Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Imperium -1 - The evolution of the dark side.

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

Dear Readers, 

I have been wanting to publish this post and few others which are not written by me but by one of the illusive acquaintance. I have been trying to get in touch with him to ask from him the permission to publish this article and couple of those which will follow. I managed to get this permission after a long wait of more than year and half. I will be publishing them in parts under the series titled "Imperium". 


1. Why was INC established? - The shock and awe. The shock was repression of 1857 (in north), 1875-80 in Deccan. The awe was subsequent implementation of educational and administrative reforms which culminated in foundation of INC in Mumbai in 1885. 

2. Why 1885 and western India? because for short duration in 1882, Pune city and adjoining area was liberated by armed revolution of Ramoshi (later joined by many people) under leadership of Vasudeo Balwant Phadke. The expanse of this revolt spanned all over Deccan. 

3. Remember the scene in Matrix trilogy when Neo meets "the architect" in second instalment of the series. 

4. This second proxy was found inadequate with rise of Tilak-Pal-Lajpat rai. These people starting harbouring notorious men of action as their clout increased (Bhagat sing et al by lajpat Rai, Savarkar, Chaphekar brothers by Tilak, Aravinda Ghosh by Bipinchandra Pal). Savarkar in turn harboured the third "tier" of foot soldiers (Madanlal Dhingra, Anant Kanhere, Madam Cama etc). This, unless unchecked, would have led to 1857 redux by mid 1910s. 

5. What was the reason to be wary of the decade of 1910? Now in hindsight, we know it was WW1.  But the british empire of 1910 at the height of her military and imperial might shall see it coming quite earlier. The decisive shift was to be made in the "Vaishya" of Musalmans to Vaishya of "Christians". And among Christians, it would be continental europe (Catholics) against English (Protestants). The conquest of the Byzantium was what essentially important to secure the trade routes. 

6. The drawback of Indian part was the uprising was only spearheaded by "Brahmin" aspect of samaaj-Purusha and the Kshatriya (who was mostly used as mercenary) aspect was not much pursued. The Vaishya and Shudra aspect were totally neglected. An uprising, when of brahmin character, is intellectual, principled, often dreamy and away from ground realities. A predominantly Kshatriya uprising (1857) is gory, violent creates lots of fuss but may not be effective. The Vaishya uprising (as we are witnessing today with MMS's 10% growth hogwash), gives rise to mentality where everything is for sale and promotes and encourages "mediocrity" in society. On positive aspects, it increases the wealth pool of civilization. In Shudra uprising (in essence), there is plenty of emphasis on technological aspects but lack the understanding on how to fund that "technology", against whom to be used and "why". Shudra uprising also represent "mass-movement" when even the last man of society contributes. 

7. For the establishment of Dharma, there requires the "concerted coordination of these four forces" in a way that the best of all four is seen in that uprising. This explains "what went wrong" in many aspects of India's answer to Abrahmics (Vijaynagar-Maratha-Freedom struggle). 

8. The necessity to install a proxy within a proxy (in form of MKG whom Pal referred to as Papal autocrat) arose acutely. It is interesting to see how the "fledgeling industrialists" of India were encouraged to help MKG's cause without running out of money. How Bajaj was still rich along with many "Zamindars" who helped INC under MKG to make his cause appear "respectable enough (by means of "allowed propaganda"). Same goes with Birla. The Tata group was anyways away from all the fuss. These people were allowed to "invest" as they were securing the second tier proxy. 

9. The systemic problem which arose during first proxy arose again with rise of SCB. Now, SCB was thinking like Peshwa, savarkar, Dhingra, yet was a disciple of MKG and good friend of "Bajaj". Thus SCB represents the collaboration of "Brahmin-Kshatriya-Vaishya" networks of India's Samaaj-Purusha. What happened to him in spite of this is known to everybody. The "technology" aspect of Shudra was missing in all of these. For that, one needs patronizing Vaishya which includes their protection by Kshatriya which further means mobilization of Kshatriya by Brahmin. This time, however the need was more urgent (owing to rapid rise of third Reich). Hence SCB (and Jinnah a decade earlier) were systematically removed from the loop.

10. This gives rise to JLN. JLN is akin to pleasure loving Sultan who is an armchair visionary of some extent. Meanwhile the second Proxy (MKG) reneged from the promise and started 1942 movement. Thus, the quick-fix patch of Muslim-league was installed which demanded Partition. 

11. One has to remember that by the time MKG started his movement, the battle of stalingrad was going on. The fortunes of Hitler and quit-India movement in this period went down hand-in-hand. This battle was the breathing time for British when tide had turned in their favour already. They knew by february 1943 that it was matter of time when Hitler fell and Russia was ally. The worrying part was advance of Japanese with INA and SCB towards Bengal. If SCB reached Bengal, it would take no time to unsettle this carefully placed system. As someone has rightly pointed out earlier, the occurrence of 1943 famine coincides with this possibility. 

