz) where he grew up.

Most of the important stories in the Quran show that they were derived from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. His wife Khadija, after all, was a Hanif associated to a Christian tribe – as mentioned by Arab historians in many sources – since her cousin Waraqa, was a Christian.

Muhammad did not invent, create or discover the concept of the One and Only God because it was the effect of all these external influences that inspired Muhammad to create for his pagan Arabs, a scripture similar to that of the People of the Book.

The Scene…

Current wisdom, among historians, states that the conditions in the Arabian Peninsula were perfectly suited for a drastic change; a change to greater cohesion and uniformity and that Muhammad turned out to be the man for that moment in history.

The above is neither correct nor true, since Muhammad did not unite the Arabs of the Peninsula through dialogue, persuasion and debate – wherein he failed miserably in the first 13 years in Mecca – but because he succeeded in ‘uniting’ the Arabs only through the application of force, terror, assassination and ruthlessness as fully described in both the Quran and Ahadith.

It is a historical fact that many of the same Arabs who had earlier falsely ’submitted’ to him, apostatized the moment he died and was not there anymore to terrorize them. Once more, they had to be brought into ‘Islam’ by the application of the sword on a massive scale (Wars of Apostasy/ Huroub al Ridda) during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Rassooli/


This is as dispassionate , logical an account of whatever I understand pre Islamic Arab history. This no way takes away anything from Mohd for the great task he achieved. He left a blue print for his successors to create an Arab Empire with allegiance to none except Arabia.

Sometimes in the greater good, one has to spill blood. He gave a poor, eneducated, uncultured , desert race a Global empire in legacy .

Geography , Islam & western domination of India

European colonialists reinforced as a tool for the imposition of their own will in colonized lands such as India. It is also very much akin to the "Kabila" model that Islamic empires have employed for expansion and governance throughout their history.
 
The essential similarities between Western feudalism (transplanted to colonized countries in the colonial era) and Islamic "Kabila" imply that it is not only the "West" which has been a colonial entity as far as societies like ours are concerned... Islam itself is equally a foreign colonialist entity in our subcontinent, as fundamentally alien and predatory to our land, our culture and our way of life as the British or Portuguese or Dutch ever were. The atavistic howls issuing from their minarets five times a day are, indeed, cries of triumph and domination in a foreign language... the language of the colonizer shouting down the colonized.
 
Ramana has written extensively on the "Kabila" model... it roughly translates to "government as armed camp." Essentially there is a sultan who, with his generals and their troops, constitutes the ultimate fount of power in the political hierarchy. This is unwaveringly typical of the manner in which various political groups and dynasties have consolidated power in West and Central Asia, and North Africa, since the very advent of Islam.
 
The "Kabila" worked very well in the lands where Islam originated, and where it spread in the early centuries of its expansion. Why? Because the lands themselves were amenable to being governed in this form. In the deserts of West Asia, the arid mountains of Persia and the steppes to the North, the circumstances of nature favour a form of political dominance which relies on armament, maneuverability and mobility. This is because resources are scarce and concentrated in a few areas... an oasis here, a valley there. With a strong group of highly mobile armed men on horseback, you can easily forge an empire in such places. All you have to do is seize control of the few well-defined supply centers, the market centers (city states) and the trade routes between them. Most of the land is junk anyway. Once you're able to do this, and especially to destroy any civilizational affinity to pre-Islamic forms in the market centers (hence the Islamic obsession with temple breaking and idol smashing) you have, effectively, an empire. It doesn't matter if the thousands of useless square miles in between are physically under your domination or not; as long as you have no challengers in these particular small foci of power, you're an unchallenged monarch.
 
"Kabila" differs from European feudalism because of the emphasis on mobility... horsemen and artillery could be moved to engage a challenger in very short order. A necessary corollary of the Kabila model is un-rootedness. If you have to move fast you cannot afford to be tied down. Therefore, you do not invest in the land or the people, you see them only as objects to be controlled and squeezed for every drop of utility against the hard anvil of history. You position mullahs in population centers to be your spies, propagandists and social monitors... weeding out unorthodoxy and rebellion at the stage of ideation before it becomes necessary to smack down an armed rebellion. But ultimately you, and your apparatus of mullahs, constitute an extraordinarily parasitic, locust-like and virulent form of colonialism. This is something that Western studies of post-colonialism (with their essentially Euro-centric historiography) entirely ignore... they see the Islamic virus as something that was indigenous somehow to the lands they conquered. They do not realize that it was merely a more rapacious and less invested form of colonial imperialism.
 
