Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Modern Sapta-Sindhu: Restructuring the Indian civilizational state - Part 2

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

We need to look at the classical concept of Sapta-Sindhu. Although the concept of Sapta-Sindhu has been changing with time, in all the given times, India's civilization along with her production centres, centres of learning, centres for military and political power and economic growth have been along the Sapta-Sindhus of contemporary time. Being from Krishna-Godavari basin, I have read about the models which were implemented by our forefathers. It is vaguely like this. Please go through the Part One of this article to understand the Purva-Paksha. The model of governance and society designed by our forefathers is our "Swa-Tantra". Please also go through this excellent speech from TV-Series "Chanakya" to understand the term "Swa-Tantra" (Self-System).

The system which is now in place in partitioned India is the one implemented by the Britishers. While it is working (I would not say its working fine), one needs to revisit what models of governance and social-contract did our Indian forefathers designed. A system which is a natural evolutionary product of the earlier system which was was designed by Indians for Indians from scratch should be the template for Indian Socio-politico-Economic system. This is true "Swatantra". 

Following is an attempt to design such a template which is based on whatever  understanding of Indic history that I possess so far. It is open for criticism and addition by respected readers.

Bowing to MahaKaala, I start my exposition.

A. Villages are grouped in groups of 5 to 7 (termed as "Pancha-Kroshi").

B. This is the structural and functional unit of "Rashtra".

C. For every Pancha Kroshi, there is a administrative office with an executive head (Pande OR Mukhiya). He is flanked by a financial officer (Kulkarni) and judicial officer (Shaastri) and a auditor's office (Shrikaranadhip or Fadnavis). All these are independent offices. In older times, the mukhiya or pande also had powers to raise a militia of certain number. this power need not be relegated in modern times. This was structure in older times (from chalukya till yadavas and then during shivaji and sambhaji. later marathas abandoned this in favour of mughal mansabdari system). 

D. Each of the 5 offices (militia included) sat together and formed a "Panchaayat" with either shastri or pande on the chair and resolved most of the disputes. 

E. For every such 10 "panchakroshi", there was an office of "Deshmukh" or "Deshpande". 

F. For every such 10 offices of Deshmukhs, there used to be an office of "Sardeshmukh" or "Sardeshpande". Thus, one office of sardeshmukh controlled 500 villages.

G. Sardeshmukh reported directly to "Subhedar" (Provincial head) office. 

H. How to organize the Subah or states or Desha in modern lingo? My personal preference would be to river basin based primary division. 

I. These river basins have been civilizationally self-sufficient entities who have relations with others. I would consider following self-ruling "Desha" in India. Here Desha has powers and autonomy equal to European nation-states minus defence, foreign affairs etc. 

Note: One really has to part with the westphalian idea of nation-state. Rashtra is not equal to nation. Dharma is not equal to religion. Idol is not equal to Murti. Aatmaa is not equal to soul. India is NOT one nation. India is ONE RASHTRA. India is one "Saanskritik Raashtra". 

J. The self-ruling autonomous Deshas (Nation-states) of Indic Rashtra are as follows. The description of the 7 river basins (Sapta-Sindhu) can be found in this earlier article.

The "Mahajanapadas" located in the modern Sapta-Sindhu region which constitute the Sanskritik Raashtra OR the civilizational state of India.

