Swa - The story

1. Swaraj throughout history.
2. What is swaraj
3. Impact of swaraj
1. Community building
2. Segregation
3. Squeaky wheel
4. Swaraj and response to crisis

What is Swaraj

Once upon a time long long ago Manav was shipwrecked on a large island on Swadesh. While Swadesh once had a civilization by the time Manav landed there the civilization had vanished, All that was left of the civilization of Swadesh was its architecture, miles and miles of wild farms of rice, wheat, various millets and pulses, spices etc.

Manav occupied a decent house on the edge of a groove filled with various fruit bearing tree right next to a river.

Abandoned shops provide him with clothes and other necessities 

All his needs are taken care of, There is no compulsion for Manav to follow any social norms. He is as free as any human being can be. This complete freedom comes at a cost. 

• There is not one to socialize with
• If he falls sick No one can take care of him.
• Occassionally pirates(Tyranny) land up on the shore of his island, There is no way he can defend himselves against them and he is forced to go in hiding.

In this situation when another individual is introduced to the island one part of Manav wants to drive him off, another part yearns for the company of another human being, he struggles to keep both his freedom and his companion(Monarchy) but finally gives up and agrees to share the available resources with the other person leading to creation of private goods, public goods and commons.

As shipwrecks slowly start landing up on the island the community grows leading to questions of rule of the law. Whenever a large group of shipwrecks landed, the foundation of society were shaken, the new arrivals wanted to do things their own way leading to stress. The existing rule of law was either overthrown or assimilated the needs of the new group and continued.

TO BE Continued.... (Comment if you are interested in this story)

Whenever I meet friends from Delhi and we discuss the Delhi 2015 elections and its aftermath, I consistently hear a few statements from them which indicates that it is a part of AAP's volunteer engagement policy.

1. Good candidates are not enough. The candidates personality should be such (thuggish) that people feel confident on him being able to "fight" for them.


2. Old volunteers will go and new volunteers will come. No one has the energy to sustain this for a long time.
3. People who left after the YY/PB episode did not go to any other party, so we did not loose much.
4. When the time comes for voting, do you really have an option other than AAP?

These statements always filled me with disgust.

Who is my ideal candidate?

The first time I went for voting, I did not know the candidates. While I had a bias based on the media I consumed and the people I interacted with, I was still not sure what the right choice was. As I neared the polling booth I saw the "counters" setup by representatives of various political parties. The representatives of JD-S looked outright thuggish and I eliminated them. I finally went and voted for the party whose volunteers were "people like us" middle class, soft spoken courteous guys.

 

In the next election a year or so later Someone informed me that a few organisations have given a questionnaire to the candidates and their responses are available for voters to go through before voting. This time I voted not for a party but for the candidate whose answers were technically correct. i.e. a candidate who did not sound like a politician distributing freebies everywhere. 

 

 

When I was politically active. Members of RSS in my friend circle used to complain bitterly about the thuggish nature of the local BJP MLA. While due to ideological reasons they would continue to vote BJP, The MLA they voted for did not have their "vote".

 

Following the logic of voting for candidate who is technically correct, I find myself voting for candidates who have no hope of winning, and for candidates from parties I would never support! 

I have voted for candidates from Hindu Mahasabha(yup Savarkar's party) and I have voted for candidates from Bahujan samaj party (Yup Mayawati's party).

 I have voted for AAP's candidate and I have voted for Swaraj Abhiyan's party!

 

When I was attending BPAC's BCLIP program, after a month or so, some of the participants from the established political parties said "We never knew this is what a local representative is supposed to do. If we knew this before we would never aspire to be one!"
So now when I prepare to select my candidate I first check whether they know what they are supposed to do and have the conviction to do it, party ideology no longer matter if the candidate is right.
The BSP candidate had a history of going to slums and telling people about their constitutional rights and what to expect from their leaders.

The Mahasabha candidate had a clear understanding of what the responsibilities of the post he aspired for were, and rejected all other questions as irrelevant. e.g. "This needs to done by panchayat member not an MLA... This needs to be done by the MP not MLA... This is in my domain and I will address it in this manner"

What is the intent of public debate?