Indeed, the more invested Muslim rulers became in their territories, the less "Islamic" they became, of necessity taking on the administrative, social and traditional trappings of pre-Islamic statehood. This made them vulnerable to "purer", mobile and less-invested Islamic conquerors. Hence the Delhi sultanate was prime fodder for Timur and Babar... Baghdad for the Mongols... and Mughal Delhi, again, for Nadir Shah. In each case the less-civilized, more predatory and more essentially savage Kabila prevailed over the more "settled" and "urbanized" Muslim state. When you do not carry the baggage of civilization or of feeling responsibility for the people you rule, you have much more maneuverability and ruthlessness at your disposal. Taking advantage of the Kabila's inherent strengths, the West was able to lead roving bands of armed Arabs in a devastatingly effective rebellion against the settled Ottomans during the 1st World War.
 
Why do I bring all this up with relevance to Pakistan?
 
As I said before... the "Kabila" system worked very well to dominate places where resources were scarce and concentrated in well-defined locations. However, it never worked quite as well in India.
 
That is because our Bharatvarsha is quite unlike those lands where Islam originated and expanded in the early centuries of its being. In Bharatvarsha, the land is almost never inhospitable or forbidding. In Arabia, a band of people displaced from an oasis had two choices: submit to the peaceful orthodoxy of a triumphant Muslim conqueror, or go out into the desert and die. In India, not so. A displaced people had only to go fifty or a hundred or two hundred kilometres in any direction... and mother Bharat in her generous embrace would provide fertile lands, rich orchards, abundant and plentiful fields. How many generations and what huge extents of such flights were supported by the bounty of Bharatvarsha become apparent if you study the migration of the Saraswats, originally from Kashmir... one branch traveled from there south of the Vindhyas, to Goa, and then again uprooted themselves in the face of Portuguese onslaught and proceeded to what is Dakshin Kannada in Karnataka today.
 
This had two effects: first, it made Indians in general indifferent to the fact of an Islamic conquest. If they took away our old fields and seized our city... well, we would just move over a little bit and build a new city, cultivate new fields. Our Gods and families are safe, let the Turk or Afghan have the old land, because there is enough for everybody if we simply adjust our location a little bit: this was how our forefathers dealt with Islamic expansion.
 
The second effect, of course, is that Hindu society survived, largely unscathed, as an essentially Indian identity. In Mesopotamia or Egypt, the Muslim idol-smashers and temple-breakers could effectively carry out cultural genocide because their targets were all in one place and immobile... where could you build another Baghdad or Luxor? The inheritors of the old culture had no choice but to surrender before the savagery of Islam's harbingers, and participate willingly in the extinction of their pre-Islamic cultural identities, if they wished to survive at all. In India, we would take our Gods, our families and our few possessions and head out a few more miles into the vast green hinterland and endless bounty of Bharat-mata, who would provide lovingly for us to begin our lives over again as Hindus.
 
This is essentially why we were saved from being extinguished by the onslaught of Islamic colonialism... Bharatvarsha herself sheltered her children and empowered them to preserve their way of life.
 
Now what you have in Pakistan today is the continuance of the Kabila system. The West realized soon enough that without the depredations of Islamic colonialism that denuded the civilizational wealth of the East for nearly ten centuries, sapping the power of the old Asiatic states and erasing their very identities... without this, the West would have had a much harder time pursuing their own colonial expansions. In fact, Islamic colonialism prepares the ground for Western colonialism... a fact that remains as true today as it was before the Battle of Plassey. Hence, everyone from Olaf Caroe to Zbignew Brzezinski sees a utility for the West in maintaining Islamic Kabilas even when the armies and viceroys of the West have gone home. The Kabilas will never construct a state of sufficient power to threaten the West; but they will keep Asia weak for the day that the West might want to return, in one form or another.
 
THIS is why the West was so determined to see a Pakistan constructed out of a large portion of Bharatvarsha. It is also why the West has been careful to destroy any alternative sense of nationhood or state-based form of governance in the Muslim world, other than Kabila. It is why the Arab nationalists of Ba'ath Egypt (Nasser) and Iraq (Saddam) had to be deposed, and the last scion of Ba'athism, Syria's Assad, is being systematically marked for elimination today. This is the reason why Gaddaffi in Libya was ousted, and why Iran is now at the head of the list of Western targets. Meanwhile the Kabila-state of Saudi Arabia is raised to paramountcy; while in smaller GCC nations... which are essentially city-states or market-centers like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain... the US itself has taken on the role of Kabila.
 