1. Upper Ganga basin (Up to Prayaag to be referred to as "Paanchala")
2. Central Ganga basin (Magadha)
3. Bengal (Vanga desha)
4. Punjab -jammu included (Pancha-nada)
5. Northern Himalayan federation (Kashmir, Himachal)
6. Tibet 
7. Western Himalayan condeferacy -Gandhar (NWFP and southern AFG) - basically kabul river basin along with basins of Rigvedic "western rivers". 
8. Sindh (Sindhu-Sauvira desha)
9. Aravali and Chambal valley (matsya desha)
10. Gurjara confederacy (Saurashtra, Kutch, parts of sindh and lower Rajputana)
11. Malwa confederacy (Malwa, Bundelkhand)
12. Upper Narmada basin (Vidarbha, parts of MP and Chhattisgarh) - Includes the vainganga basin as well.
13. Lower narmada basin (Khandesh, southern gujarat, Nimad)
14. Konkana
15. Upper Krishna-Godavari basin (Maharashtra, Northern Karnataka and Marathwada)
16. Lower Krishna-Godavari basin (Telangana, Northern Rayalseema)
17. Neelgiri Region and upper Kaveri basin (the common parts between Kerala, TN, AP and KN)
18. Lower Kaveri basin (Remaining TN)
19. Malabar (continuation of Konkana up to tiruanantapuram)
20. Mahanadi basin (upto river suvarnarekha - Odisha)
21. Forests and plateau of Chhota nagpur
22. Brahmaputra basin - Assam and bangal till the sangama. Basically everything on plains.
23. Eastern Himalayan federation - All the hill states on north-east.
24. Upper Iravati basin
25. Lower Iravati basin

K. These 25 deshas (or Mahajanapadas, if one feels historically inclined) constitute the Raashtra of India since ancient times. the cultures have evolved along the ecologies found in these "deshas". Nationalism is directly connected to ecology. Raashtriyatva supercedes these ecological nationalisms. Furthermore, in different "deshas" different "Jaatis" dominate numerically. The customs of these dominant "jaatis" and other minority "Jaatis" with respect to the numerically superior "Jaati" is the key factor which drives the formation of these Ecological and geographical nations. This will be elaborated later.

L. All these autonomous Deshas are of federal structure linked to the structural and functional unit of administration - A Panchakroshi. The details can be worked out later. But the execution of administrative duties happen at panchakroshi level. All the higher levels simply supervise and compile the data to be sent up. One important difference here is that the panchakroshi has significantly more power than today's gram-panchayat. How a panchakroshi resolve their internal matters, should be left unto them as long as the means of they are depositing their 16%-17% of income to upper office. They can rest to themselves. In wartime, this can be increased to 25% (A chauthai). 

M. An office of Deshmukh keeps 20% (one sixth) of the revenue with it to carry out networking of the pancha-kroshis under its purview. An office of sardeshmukh keeps 25% of the total collection with it to carry out the networking of Deshmukhs under its purview. A head of state or Desha keeps 40% of total revenue generated to network the sardeshmukhs under is purview.

N. A Rashtriya government gets 50% to 60% of total revenue from all desha and it utilizes it to run following ministries

1. Defence
2. Foreign affairs
3. Commerce
4. Railways
5. Highways
6. Aviation
7. Shipping
8. Telecom
9. Administrative affairs (to monitor and guide the structural and functional units)
10. Human resource (with cells to monitor and ensure dhaarmik treatment for women, children, men in different jaatis) 

O. Rest all rashtriya ministries need not exist. It is duty of every desha, every sardeshmukh, every deshmukh and every pancha-kroshi to utilize carefully the resources it has and generate profit while being just and dhaarmik. The constitution functions as vague dharma-shaastra to be followed when in doubt. Of course, the current constitution is an excellent document but requires certain amendments in order to make it view India as a sanskritik rashtra. A dharmashaastra is to be influencing only the dharma and artha aspects of a "Sajjana". Who is "Sajjana", refer to this article. India is rashtra of sajjana. Everyone who is willing to agree with a dharmik definition of term sajjana is made to sign a document making him legally, socially, morally binding to this criteria. Only those who follow dharma and agree with being and behaving like a Sajjana are citizens of this Rashtra. Others are visitors until they agree with the definition.

Instead of taking away power from local government of a Panchakroshi and putting it into central or state government, we can genuinely give back power to the people. This is done by creating little voting districts of two hundred households (a city village) that elect their own Council. The Chairman of this Council is their representative in the borough. The five hundred city village representatives in each borough elect a Deshmukh. This way, the people personally know their city village Deshmukh and have a direct influence on the policies of the panchakroshi. 