12. After 1943, the INC was beginning to "understand" the consequence of what might happen "if..." This understanding was lost from minds of India's policy makers since repression of 1857. This is when the third proxy began to rise (JLN, VBP). This proxy is predominantly of Vaishya-Shudra nature. No one in INC (IMO) understood the value of "real-estate" more aptly than Patel. This understanding of his is evident in the map of India that he created after 1947. This hawkishness is also seen in his opposition with JLN over JLN's Shikhandi-manoeuvres on cashmere issue. 

13. The defeat and capture of INA personnel and their "unsuccessful, but valiant defence" by JLN in court was used to whitewash the sell out of India (in form of acceptance to partition) which perhaps the INA chief and main competitor of JLN was unaware of. What happened to him is not known to us. But can we say this with certainty that it wasn't known to Indian army, hence British and subsequently JLN (on need to know basis)? I think not. If we assume (for sake of argument) that the fate of that man was known to british, how will a pleasure-loving armchair visionary sultan react to the prospects of loosing power?

14. The vision of JLN in terms of Shudra aspects (Technology, education to poor, overall socialist bent) is well known. He also successfully linked few Vaishya families to the cause of generating capital to create a pool of technologically competent Hindus. Since installation of this third proxy, there requires a necessity to have an inherent check on the system. The kshatriya and Brahmin aspect of society was totally suppressed by JLN. There was creation of "Jagat-seth" like Vaishya-Shudra nexus which somehow prevented the rise of Brahmin-Kshatriya. The bargaining power of loss of power over JLN must be higher in 1945, but quite lower in 1962. By that time, he was an old dying man who had his share of power and pleasure. Hence, when 62 came as a rude shock to him, he started empowering the Kshatriya aspect of society too. This includes (but not limited to) invitation to RSS contingent to perform parade on rajpath on 26th Jan. 

15. With Shastri coming to power rather "easily" and saying "Jai Jawan and Jai Kisan" this was the mark of a man having visions of Vaishya-Kshatriya nexus. This nexus is what we call as "Military-Industry" complex. Furthermore, he had nothing to lose. 

16. JLN somehow had somehow remained relatively neutral to USA and USSR. Shastri was way too much neutral and was perhaps acting against the planted agents by both these players in delhi. This is the interesting part to ponder upon. Why was Nehru allowed to go commie? out of everybody else, why USSR? What is it that USSR held that was so compelling that British allowed their "crown jewel" be penetrated by KGB? OR was JLN doing so on his own. But then considering what happened to his progeny who tried acting independently, I do not think he will do that entirely on his own. He perhaps convinced British something in exchange? Was any decision of JLN which favoured British few years before his implementation of 5 year plan (around 1948-49)? The answer is obvious, no. Kashmir issue. By 1950, Patel was dead and by 1951, first 5-year plan was implemented. I think since then the penetration of west began to decrease in India supplanted by USSR. 

15. The west has an interesting method of wresting control. The "old school" network. The universities like oxford and cambridge typically take up such potential leaders and their children to train them in the way which is "desired" for system to continue.anyways. 

16. Vaishya-Shudra reform by JLN completed the remaining leg of India's revival with beginning of IITs, DAE, Patronage of Homi Bhabha (whose death is similar to SCB and Shastri), Sarabhai. Why did Bhabha disappear? Was India going too fast on "technological" uprising which will lead to rise of "Brahmin-Kshatriya" nexus? It is wise not to type out the answers which are known to everybody. 

17. Post 1990, there is tendency to deny the shudra uprising in India as well. Only "Vaishya" is being encouraged. The technology (tejas, kaveri, missile etc) is all due to inertia. All the new R&D is somehow being sabotaged in name of foreign collaboration. This is how many indigenous programs were killed. Indian students from IITs and other good colleges start getting 6 figure packages when in 3rd year of their engineering in investment banking firms and IT-coolie companies. The 21-year old start enjoying life, forgetting the rigorous vows of brahmacharya which are essential to be disciplined and achieve excellence. note - Brahmacharya does not imply celibacy. It is natural to have sex, what is not permitted is to get carried away and breaking the disciplined life of a student. This is the bad news that there is now a fourth tier of "illusive world" draped in front of Indian eyes.

18. This is also a good news that there are 4 tiers of proxies which are activated now. INC>>MKG>>JLN, IG, RG>>Sonia. This is too much of "Maaya" for a thinking society like India. India is  today enjoying life and pleasure like Macchindernath was enjoying when he entered the body of king and forgot that he was Yogi. All it took was a call from his disciple Gorakhnath, and the Yogi in that Bhogi King's body woke up.


Desi Pundit said...

What nexus does Modi reprsent? He seems to have all 4 elements in him - brahaminical, kshatriya, vishya and shudra tatvas...

RamaY said...

I think Modi represents the Dharmic-nexus. RSS-Hindutva-Vikas-Sabka are its four pillars. However, the brahmin aspect of Rashtra is still controlled by secular leftists.

What Bharat needs immediately is the Brahmin-Shudra nexus. This will destroy the Caste & Aryan-Dravidian narrative and kick out Abrahamic faiths out of Akhand Bharat.