In Pakistan that role has been given to the Kabila known as the Pakistan Army. However, let's remember... the land which the Pakistan Army Kabila seeks to dominate is not an arid expanse with tightly localized resource concentrations, as in the territories where the Kabila model has a natural advantage. No, the land of Pakistan is the land of Bharatvarsha... all-embracing and hospitable. It is much harder for a Kabila to control and dominate this "Pakistan" than a Persia or an Iraq.
 
Meanwhile, to the northwest of Pakistan is Afghanistan... a prime Kabila land, where a mobile and savage army unencumbered by investment in the people can always prevail over the forces of a more settled kingdom.
 
What happened over the last ten years is instructive. The Kabila (Pakistan Army) deputed by the West to control and enervate Western Bharatvarsha for colonial exploitation, has failed in its task. It has succumbed to the temptations of the land it occupies... Bharatvarsha... and become more "settled" than a Kabila has any right to be. It has become invested in private enterprise, legitimate ones like textiles and agriculture as well as illegal ones such as heroin supply. The Pakistan Army remains a true Kabila in that it still does not give a damn for the people in its charge; but it has become "softer" in the style of the Lodhi who was overwhelmed by Babar, or the Abbasid Caliph who was smashed by Genghis Khan. To compensate for its softness, the Pakistan Army has overemphasized the role traditionally played by Mullahs in the Kabila system, and set up a huge, hypertrophied apparatus of highly empowered political agents to subdue the population in the name of Islam... including all our favourite Tanzeems.
 
The big mistake that the Soft Kabila of the Pakistan Army made was to create another Kabila... the Taliban... in an attempt to colonize and subdue the people of Afghanistan. Taliban Kabila, being a classic, mobile, hard Kabila, was able to gain control over the prime Kabila-land of Afghanistan in record time back in 1996. However, with the force of historic inevitability... they have utterly lost regard and affinity for the soft, settled Kabila of the TSPA. They see no reason why they should take orders from this decadent, less-pure Sultanate; they have enjoyed repeated military successes over the TSPA over the past ten years; and worst of all, they have seen the TSPA do the bidding of the Kaffir by comfortably abetting the slaughter of Momin perpetuated by the Americans since 2001.
 
As a result, not only the Taliban, but many sections of the Kabila-apparatchik mullahs (who would ordinarily remain loyal to a strong, hard-Kabila) have turned against the soft and decadent Kabila of the TSPA.
 
Perhaps the most curious thing is how the TSPA and the Paki elite have responded to this state of affairs. Being themselves of Bharatvarsha... they have begun to do the classic Hindoo thing! "Fine", they say, "let the fundoos have FATA/KP, after all we have much more productive land".... "fine, let them have a presence in Karachi/Quetta/Peshawar, not a blade of grass grows there"... "fine, let them expand into southern Punjab, after all we should keep them close so we can keep an eye on them." Rationalization after rationalization is articulated by these Pakis while their circle of influence shrinks; so far will our bounteous mother Bharat let them retreat into the welcoming folds of her sari that they blindfold themselves ever more tightly with her pallu and convince themselves that all is well.


A post by a fellow blogger -Rudradev

Arise! Awake and stop not till you loose it all

In most countries 5% of the population are educated/productive and pull the country forward. 95% of the population essentially has its head up its rear. The prosperous countries have govts that get out of the way of that 5%. In countries like India, not only is the govt. made up entirely of the head up rear, they ALSO put up as many road blocks as humanly possible to make the 5% fail. The results are simple to see.

Indian school students fared 2nd last in reading, writing and mathematical abilities in a test conducted by UN along Kyrgyzstan for 73 countries. the point to note is that our 15 year olds scored 200 points less than the global leader. These supposedly were children from the best run education system states, TN & Himachal.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Indian-students-rank-2nd-last-in-global-test/article show/11492508.cms

Actually , the US high school dropout rates would have been much higher than 40-50% if they did not follow a 'no child left behind' policy . US basically passes as many high school grads as possible.