One of the online groups I subscribe to had an interesting discussion titled "dialog with the reprehensible". How do you sit down for an open discussion on a topic that you find morally, ethically or legally reprehensible?

Diplomats do it all the time, India and Pakistan have diplomatic discussions even though the people in these countries are sworn enemies.
Is it possible to do this in our normal interactions?
Most public meetings I attend believe in preaching to the choir, A leftist would not feel welcome in an RSS shakha meeting. similarly an rightwing supporter would not be made welcome in an leftist "anti-communal" meeting.

This weekend we are having a meeting to discuss the implication of Gandhi's assassination.
I would like to have an healthy debate with Gandhian's Ambedkarites and Sanghi's sitting across the table and discussing what Gandhi meant to them. What were his ideals, What were the ideals of those who opposed him and so on...

Such a debate becomes difficult when we refuse to acknowledge the tension between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Many of Ambedkar's speeches about Gandhi border on misrepresentation of intent and hate speech. Is it possible to point out the mistakes by Ambedkar without having the DSS launch protest and file an FIR under atrocities act?

Can we have a debate about Gandhi's assassination without referring to Nathuram, Savarkar, Golwarkar and Hegdewar? Can we give equal space for an RSS sympathizer as we give for denouncing RSS.
 If we fear giving space to the reprehensible by mentioning their leaders, If we fear raising topics which can offend the easily offended how do we discuss the sensitive issues?
If we cannot discuss sensitive issues with the proper audience and restrict the audience to those who are "tame" or agreeable to our view points then what is the use of a Dialog?

Knowing Sridhar Reddy.

Sridhar Reddy, was the corporator from Ward 85 (Dodda nekkundi) during 2010-2015. During the 2015 elections he shifted to Hagdur ward.
Asset wise he owns a revolver which makes him a 'powerful' politician, recently brought a spanking new BMW, and runs a construction company on the side.
As a politician he is known to be a favourite of Aravind Limbavale. He was chairman of the major roads in BBMP and got embroiled in a controversy when he tried to divert almost all the road budget to his ward. 
He is wellknown for ignoring the civic problems of his area but whenever civic society manages to get something done He will ensure that big hoardings appear at the work site thanking him and Mr. Limbavale for the developmental work. This was personally experienced as a side-effect of our activism to get

1. The AECS Layout- Kundalhalli gate (silverline bakery) road fixed.
2. Munnekolala lake rejuvenated.
3. SWM efforts

Other activists faced this during their work on

1. Nisarga Park
2. Chinnapanhalli lake

This behavior has been a demotivating factor for civic activists.

Common defense of RSS/Modi's crimes.

 For the past many months I have been discussing politics with a senior RSS figure. i.e. not someone who only attends shakha events but 

1. Is an invited speaker at RSS events. Preaches at multiple shakhas AND
2. Believes his "cell" directly reports to Amit Shah.

It took many months of careful debating to go beyond the most common RSS defense points and get to what the person really thinks about his org and his party... God! how many times have we discussed something and the gentleman pulled one of these out of his hat to distract the discussion...

Listing the most common distraction point here for future reference.

1. Sex
2. This is a western concept and is against our tradition, deep state, soros, ford foundation etc. etc. etc.
3. Muslim
4.  Anti-Hindu! apologise right now!
5. Even Sri-Krishna advocating lying...
6. Pappu
7. Reference to books by dodgy authors. 
8. What-about ... 

 

Sex and other personal attacks

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People. --Eleanor

To this quote we should add RSS minds discuss sex.

Pick up any public figure and your shakhachaap will spill some sex related rumor, Gandhi, Nehru, Savarkar, Vivekananda, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, Rahul, Vajapayee... Pick anyone start a discussion on their life and wait for your RSS person to "spill the beans on their sexual life".

God! Mohanji, I know you catch them young in your shakhas, but do you need to fulfill their masturbatory fantasy needs too? 

Personal attacks.

The Sangh, has a derogatory name for everyone. And some story or another which shows the person in bad life, some of these are outright lies, Some taken out of context and twisted to suite their narrative. Some from a time before their growth into the person they are now. Refer to an authority in a given subject and this will be their first line of defense. 