An office of sardeshmukh releases a "pre-set failure standard" list on HDI parameters coupled with economic ones where the panchakroshi has to utilize its resource to meet. failure to meet the criteria comes with some punishment and compliance comes with some reward. IMHO, smaller groups tend to perform better and large monoliths. Deshmukhs have only to monitor which panchakroshi has met the pre-set standards and which haven't, compile the data and send it to sardeshmukh. 

This will give way to Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and lead to presidential system. One can also look into Iranian model where ayatollah holds power. While there is nothing which is analogous to an ayatollah in dharmik system, we can surely create an office (similar to Jedi council in star-war universe) to advise the executive. This is what I have in mind when I suggested high offices of brahmins and vaishyas located on every tier of the pyramid.

Drawing of the cadre to fulfill the task of Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishyas

It is essential to have an institution which will churn out individuals which are Dharmik but who do not owe allegiance to any one particular "Jaati" or "Mahajanapada" or "Sindhu (river-basin)" and who can look at India as one sanskritik unit. One may call it something similar to the "Jedi-Council" described in Star-Wars. However, making the council as powerful will not be Dharmik. 

Kindly read these three articles to understand my position on the delicate topic of Varna-System before reading subsequent points. Else the point which I am trying to make may not come through fine.

P. Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas form an important "trivarga" of the society. independent High councils of Brahmins formed to advice the ministry of human resources. independent high council of Vaishyas formed to advice ministry of commerce. Standing army maintained for protection of Rashtra under Ministry of defence. Bureaucrats trained function at level of sardeshmukh and above. Lower offices can be staffed by non varga people who are appropriately educated. The important question is , what is brahmana?

Q. Brahmana is an intellectual capable of teaching, learning and making policies without his intellect being clouded by his familial and jaati-vishayak affiliations. A person is drawn from any random jaati and trained in such away that all his affiliations for his jaati, family, language, desh, drop off. Basically we thoroughly deracinate an individual of his local affiliations and force him to think on rashtriya level. Thus - 

1. A person thoroughly deracinated from his family and jati based identity to think on rashtriya level for affairs regarding education, human resource management and dharma (justice) is brahmin.

2. A person thoroughly deracinated from his family and jati based identity to think on rashtriya level on the affairs of defence of rashtra and its execution using dharmik means, is Kshatriya. This is armed forces, paramilitary forces and Police force.

3. A person thoroughly deracinated from his family and jati based identity to think on rashtriya level on the affairs of internal and external commerce and its handling using dharmik means, is vaishya.

R. Offices of brahmana and vaishya high councils to be operating in every village to monitor and advice the executors.

S. Those candidates with appropriate guna (qualities) and desire are tutored from young age in various ashramas, irrespective of their Jaatis to be groomed as brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya respectively. To ensure healthy mix of all jaatis, 

T. Given the fact that these names have gained negative connotations in recent history, largely owing to their own karma in past, one may find a newer names for them.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Political Treason - Part 3 - Famous instances of treason in Indian history

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Continued from part two.

After going through the examples of Dawood Ibrahim and Paritala Ravi in previous parts of this series, the next part of our journey entails looking at various instances of treason, which led to major change in political equilibrium of India. As stated in this article about addiction of power and treachery, while we can categorize with every instance of treason due to some selfish interests, more often than not, these acts lead to a whole range of butterfly effects which were either unintended or intended by the conspirator or were ignored. Some of such instances that I can think of are following. Readers are welcome to add on to the list, along with justification of course.

1. Sugriva against Vaali: This treachery had following far reaching effects on contemporary Indian geopolity. First is entry of a Ganga Valley based power (Sri Raama) in the politics of Krishna-Godavari basin, which Vaali had guarded jealously. Secondly, it resulted in decline in deccan's prominence. It also led to creation of pan-Indian common market which was subservient to Ganga Valley based power. For more details of this please read this series of articles on political history of Ramayana.