US understood that the top 5 % manpower is what counts . And that top instis like MIT and stanford are not the places to indulge in democratization . And that merit should prevail in them. While the bozos who run India wanted 'democracy' everywhere . They wanted every ration card holder to go to IIT . And hence reservation was started. There is no reservation in US medical colleges.


So what does this test reveal? For me to start with it reveals that Govt. should simply shut down state run schools and start subsidising child education money directly to the accounts of parents for them to be able to send kids to privately run schools. Not all of them may be so great but they will definitely fare better than the Government run where teachers either don't come, even if they come, they come late or sleep in classrooms and indulge in politics. We must stop this 'Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan' immediately. Show me one success story of this initiative.

This glib talk of 'Inclusive growth' coined by morally and intellectually bankrupt UPA govt. is nothing but age-old CONgress idea of redistribution of wealth and keeping the corruption machinery running through various schemes to placate the local leaders, mostly teachers etc. If we want to realise our manifest destiny, we must educate our children and educate them well or we will loose this demographic dividend.

So basically democracy in Yindia means "dumb everyone down to the same level" That brings us to a fundamental question. Why was the institution of Government created? There can be 2 answers..

1. We are incapable of making of making right decisions so we chose few amongst us to guide society towards the final objectives through a chosen path. Imagining they are part of the 5%.

2. We created a system wherein we needed people to fulfill certain jobs i.e protect my rights as individuals, civil liberties, clean the streets etc

I for one believe the system of governance was created to serve us, Protect my rights as an individual and get paid certain sum of money for doing that job. Wherein in India (disease has moved elsewhere too) the government has moved to the upper sphere. In the name of 'inclusive growth' is robbing people of their rights and giving it to the majority. It has become the tyranny of dumb/delinquent majority.

Listen, my friends, Governments don't produce any goods or services by nature and by principle. It means they have to snatch them from someone and give it to the ones libtards call, Poor, destitute. Its immoral to say the least. Universal education does not mean that you block my path in the name of providing opportunity to others. you are virtually ensuring the destruction of future prosperity by blocking this 5%.

There is nothing called, 'Right' when it comes to Education, healthcare or food. It is an individual responsibility and I am all for Private charity not as an obligation but as providing opportunity. the nature of regulations is such that when you introduce one, you bring in 2 more to ensure the first one you introduced thus bloating bureaucracy. Time has come for all of us to start regulating the government and not other way round. It was meant to serve, not rule us or the day is not far when we will rob this nation of it's manifest destiny.

Evey new scheme that Govt. introduces become another lottery for the bureaucracy to make money. Rule of people is getting replaced by rule of babus and moronic Politicians. Time to look for new system of 'public service.

India's blighted urban English speaking idiots and women emancipation

As a friend few years back called me a right winger and conseravtive, i kept on thinking about it for long. Is it bad to appreciate the heritage, culture and inherent reasons for existence of many of thse traditions? I felt proud of the civilisation that i am born in for the simple fact that it allowed divergent views.

Off late it has become fashionable to ridicule tradition in the so called, modern forward thinking world citizens. Many of whom watch NDTV or CNNIBN and use them as their primary source for world view. Wherein they talk about the pollution that comes on Diwali but never mention the tons of confettis that re blown away on Christmas along with the garbage, primarily plastic piling on the roads. They even ignore the cruel culling on poor animals on EID through a painfully process of Halal and go to the extent of respecting the sensitivities of Christans and Muslims. Fair enough, how about respecting the rights of other indians who follow Sanatan?

Today, 'Jallikattu' is referred as barbaric but the same crowd goes berserk as seeing bulls chasing 3 Bollywood actors in the popular movie 'jindagi an milegi dobara' . Is it the anglicised , metrosexual (feminine) heros with waxed chests look far more appealing to our world view of being modern and the VESHTI clad, skinny , dark natives running in front of bulls inTamil nadu are not so appealing that's why the whole acts is termed as barbaric?

One question which I want to ask the so called, modern, forward, English speaking , urbane population of this country is where is their famed nostril flaring anger at the murder of Bhanvari devi? I do know for a fact that if some CONgress politicians would not hav been involved then NDTV/CNNIBN would have taken the culprit to cleaners but as we understand you can't expose the people who pay your salaries. Most of the English media has concocted a story as of she deserved to die like this, murdered, burnt and pieces thrown into canal. Behind the exterior of sophistication is the real intent visible when they use the words like ,"small town woman", "big ambitions" and "dangerous liaisons". What a double speak this is. I know of many English speaking, career woman who did exactly the same as Bhanvari, slept with their mentors to have a great career, faster promotions or to have a life style that they could not afford. But off course , they are modern and definitely not small town . Moreover they speak English unlike Bhanwari Devi .

