Desicritics Author: Desh

Pakistan's "Macabre" Economics vs. Micawber's Economics

Desh — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:25:42 EDT

Ali Khan recalled: "General Beg called me for a cup of tea. He said, 'Don't you realize we are on the brink of economic collapse? I can change that by selling what we are good at. I can offer this country a lot. Six, eight, ten billion dollars.' I laughed. I said, 'You can't be serious.' The general said, 'I am very serious.' He then mentioned selling our bombs to Iran. He said, 'Nisar you can argue with me but that's not your job. You tell Nawaz Sharif that this is a good idea. It's the prime minister's position to decide.'
[ Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons by Adrian Levy]

It was 1988. The US was leaving Afghanistan and dollars were drying up quickly. Pakistan had almost completed the Nuclear acquisition and perfected the technology. With nothing much to export, General Aslam Beg now had set his sights on what was Pakistan's greatest achievement hitherto - the Nukes.

Iran did not however get the Nukes directly though - because it was after all a radical Shia regime (it did get the P1 and P2 class reactor technology subsequently).

The beneficiary and the payer became Saudi Arabia. It could not bother with the technology, so to arm their Chinese CSS-II missiles, Pakistan gave them what was required and saved the country from economic collapse.

Aid was Pakistan's "monetary and fiscal policy". When it was absent, then it was Nuke and military sales.

THAT is the reason why the Army has never let a democratic government last in that country.

2008 - twenty years since Beg decided to sell nukes to escape the begging - now the situation has turned full circle! But in the last few years, Iran and North Korea have become hot places and in full glare. For the last few years, the US was feeding the Pakistani coffers so the market saturation of countries who wanted Nukes on the sly did not matter. Now even the US doesn't have enough to give. Afghanistan's poppy sales is also no longer feeding the coffer of the Army. The breakdown is virtually total!

Such is the economic turmoil in Pakistan that it’s inflation has shot up to 25 per cent, and forex reserves are plunging to an all time low. With a total of $8.1 billion forex by September, the real reserves are estimated to be just $3 billion after accounting future liabilities.

Reports suggest that it is barely enough for Pakistan’s one-month imports, and if assistance is not provided immediately, the situation would turn for worse. There is a huge gap of $7 billion to cover in a projected current account deficit of $14 billion for the financial year ending June 30, 2009.

The rating agency Standard & Poor has cut the rating on Pakistan’s sovereign debt rating to CCC+, which is barely above the default level.

Now, barring these "Sources of Income" - Pakistani leaders and Army had never planned for other sectors to become any replacements! But even these are now under strain and almost non-existent.

The worst nightmare of the world is now unfolding - a nuclear state is going down and the extremists who planned and executed the most spectacular terrorist act in the history of modern world are bold and unflinching in their mission - to prevail. US is on the border and executing more and more missions in to the territory of Pakistan and bombing as well.

At such a distance and lacking any knowledge it is difficult to predict or even say for certain - but my instinct says clearly that at this very moment a fight is going on in stealth-mode and it is for identifying and "securing" the Nukes of Pakistan.

Pakistani leaders meanwhile are back to their old game - asking for aid. Obviously the question before US and others is - is another round of aid the best way to deal with this situation. Should more money be given - knowing it will be wasted on the generals and on infrastructure that is and was planning the next move. Or should the world buy time?? Until nukes can be secured.

In the coming months, the world will deal with many difficult variables - financial collapse of the world's economic system will be just one part of the entire deal. International warfare - military and economic - will be FAR more significant a misery to face our generation.

Meanwhile, in South Asia, Pakistan's masses will pay for the private passions and hatreds of their leaders. As the economic misery unfolds, many new reasons and villains will be created by the current lot of Pakistani political, religious and social leaders - but none would even look at the most obvious - to ask a simple question:

For all that I consume, what do I sell to the world?

Mr. Micawber says in the classic David Copperfield on economic wisdom:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The next world war (or its variation - "Clash of Civilizations") will not be won with bombs but by sheer economic expertise. Economics is not rocket science. Then why put it in the hands of your rocket scientists?

Why I am a Hindu?

Desh — Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:16:06 EDT

The other day a friend, an American, asked me what faith I followed? Or was I just spiritual. I reluctantly replied to him Hindu faith. I know at my intellectual level that is somewhat true and those following my thoughts here on this blog would have expected me to have said "Spiritual". But I did not. I have been wondering why?