2. Vibhishana against Raavana - This treachery had following effects on contemporary Indian geopolity. To be taken combined with first example. First is the entry of Ganga-Krishna-Godavari alliance in politics of deep south and Kaveri basin and Sri Lanka. It also led to the access of sea trade routes and port cities to Ganga based power. Technology (bridge building, pushpaka etc) gained by Ganga based power. Like in example 2, this led to creation of pan subcontinental common market. For more details of this please read this series of articles on political history of Ramayana.

3. Shakuni against Kuru clan:  This betrayal of Shakuni brought about downfall of Kurus by instigating civil war between Kauravas and Pandavas - results well known. Mutually assured destruction in kurukshetra war. For more details please read this series of articles on political history of Mahabharata.

4. Jarasandha against India: Shursena yadavas of Mathura rebelled against authority of magadha under the intigation krishna-balarama. Kamsa was killed in an internal strife of Mathura Yadavas, thereby upsetting the plan of Jarasandha of pan-India domination. Jarasandha invaded Mathura repeatedly while on one occasion he extended an invitation to Kaal-Yavana, an adharmik outsider in the polity of India. This did not cause much ill effect, thanks to timely valor and presence of mind shown by Sri Krishna. However, Jarasandha became an example and progenitor of a form of treachery which repeatedly hurt India the most in years to come. For more details please read this series of articles on political history of Mahabharata.

5. Mahapadmananda against Mahanandi Shishunaaga - This resulted in beginning of Varna-ashrama system's collapse in India.

6. Aambhi against India - He committed a folly akin to Jarasandha by allying with foreigner yavana Alexander to defeat a native ruler of Punjab and Kekay.

7. Buddhist kings against India:  Again folly akin to Jarasandha by allying with Bactrian-Greek Demetrius and later Menander.

8. Pushyamitra against Briahdratha - This treachery destroyed Mauryan rule (which was limited to patna city and surroundings), defended India from Menander, the Greek. Also resulted in partial persecution of Buddhists. 

9. Chandragupta-2 against Raamagupta: This was a good treachery. This resulted in India having her "Vikramaditya" as emperor. Nothing needs to be said here. Emperor Chandragupta Vikramaditya's record speaks for itself. Read this article to know more about conquests of Emperor Vikramaditya.

10. Purugupta against Skandagupta - This treachery pushed India in civil war. Indian army under guptas were forced to fight on two fronts (against invading hunas in gandhara and against purugupta and pushyamitras along upper narmada valley). This resulted in capitulation of India under increasing pressure from the central asian hordes of Huns.

11. Baladitya against India: Baladitya achieved this goal by foolishly forcing Yashodharma, king of Malwa and leader of Indian federation which defeated Huns in successive battles in Punjab while capturing the invader king "Mihiragula" alive. Baladitya Gupta forced Yashodharma to give clemency to captured huna king Mihiragula.

12. Chach against predecessor king - This treason by Chaach caused the rule of Sindh to be passed on to brahmin dynasty from a Buddhist Rai Dynasty. Chach fought well and defended Sindh against Arabs. His son, dahir in his later life fell to qasim's invasion giving first stronghold of Arabs in Indian subcontinent.

13. Sabuktijin against Shiladitya of Gazni - This resulted in first political entry of Islam in politics of India. Sabuktijin's son the infamous Mehmood Gaznavi went on to destroy Somnath temple and massacre millions. More strategically this coup resulted in fall of India's outpost - Gandhara province which we today know as Afghanistan. Afghanistan, has been alien to Indian way of life, since this coup.

14. Jaychandra against Prithviraja - Jaychandra invited Muhammad Ghori to invade India against to settle personal vendetta against king of Delhi and Ajmer - Prithviraj Chauhan.  While this act of treason is not verfied as completely true in terms of historical veracity, it is immensely popular nonetheless. This was a folly akin to that of Jarasandha.

15. Plenty of such mistakes in Islamic sultanate period - But the system in this era was foreign anyways. Hence in either case, Dharma and India suffered.