How blithely we abuse the Right for anything and everything that offends those who promote and practice unrestrained libertinism and are appalled that morals and scruples are still valued by the vast majority of the people of India. It is of little or no consequence to the critics of the Right that most of them lack the intellectual wherewithal to define and qualify the object of their hate. Despite the absence of any real understanding of what the Right stands for, in contrast to the Left, it is fashionable to mock at the former even for those whom the latter holds in utter contempt.

Hence the outpouring of abuse and worse against the Right following the attack on a pub in Mangalore, evocatively named Amnesia, by a bunch of goons masquerading as soldiers of Sri Ram Sena on January 24.,2009. Strangely, most of the scathing criticism of the Right was and is voiced by those whose dissolute lifestyle sets them firmly apart from conservatives as well as liberals. It is doubtful whether the Left, leave alone the Right, would endorse the enterprise undertaken by The Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women to collect pink underwear, sneeringly referred to as ‘chaddis’, which was sent to Pramod Muthalik and his hoodlums on Valentine’s Day that year. There is nothing amusing about either this ‘creative’ protest or Union Minister of State for Women and Child Development Renuka Choudhury’s call for a ‘pub bharo andolan’; both merely highlight the moral bankruptcy of a certain segment of our urban society which seeks to impose on India the trailer park ‘culture’ that permeates every aspect of their lives.

" The issue really isn’t one of culture and tradition, which are far too complex for those who look askance at responsible behaviour to comprehend, but the manner in which they view others who may refuse to embrace or applaud their lifestyle. It is also to do with perverse notions of ‘modernism’ and assertion of perverted ‘modernity’. For instance, The Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women — this Facebook group also had men as its members — would consider women who don’t consume alcoholic beverages or smoke cigarettes, wear saris and are not necessarily long-suffering wives who spend their lives as home-makers but in building successful careers, as ‘backward’.

They would view working women who travel in over-crowded buses and commuter trains and return home in the evening too tired to contemplate a night out on the tiles, or those who contribute to the family kitty to keep the home fire burning and, therefore, cannot afford the luxury of scoffing exotic cocktails at pubs, as losers deserving of their pity. The women who scrub floors, wash clothes and clean dishes to eke out subsistence wages from which they save money to pay for their children’s school fees and books, and are regularly beaten black and blue by their husbands after they have had their fill of liquor at ‘pubs’ which cater to the underclass, simply do not matter and, hence, are not worthy of The Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women’s attention".

There is also the aspect of duplicity, the double standards which are practiced by those who equate ‘pub culture’ and its attendant libertine self-indulgence with being ‘forward’ or ‘modern’. For example, a woman with the pallu of her sari firmly placed over her head will be sneered at as not only ‘backward’ but also a ‘conservative’ who is preventing society from moving ‘forward’. But a woman forced to clad herself in an all-enveloping burqa will be seen as being true to her ‘faith’ and ‘culture’, which only underscores the amazing ignorance of those who do the tagging.

Who is to tell The Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women, and their guardian angel Renuka Choudhury, that a vegetarian and a teetotaller, whether a man or a woman, who finds ‘pub culture’ abhorrent and distasteful, or those who reject conspicuous consumption since it clashes with their middle class values, can also be ‘forward’ and ‘modern’ in their personal lives?

"Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar did not give up his sacred thread nor did he get rid of the tuft of hair that denoted his caste; he wore a short Bengali peasant’s dhuti and used a coarse cotton chaador to cover his torso. He was a scholar of Sanskrit who was barely able to make ends meet, leave alone indulge in the smallest of luxuries. Such a person would be an object of ridicule and worse for The Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women, especially the male members of the group who would burst into derisive laughter. That’s understandable. For those busy collecting pink chaddis would be blissfully ignorant of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar’s pioneering role in championing women’s emancipation and promoting widow remarriage. Nor would they know about Raja Ram Mohun Roy who led a remarkable campaign for social reform without abandoning culture and tradition: The Brahmo Samaj was — and remains — grounded in India’s civilisational identity and cultural ethos while repudiating aberrations and excesses of faith.