Reference to dodgy authors 

"You cannot really understand this until you have read the following books by the following authors" 

In my youth I used to accept this argument, maybe someone from their side had really researched stuff, Someday I will buy that book and know more... Once I got access to the internet, I started reading those books, they were filled with inconsistent contradictory statements, it looked like the authors were throwing random shit against the wall and seeing what stuck.

I don't need to read the complete works of adam smith to understand supply and demand economics. Dont give me a reading list of ten thousand pages, If you have read it, and understood it, explain the core point in 5 min.

 

I recently watched a video on "sanatani economics" by a RW "scholar" my friend insisted that I should really listen to atleast this one video to understand what he was discussing.

I watched the first 20-30 min  of the video,  it was filled with 

1. Crude masturbatory fantasies regarding Russian and japanese girls becoming available to Indian men.
2. Recommendations that are not thought through, e.g. Every apartment should own a cow and keep it in their parking lot. (In bangalore that would translate to 20+ lakh cows. Where will we get and keep the fodder for them? how will we dispose the dung? Where will the cows exercise? A single cow produces around 10-20 liters of milk per day. what will we do with it?

Having read the actual original works that their authors like Anand etc use and having seen how they use selective quote to change the meaning of the sentence. I no longer have a desire to waste my time reading their derived literature. 

Thekedar of hinduism

In mahabharatha krishna <evil act>...

 I grew up in a deeply devout hindu household. Some of my ancestors were considered saints, some headed various mutt's. My grandmother spent decades touring India with various monastic orders and could speak for days about various past saints, scriptures, difference in interpretation of scriptures across India etc. 

I have sat through pravachanas where the most respected religious authorities have termed certain actions of gods and humans as incorrect, sinful and went on to describe the punishment they underwent for their immoral act and recommended we should learn from this and lead a life of dharma.

Talk to a person from RSS about the immorality of their org and members, and he will quickly refer to the immoral act  in scriptures as a justification. Talk about rape, murder, stealing, adultery, lying, cheating by members of RSS. Question the morality of the act. and they will quickly take refuge in the actions of sri krishna....

Respond with "what krishna did was not dharma, he and pandavas underwent punishment for it" and see them flare up with "How dare you insult hinduism apologize right now!" This has happpened so many times with me that I have realized that hurt hindu feelings are nothing but a debating strategy. 

 

Deep state. Western Civ. etc.

This is usually brought out when there are no logical reasonable defense. "We know this is wrong, but deep state is out to destroy India, we have to make compromises to win the battle" 

Any group in individuals with a common interest will band together to collectively pursue those interests. Wealthy passionate groups can devote a large part of their fortune towards those interests. Soros is interested in decentralized democracy and has invested in thousands of NGO's working towards that goal. Decentralized democracy was also the core ideology of Gandhiji, Gadaffi and many other leaders.

Advocate for decentralized democracy and you automatically become soros agent!

Speak against acts of RSS, BJP, Modi etc. and you will find yourself an agent of some foreign power or the other...

My friend once spent half an our detailing the organisational structure of the deep state (these families are members, they are represented by these persons, these are the various bodies in the organisation, these world leaders are the members of these bodies. Lots of famous presidents, prime ministers, religious figures etc. were name dropped as members of this org. finally when I asked do you have proof for anything you said? No... but you should really read this author who had written about deep state...

Does a deep-state exist? Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt, If I have a few billions I would certainly use it to fund causes that I am interested in. So I dont deny others are doing it too. But that does not mean every event in the world should be linked to deepstate without seeking more logical reasons.

The stories of Modiji's crimes are getting exposed because he committed those crimes, not because deep-state is working against modiji!

 

Freedom of Expression goes both ways.

If I exercise a given right can I prevent others from exercising the same right?

The only fig leaf covering the slogan shouting at JNU is "Freedom of expression".
Many of us who do not support the slogans still supported the right of the students to chant those slogans.