16. Najib inviting Abdali - This was a folly akin to Jarasandha. To know more, read this series of articles on Panipat Campaign of Marathas.

17. Peshwa Bajirao-2 against India - Foolish peshwa surrendered himself to British due to his fight against Holkar and Shinde. He single handedly doomed the pan indian maratha empire in matter of 6 years. This has no parallel in annals of history, IMHO.

18. Various collaborators against Indian army of 1857: They helped British in bringing down the efforts of those fighting for India's independence in Anglo-Indian war of 1857.

19. Establishment of INC in 1885: Infiltration of Indian National Congress by the people with interests and agenda which were sympathetic towards British was the main reason why India's freedom movement was compromised and resulted in partition of motherland along with throngs of other problems facing the nation in modern day. Perhaps, this will demand a separate article.

The Red Thread of Continuity

One has to remember that the list of "treacheries" is interim. There are many complex factors which let to this decision by every single player either mentioned or not. But, the common denominator of that list necessitates acceptance of hypothesis that India has been a Saanskritik Rashtra (a self sustaining political unit) based on dharmik traditions. some action of some player which goes against the ethos of "dharma" is treachery. For him, that action might be a temporary compromise which he would take back from position of strength. And indeed there are many such instances where people did take back what was given away.

It is usually a preference of Ganga Valley people, that the rule should slowly change the shoulders. This is what was intended by both Marathas and INC during independence(from Mughals and British respectively). The inimical forces of similar background and nature prevented this smooth transition by means of Panipat and Partition respectively. 

Change of regime is bloody. One faction of X rebels and if successful, grows with time. If not, withers away. It involves culling of a large network of economic interests of predecessor system. There were three occasions when such culling take place in past millennium.

1. After ghori and later khilji
2. After babur and later akbar
3. 1857 and later 1947

On all three instances, those who culled an entire vaishya network (figures in millions on all three accounts) supporting predecessor system were foreigners. Was it possible for Indian and dharmik Marathas to indulge in massacre of that scale? Marathas were not just in sense of being labelled as Ramavatara. But Shahu could not do it. Heck, even Bajirao-1 could not pull it off. Sadashivrao Bhau could have, remotely, if he had converted Panipat into another Bahraich.. 

Opposing forces have to align properly, all snakes must be out in open, no fence sitters at least from enemy side. And, if bahraich follows, then and only than can some Bajirao-1 can sit on Delhi. Else no.. This is a very simple and easy to understand fact. The art lies in how to engineer such scenario at time and place of one's choice. 

A large nexus of Vaishya lobby has parked plenty of money in safe-havens today. Until that money exists, no meritorious man can win the election on his own. In other words we may call this "the baniya-neta-babu-judge-media pentacle". This network will try its best to save the incumbent system. If the force gets too much to resist, they will switch sides and help those who are opposing the system. 

But that support will come with riders which say that the opposers, when in power, will not touch their money. Thus in time, Marathas who left deccan as bitter enemies of Mughals, became their protectors.  Classic bollywood tale, but is a repetitive motif in history. This is also what happened to invaders like Mughals under Akbar. One who tried to reverse this effect was Aurangzeb, and look what happened to him.


To ensure no compromise happens, entire network either has to be relieved of their assets in short time, while the buddhi is stable like Parashuraama, british, mughals did and what Ramdev baba demands to do. Else this can be achieved when substantial network would be trained to indulge in nishkaama daana yoga, perhaps like Sri Raama or what MKG wished for.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Political Treason - Part 2 - Paritala Ravindra's bloody story - Rakta Charitra

Creative Commons License

*In collaboration with Shri. Devesh Garu.

Variants of Organized Crime

1. Crime arising out of necessity and poverty is easily taken care of by good governance and effective utilization of carrot and stick. 

2. Ccrime arising out of mentality which derives pleasure from "doing something different" or "breaking rules" cannot be tackled by good governance. 