A last point that merits elaboration is the disdain which the pink chaddi brigade and charlatans who pose as emancipators of women and ostensibly believe that emancipation lies in sipping Bacardi or chasing whiskey while blowing smoke rings have for local community sensitivities, which are often casually referred to as local culture and tradition. Just because lip-locking or similar public display of carnal attraction (which is not to be confused with love) raises no eyebrows in the West does not mean the East must ape the mating game. It is immaterial whether individuals are comfortable with licentious behaviour in front of others. What is material and important is whether those around the individuals — in a street, a park, a café or a restaurant — are comfortable with it; if they feel discomfited or outraged, then their sensitivities must over-ride the presumed right to make a spectacle of yourself in public."

Let me tell you dear 'modern, loose moral, consortium of pub going men and women', you indeed are rootless, characterless and unprincipled zombies. You who've no strength of character. Even if Bhanvari did what she did, nobody has any right to kill her for ambitions and she deserves justice and yes more outrage. Where are the champions of women's modesty and her right o have a life that she wants and chooses for herself.

Remember PINK CHADDIS Bhanvari Devi has a 17 year old son and 2 daughters.

Quotes from Kanchan Gupta's article in January 2009

Government, Banker & the CON GAMES

Imagine you are in command or a ruler of a state, defined as an institution that possesses a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving the state and its agents itself, and, by implication, the right to tax, i.e., to unilaterally determine the price that your subjects must pay you to perform the task of ultimate decision making.

To act under these constraints — or rather, lack of constraints — is what constitutes politics and political action, and it should be clear from the outset that politics, then, by its very nature, always means mischief. Not from your point of view, of course, but mischief from the point of view of those subject to your rule as ultimate judge. Predictably, you will use your position to enrich yourself at other people's expense.

What if you are in command of a territory, sate in a way that you possess a monopoly on decisions and that monopoly you have accorded yourself under the name of the very people you claim to represent and serve.

More specifically, we can predict in particular what your attitude and policy vis-à-vis money and banking will be.

Another set of assumption has to be that the territory that you rule has developed beyond the primitive agrarian/Barter economy with means modern means available to hoard your produce or as medium of exchange, i.e money. At the onset or a basic level it is fairly simple to understand why you would interested in money and wealth. As a ruler, you can confiscate anything or everything you want and take in an unearned income for the little you do for the populace in return. In case you are smart, you would refrain from confiscating the producers of income or goods while you can confiscate money. Money, as you understand is the most liquid, widely acceptable good of all, allows you the greatest freedom to spend this wealth as you like. I t additionally has no constraint on the variety of goods. First and foremost, then, the taxes you impose on society will be money taxes, whether on property or income. You will want to maximize your money-tax revenues.

In this attempt, however, you will quickly encounter some rather intractable difficulties. Eventually, your attempts to further increase your tax income will encounter resistance in that higher tax rates will not lead to higher but to lower tax revenue. Your income — your spending money — declines, because producers, burdened with increasingly higher tax rates, simply produce less.

In this situation, you only have one other option to further increase or at least maintain your current level of spending: by borrowing such funds. And for that you must go to banks — and hence your special interest also in banks and the banking industry. If you borrow money from banks, these banks will automatically take an active interest in your future well-being. They will want you to stay in business, i.e., they want the state to go on in its exploitation business. And since banks tend to be major players in society, such support is certainly beneficial to you. On the other hand, as a negative, if you borrow money from banks you are not only expected to pay your loan back, but to pay interest on top.

The question, then, that arises for you as the ruler is, How can I free myself of these two constraints, i.e., of tax-resistance in the form of falling tax revenue and of the need to borrow from and pay interest to banks?

It is not too difficult to see what the ultimate solution to your problem is.

You can reach the desired independence of taxpayers and tax payments and of banks, if only you establish yourself first as a territorial monopolist of the production of money. On your territory, only you are permitted to produce money. But that is not sufficient. Because as long as money is a regular good that must be expensively produced, there is nothing in it for you except expenses. More importantly, then, you must use your monopoly position in order to lower the production cost and the quality of money as close as possible to zero. Instead of costly quality money such as gold or silver, you must see to it that worthless pieces of paper that can be produced at practically zero cost will become money. (Normally, no one would accept worthless pieces of paper as payment for anything. Pieces of paper are acceptable as payment only insofar as they are titles to something else, i.e., property titles. In other words then, you must replace pieces of paper that were titles to money with pieces of paper that are titles to nothing.)