A friend FWD'ed the following article in support of JNU http://www.thedelhiwalla.com/2012/10/26/city-landmark-jawaharlal-nehru-university-south-delhi/

By the third paragraph (quoted below) the bunch at JNU started looking like groups of nutcases


In their new world, there will be no gods. Nor will there be fanatical adoration of pop stars like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and actor Shah Rukh Khan. No one will drink Pepsi, no one will read The Times of India. Public revelry for film star Amitabh Bachchan’s birthday — no. They will be curtailed as customs left over from the dark days of capitalism.

I understand and support the fact that every community has the right to express its views, every community has the right to convince others about the validity of its views. I oppose the attempts by any community to use the might and power of the state to curtail the views of others.

While BJP and its supporters are today using the might of the state to suppress dissent. I find the lunatic elements of JNU equally willing in their planned dystopia  to curtail what they find distasteful.

It was dismaying to see Khalid proudly recount to cheers from his supporters about how other's were prevented from addressing the Students at JNU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ3vbTSFc1I&feature=youtu.be&t=10m33s

If I support Khalid's rights to sing his loony tunes at JNU. I also support the rights of Indira Gandhi to elaborate on the benefits of Emergency, I also support Manmohan's right to mumble something, I support Chiddu's rights to promote Nehru and I support Ram Dev's right to promote yoga, go-mutra and vedic science.
If a fringe group which wants to curtail entertainment find's place in JNU I do not see any problem with ABVP finding place in the same JNU.

Two sides of Meat Ban.

What we call as the meat ban issue is just another symptom of the conflicts that take place at individual, community and state level between people who do not accept diversity.

Individual Level

As an Individual I am against consumption of meat, this can be due to religious, moral, ethical or philosophical reasons. I may decide to limit my views to my kitchen and to the kitchens of the restaurants I patronize.

Similarly another Individual will be pro-meat and restrict his views to his kitchen and the restaurants he patronises.

We may decide to work together but never eat together, Or we may decide to never work together or we may decide to work together and spend our time proselyting each other.

Community level

If a group of people feel very strongly about a certain issue, They can group together with other like-minded individual's and form a community.  Such a community may decide to pool in their resources and build a dedicated housing society, shopping complexes etc. which cater to their needs. This community may  make it a pre-requisite to follow certain norms as a condition for entry.
Two communities with opposite views may decide to either cooperate in areas of no-conflict, go their individual ways, or work actively to undermine the other community and convert them to their belief.

State level

In theory, the state has no role to play in these individual or group differences, But the state represent's a vast power. A power to impose it's will with the maximum violence. This power attracts the real fanatics, those who would like to subvert the state and use it to wage war against those opposed to its viewpoints.
A state is supposed to accept diversity and focus on providing security and justice to each diverse group.
Those interested in capturing state power are focused on ending diversity and ensuring homogeneity. And the end result in the various issues we call food, language or cultural impositions.

My View

There are two sides to the meat conflict. The problem arises when either of the two group's decides not to accept diversity and starts imposing its views on the other group.

We see symptoms of this problem across the spectrum; be it the language war's, cultural wars, religious wars, caste wars, class wars or food wars. Each of these sections have eventually tried to capture state power to impose its will on the other.
There are as many issues to wage war on as there are individuals, If we eliminate all the above and bring in homogeneity, it wont take long for someone to whip up passion on fast bowling against spin bowling with one section calling the other aggressive barbarians with no tact and the other using names like crafty, cunning,undependable, untrustworthy to describe the first group, and before long we will have two political parties gaining popularity by agitating to ban either spin or fast bowling.

Both sections on the current food war have tried in the past to use political power to impose its will.
With one side demanding meat to be served in spaces dedicated to non-meat eaters and the other side demanding the opposite.
With one side demanding societies(housing or otherwise), temple and other community space dedicated to vegetarians, serve meat or allow meat to be served while other side demanding the opposite. And on being denied their demands both sides have tried to use the power of state to impose its will on the other.

• Meat Ban is not the problem, 
• The problem is refusal to accept diversity. 
• The problem is using this diversity to create points of conflict and drive wedges between sections of community.
• The problem is using state power or other means of violence to impose one's views on the other.