3. Crime arising out of faulty laws can be corrected by means of changing laws and social counselling. 

To elucidate with an example, smuggling of gold was illegal in independent India. But people have been trading and importing gold for ages in India. Due to policy decisions by govt, certain networks and their routes were deemed illegal and the import was branded as smuggling. This gave them incentive to continue trading while avoiding taxes. While they grew powerful and wealthy, they found new commodities to trade[like drugs and weapons] using the already perfected means and routes of smuggling less harmful product. 

The drug traderoute of kabul-karachi-mumbai-vizag-SE asia has been existent for centuries now. One cannot stop it merely by making it illegal. What is law, but a mere sentence, if state isn't in position to enforce it. The biggest and only "gunda" in nation-state has to be the state. But there is no such compulsion on a civilizational state, as long as these fringe elements are kept under the hold of Sanskriti so that their services be used when the time arises, in lieu of certain price. 

The significance of the tale of Paritala Ravindra.

With respect to Hyderabad-Secunderabad, the 80's and 90's did see the emergence of politicos in the "right direction". However, before the action could get into the den of the entrenched Islamist networks, one such MLA (not native to Hyderabad) was put down due to a Jaichand like character. You will get a clear picture by watching a Ram Gopal Verma biopic - Raktacharitra.

Paritala Ravindra (depicted as Prathap Ravi in the film by Vivek Oberoi) is a good case study. The man had much potential but YS Reddy, after coming to power in 2004, allegedly had him killed in a shootout. From 2004 to 2005, about 1000 active and resourceful members of Telugu Desam Party were killed off in various operations.

The slow infiltration of Andhra Pradesh by various interests began right after NDA came to power in 1999. The first victim was Alimineti Madhava Reddy. He was a powerful man from Telangana and commanded lot of respect from all over AP. He was Chandrababu Naidu's right hand man. It was said that Naidu's success was only possible because of Madhava's steadying hand by his side.

Madhava Reddy was killed off in a Naxalite attack. It was for the first time in history that a sitting Home Minister and Deputy CM of any state was murdered in this way in spite of having Z-security. Back then and even now, many people consider his death as the work of his political opponents. Madhava Reddy's death was a tragedy for many reasons. Firstly, he was a Hindu with strong affiliation to the religion. Ssecondly, he wasn't in bed with the mining and drug mafia which supposedly has close connections with INC network. Thirdly, he was a shrewd politician who knew how to get his way without being dictatorial. And finally, he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty or have others do it for him. 

He didn't care for the "established" regime in Hyd. That is the entrenched Islamist mafia of Hyderabad since days of Nizam and Razakars and now with alleged political backing of few pro-Islamist political parties and leaders. The situation is further complicated with boiling Telangana issue. In many ways, Madhava Reddy's political savvy exceeded Naidu's and could have rivaled that of YSR's, had he lived to steer the hand of TDP. 

As stated earlier, the timing of Paritala Ravindra's death should be kept in mind. From July 2004 to August 2005, close to a 1000 "rising stars" with strong potential at the organization level of the Telugu Desam were killed. This is usually covered by the media as "factionism"/"family feuds"/etc. But what is hidden or is conveniently ignored is that all of the deaths happened to those belonging to a certain orientation politically. Usually the deaths are covered up as "revenge" from "old enemies". 

Let's take the case of Paritala Ravi himself.  He is shown, in the film, to be killed by a guy who is thirsting for vengeance. Howsoever true this may be, but how come this guy, Surya Narayana Reddy aka Maddelacheruvu Suri, who was wronged in the 90's, took him so long to get his revenge. I mean in the end, all he had to do was attack Paritala Ravi when he was traveling in a car. How come it was only after INC/YSR came to power that the Suri became so emboldened and found the means to take out Ravi?

The real life Suri, as opposed to filmy one, was a felon. His family wasn't that better off either. The acts committed SN Reddy 'Suri' are some of the worst atrocities by any political family in India. Paritala Ravi, believe it or not, was a relief to the people there. He gave them security that the goons under INC-network couldn't care to give.