Under competitive conditions, i.e., if everyone were free to produce money, a money that can be produced at almost zero cost would be produced up to a quantity where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, and because marginal cost is zero the marginal revenue, i.e., the purchasing power of this money, would be zero as well. Hence, the necessity to monopolize the production of paper money, so as to restrict its supply, in order to avoid hyperinflationary conditions and the disappearance of money from the market altogether (and a flight into "real values") — and the more so the cheaper the money commodity.

In a way, you have thus accomplished what all alchemists and their sponsors wanted to achieve: you have produced something valuable (money with purchasing power) out of something practically worthless. What an achievement. It costs you practically nothing and you can turn around and buy yourself something really valuable, such as a house or a Mercedes; and you can achieve these wonders not just for yourself but also for your friends and acquaintances, of which you discover that you have all of a sudden far more than you used to have (including many economists, who explain why your monopoly is really good for everyone).

What are the effects? First and foremost, more paper money does not in the slightest affect the quantity or quality of all other, nonmonetary goods. There exist just as many other goods around as before. This immediately refutes the notion — apparently held by most if not all mainstream economists — that "more" money can somehow increase "social wealth." To believe this, as everyone proposing a so-called easy-money policy as an efficient and "socially responsible" way out of economic troubles apparently does, is to believe in magic: that stones — or rather paper — can be turned into bread.

Rather, what the additional money you printed will affect is twofold. On the one hand, money prices will be higher than they would otherwise be, and the purchasing power per unit of money will be lower. In a word, the result will be inflation. More importantly, however, all the while the greater amount of money does not increase (or decrease) the total amount of presently existing social wealth (the total quantity of all goods in society), it redistributes the existing wealth in favor of you and your friends and acquaintances, i.e., those who get your money first. You and your friends are relatively enriched (own a larger part of the total social wealth) at the expense of impoverishing others (who as a result own less).

The problem, for you and your friends, with this institutional setup is not that it doesn't work. It works perfectly, always to your own (and your friends') advantage and always at the expense of others. All you have to do is to avoid hyperinflation. For in that case people would avoid using money and flee into real values, thus robbing you of your magic wand. The problem with your paper-money monopoly, if there is one at all, is only that this fact will be immediately noticed also by others and recognized as the big, criminal rip-off that it indeed is.

But this problem can be overcome, too, if, in addition to monopolizing the production of money, you also set yourself up as a banker and enter the banking business with the establishment of a central bank.

Because you can create paper money out of thin air, you can also create credit out of thin air. In fact, because you can create credit out of nothing (without any savings on your part), you can offer loans at cheaper rates than anyone else, even at an interest rate as low as zero (or even at a negative rate). With this ability, not only is your former dependency on banks and the banking industry eliminated; you can, moreover, make banks dependent on you, and you can forge a permanent alliance and complicity between banks and state. You don't even have to become involved in the business of investing the credit yourself. That task, and the risk involved in it, you can safely leave to commercial banks. What you, your central bank, need to do is only this: You create credit out of thin air and then loan this money, at below-market interest rates, to commercial banks. Instead of you paying interest to banks, banks now pay interest to you. And the banks in turn loan out your newly created easy credit to their business friends at somewhat higher but still submarket interest rates (to earn from the interest differential). In addition, to make the banks especially keen on working with you, you may permit the banks to create a certain amount of their own new credit (of checkbook money) in addition and on top of the credit that you have created (fractional-reserve banking).

What are the consequences of this monetary policy? To a large extent they are the same as with an easy money policy: First, an easy credit policy is also inflationary. More money is brought into circulation and prices will be higher, and the purchasing power of money lower, than would have been the case otherwise. Second, the credit expansion too has no effect on the quantity or quality of all goods currently in existence. It neither increases nor decreases their amount. More money is just this: more paper. It does not and cannot increase social wealth by one iota. Third, easy credit also engenders a systematic redistribution of social wealth in favor of you, the central bank, and the commercial banks within your cartel. You receive an interest return on money that you have created at practically zero cost out of thin air (instead of on money costly saved out of an existing income), and so do the banks, who earn additional interest on your costless money loans. Both you and your banker friends thereby appropriate an "unearned income." You and the banks are enriched at the expense of all "real" money savers (who receive a lower interest return than they otherwise would, i.e., without the injection of your and the banks' cheap credit into the credit market).

On the other hand, there also exists a fundamental difference between an easy, print-and-spend money policy and an easy, print-and-loan credit policy.

First off, an easy credit policy alters the production structure — what is produced and by whom — in a highly significant way.

You, the chief of the central bank, can create credit out of thin air. You do not have to first save money out of your money income, i.e., cut your own expenses, and thus abstain from buying certain nonmoney goods (as every normal person must, if he extends credit to someone). You only have to turn on the printing press and can thus undercut any interest rate demanded of borrowers by savers elsewhere in the market. Granting credit does not involve any sacrifice on your part (which is why this institution is so "nice"). If things then go well, you will be paid a positive-interest return on your paper investment, and if they don't go well — well, as the monopoly producer of money, you can always make up losses more easily than anyone else: by covering your losses with even more printed paper.

Without costs and no genuine, personal risk of losses, then, you can grant credit essentially indiscriminately, to everyone and for any purpose, without concern for the creditworthiness of the debtor or the soundness of his business plan. Because of your "easy" credit, certain people (in particular investment bankers) who otherwise would not be deemed sufficiently creditworthy, and certain projects (in particular of banks and their main clients) that would not be considered profitable but wasteful or too risky instead do get credit and do get funded.

Essentially, the same applies to the commercial banks within your banking cartel. Because of their special relationship to you, as the first recipients of your costless low-interest paper-money credit, the banks, too, can offer loans to prospective lenders at interest rates below market interest rates — and if things go well for them they go well; and if they don't, they can rely on you, as the monopolistic producer of money, to bail them out in the same way as you bail yourself out of any financial trouble: by more paper money. Accordingly, the banks too will be less discriminating in the selection of their clients and their business plans and more prone to funding the "wrong" people and the "wrong" projects.

And there is a second significant difference between a print-and-spend and a print-and-loan policy and this difference explains why the income and wealth redistribution in your and your banker friends' favor that is set in motion by easy credit takes the specific form of a temporal — boom-bust — cycle, i.e., of an initial phase of seeming general prosperity (of expected increases in future incomes and wealth) followed by a phase of widespread impoverishment (when the prosperity of the boom period is revealed as a widespread illusion).

This boom-bust feature is the logical — and physically necessary — consequence of credit created out of thin air, of credit unbacked by savings, of fiduciary credit (or however else you may call it) and of the fact that every investment takes time and only shows later on, at some time in the future, whether it is successful or not.

The reason for the business cycle is as elementary as it is fundamental. Robinson Crusoe can give a loan of fish (which he has not consumed) to Friday. Friday can convert these savings into a fishing net (he can eat the fish while constructing the net), and with the help of the net, then, Friday, in principle, is capable of repaying his loan to Robinson, plus interest, and still earn a profit of additional fish for himself. But this is physically impossible if Robinson's loan is only a paper note, denominated in fish, but unbacked by real-fish savings, i.e., if Robinson has no fish because he has consumed them all.

Then, and necessarily so, Friday must fail in his investment endeavor. In a simple barter economy, of course, this becomes immediately apparent. Friday will not accept Robinson's paper credit in the first place (but only real, commodity credit), and because of this, the boom-bust cycle will not get started. But in a complex monetary economy, the fact that credit was created out of thin air is not noticeable: every credit note looks like any other, and because of this the notes are accepted by the takers of credit.

This does not change the fundamental fact of reality that nothing can be produced out of nothing and that investment projects undertaken without any real funding whatsoever (by savings) must fail, but it explains why a boom — an increased level of investment accompanied by the expectation of higher future income and wealth — can get started (Friday does accept the note instead of immediately refusing it). And it explains why it then takes a while until the physical reality reasserts itself and reveals such expectations as illusory.

But what's a little crisis to you? Even if your path to riches is through repeated crises, brought about by your paper-money regime and central-bank policies, from your point of view — from the viewpoint as the head of state and chief of the central bank — this form of print-and-loan wealth redistribution in your own and your banker friends' favor, while less immediate than that achieved with a simple print-and-spend policy, is still much preferable, because it is far more difficult to see through and recognize for what it is. Rather than coming across as a plain fraud and parasite, in pursuing an easy-credit policy you can even pretend that you are engaged in the selfless task of "investing in the future" (rather than spending on present frivolities) and "healing" economic crises (rather than causing them).

*With excerpts from papers of an Austrian economist & also articles of publications of people whose names I have missed