The Role of Intelligence Bureau in the episode of Paritala Ravi

The last scene of film Rakta-Charitra 2, when the IB officer confronts 'Suri' says a lot. It is implied that IB allowed the assassination of Ravi to happen. It is both disconcerting and disturbing since there is a pattern here. Ravi's background would give people too much of "power" by setting a precedent. To be clear, Paritala Ravi's career was not the usual one for the reason that he was the first guy in AP (perhaps in India), since 1947, who actually waged guerrilla warfare on an entrenched network of criminal-politico gangsters, defeated or at least dented their power base enough to make inroads for himself and the agriculturalist interests that backed him. For several years in the 80's he really did go into the hills and jungles and waged war on the local Congress networks and eventually earned enough of a reputation and attracted enough business and labor networks to get himself elected and also create a base for Telugu Desam.

Ravi did not have the right "foundational background" to transform his fight into something bigger. His father and him were both Left-leaning. their careers started on the social justice plank. His father was instrumental is curbing the powers of the local land-owning mafia. His son carried forward his work and established his own political space.

To truly give the "social justice" issue a much wider base and bigger fight, Ravi's ideological background was not enough. His radicalism was fueled by personal grievance based on the "pro-poor" activities of his father. But for a "first phase" of rebellion against INC in the region, it was a good start. 

For about 10 years, he was basically waging asymmetric warfare. during all this time, the major antagonists - INC elites of the region - were in power and continued to make his life miserable. IB did not really "help" in Ravi's power. Perhaps, they just ignored him as another "naxalite" and left it at that. It was only after he became a long-term thorn in INC's side because of his charismatic personality and the ability to persuade and cajole certain important networks, especially the Leftist unionist/agriculturalist type people, that INC and their helpers started targeting him. In this phase, it is alleged that Jagan Reddy and his followers provided Ravi's killers with info and equipment while they were in jail. This is not easily covered up without having the local police-wallahs and intelligence inputs in their pockets.

When probed diligently beyond the surface, even voters of INC in recent times remember Paritala Ravi, Alimineti Madhava Reddy, and few others like them, whose lives were basically a story of commitment against INC and who ultimately all were murdered.

Relevance of Paritala Ravindra in this narrative of political treason and organized crime

Paritala Ravindra was perhaps first non-Hyderabad based "tough man" who after coming to power, rounded up the mafia based in Hyderabad. This mafia is the important link in the trade route mentioned in opening section. No other political party showed the balls to take on the interests of the politician-gangster nexus operating in this trade-route anywhere. Be it in kabul,  Karachi, Mumbai or Hyderabad, those in power dare not touch this network heads on. 

Paritala Ravindra will pay for all his bad deeds in next birth, according to Indian theory of Karma. But he sets one important precedent of daring to perform a deed which Vijaynagar empire, Marathas did not. That is attempting to bring the Hyderabad node under civilizational influence of Pro-India and pro-Dharma forces.

Paritala Ravi cannot be called "Dharmik" in truest sense. But he surely level the playground for the time he was in power. Our narrative learns many important lessons from the example of Paritala Ravi.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Political Treason - Part 1 - The curious case of Dawood Ibrahim

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Organized Crime and Civilization

Crime is one crucial aspect of a "Rashtra". Indian Sate should have had facilitated the emergence of nationalist crime-networks. More efficient would be religious crime networks. sometimes, I see the point of thugs and chandaals in ancient India controlled by the tantrika school. This might be antithetical to India as a "nation-state" but is it really antithetical to India as a "civilizational state" which exists for protection and expansion of Indic Sanskriti?

Remember role of Gopal Paatha in kolkata riots of 1947? Perhaps Chhota Rajan was one such experiment. However, talking about western coast and Mumbai, the Indic ganga never grew big enough to rival or hinder the emergence of Karim Lala, Haji Mastan continued as Dawood Ibrahim. The Pujari gang, Amar Naik, Rajendra Nikalje (Chhota Rajan), Arun Gawli, Sadamama Pawle could never outfight and outgrow Lala-Mastan-Dawood nexus. In her current form, Mumbai is an epitome of India's mercantile mentality where everything is for sale. The city forms a critical part of the   Kabul-Karachi-Mumbai-Hyderabad-Vizag-SE Asia opium trade route extent for centuries now. Almost everything big in Mumbai is illegal. There is too much of dirty money coming in through that route.

The only indic criminal who gave The Lala-Mastan-Dawood nexus a tough fight was Varadraajan Mudaliar (aka Varada bhai OR Bada Raajan). While he was around, the Lala-Mastan network did not gain complete control over the crime networks and routes. Unfortunately, no indic continued the "legacy" of varadabhai on India's western coast (i.e. controlling Mumbai). One interesting counter-factual question to ponder upon is that if Varadabhai would have been calling shots today instead of Dawood would the black money rolling in and out of India through bollywood would have still been used as blatantly against India as it is being done now? 

It becomes more difficult for pious Islamists to carry out Jihad against kafirs when it is the kafir criminals who are controlling the sea-routes of smuggling. 

The curious case of Dawood Ibrahim (DI).

If we look at the rise of Dawood Ibrahim and his life of crime and compare to Cali cartel and other criminal gangs we find that India will not be able to bring down DI as the powers that be are too intertwined in the gang's fortunes. We need to get other nations involved. However, the right question to ask here is - what does "bringing down" mean to Indian establishment? 

The phrase is usually used in a sense - X brought Y down..

X brings Y down because - 

1. it is in the interest of X to do so 


2. Y was trying to bring X down as well 


3. X is an agent of chaos.

In case 1 and 2, the prerequisite assumption is that X is a rational player. There are few things that I know and many things that do not know. But what we all know for sure is that the certain section of Indian power-centres (lets call them X) which ensured rise of DI (lets call him Y) in 1980's do not think that it is necessary to "bring Dawood Ibrahim down". 

DI operates in mostly Sunni states which either control trade-routes or control oil-supply. He himself stays openly in Karachi, perhaps under nuclear umbrella of Pakistan. The fact that he operates from Karachi with brazen openness means that -  

1. Either Pak has conveyed to "X" in India that taking out DI means war with Pakistan.


2. If India makes an attempt on his life and fails, they will make DI sing and X will be in trouble as many old scandals and skeletons will tumble down the cupboard. 


3. Perhaps, his life is insured by the founding fathers of Pakistan (UK-PRC-USA-Saudi), perhaps upon the insistence OR silent agreement of X. 

In either of the above three cases, the elimination of Y does not seem to be in rational interest of X. Otherwise, India has the capability of knocking down one individual.

Revisiting old Power-Treason equation

Thus, going back to my subject of exploring treachery and defection, its a question of which values the person holds dear and that brings us back to civilizational learning or Sanskriti. Also are tales of treachery even with a modicum of truth are basically 'blaming the other' type of deflecting accountability/responsibility?

Previous articles of mine on similar lines-

1. Addiction of Power and Treachery
2. Power and Permanence

If X is agreeing (albeit silently) upon safety of Y, is "X" committing treason against "India"? Can the actions of X be called as treason at all?

Modelling this in context above, keeping the information from this unusual and rare article at the back of our mind, we arrive at following three questions. Asking right questions is always the key.

1. Who is X in Indian establishment?

2. Which values does X hold dear? 

  •   Are those values in sync with Indic values?

  •   Are they not? 

     (a) If they are in sync, then no problem, material solution exists
     (b) If they aren't in sync, then one has to answer one of the harshest question - Are we Sajjana people or not?

3. What if X happens to be dominant faction of central power of India? or one of the dominant factions? 

  •  If yes, then perhaps that is the "Yuga-dharma" one has to abide to.

  •  If no, then the challenge given by time can be answered by time alone. Every instance X is lenient towards Y, shows (assuming X is non-compassionate, rational player) somebody has balls of X tightly in the grasp, thereby forcing X to behave the way X actually behaves. One can say that X is under the influence of Imperius curse.