Why was I reluctant to take off the label and go out in the open as alone.. without label? Or was it that there is something that has been "labelled" as Hindu that I do consciously relate to and get attracted to. I probably would have explained myself better if I had sometime but I did not. So, I wanted to spend sometime to understand my own mind for myself. And maybe in that process share my thoughts so my kids could understand what I thought of this question when they grow up and in this multi-colored world start looking for and searching for their identity.

The plane had reached the magical 10,000 feet so everyone could take out their stuff and start listening, working etc. He took out his Bible and started reading. The first class is a great help in the mornings when you travel every week and the breakfast that one gets there is worth it. After the breakfast, he opened his book again. I looked on interested. He introduced that he was a pastor. "Do you know about Jesus" he probed. "Yes", I said, "infact I love him. I think he was a revolutionary soul, as great as Buddha was in his time". "Hmm interesting", he avered "have you ever gone to a Church?" I smiled and said "No". "Maybe you would want to think of coming to the Jesus, the Savior" he said nicely. "You mean converting?". With practiced hesitation he said "yeeahh.. well ... you could learn more and then if you feel.. " he left it off with a certain mystery.

"You know, Sir, I don't need to convert my religion to love Jesus. I can love Jesus as much as I love the concept of Buddha or Osho or Krishna. You are stuck because you can't see beyond Jesus. Your love for one makes you necessarily demote others' importance or greatness. That is why you have one whom you have given pre-eminence. I have no such restrictions". The conversation ended abruptly.

So, for one, I love my freedom. Since there was and is no such thing as "Hindu way", I am free. This freedom is difficult to explain. Other people have called this Island I dwell upon as Hinduism so let it be so. But to me it leaves me independent of any one influence. A friend was worried that Hindus should have "a" way of life that the kids can follow, so they would not convert. That is the least of my concerns. If I can relate the freedom of thought - of being able to listen to a Sufi, to praying to Buddha, to going to a Gurudwara to bow my head infront of Krishna and meditating on his consciousness - then I would have set them free. At least it is easier for me to relate to the other person without tom-toming the primacy of my "God" or "Savior"! If ONLY I could teach my kids to be free then they would never want to jump into another box. There is an ethos which has come through the open-ness of my "faith" that is difficult to explain. It is not the Hinduism of Shiv Sena or any political institution. It is the freedom of thought of Swami Vivekananda. I want to pass on that freedom.

******** ***********

He was emphatic that Vedas were THE only word that was complete. With its ritual and the more profound word (within the Upanishads), Vedas are undoubtedly very exhaustive. But for the life of me, I would not admit its the ONLY complete text possible! Surely, if you could combine the wisdom of Nanak, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavir, and many Sufis, you would get a similarly profound text, I argued to myself. So Vedas greatness can't be that.

In fact, the greatness of Vedas was that all such thoughts CAME together. That all those enlightened and wise Masters I just mentioned could not dissolve their ego to pour their words into one cauldron to amalgamate to create more Vedas was their biggest failure. The Vedas reflect the cauldron where many....probably hundreds of enlightened minds simply poured their wisdom without any tag or name attached. Today, it is impossible to say who wrote the Vedas. One can clearly say they were written over a period of hundreds of years, but there is NO evidence of the writer/s! Is that bewildering? Something that was so profound could have been contributed by someone without any urge for credit? How incredible would those teachers be? In modern world, anybody and his brother, who thought that God talked to him in his sleep, or a cave, or on a hill came rushing to proclaim to the world about his distinction and why that was THE only way! And to think so many folks would simply throw stuff in that which is by far one of the most profound text is mind-boggling to me!!

It is difficult to explain this selflessness. Even the most charitable can give away their belongings, but even the most enlightened have had the urge to "uplift" and to preach. Even those high souls could not get past the lure of their last vestige of mind. That last "mile" of ego did them and their ideas in.

Over the years, I have lost all loyalty/allegiance to any messenger. So, I can see the contradictions in the concept (that's how I now look at the Spiritual Masters - they are merely concepts) of Nanak, of Jesus, of Osho, of Krishnamurti, or Krishna himself. Maybe I am judging but the flaws in each concept and their greatness are very apparent. And it is the flaw of human existence.

Swami Vivekananda once said that Krishna did not make Gita great. On the contrary, the greatness of the message of Gita added weight to Krishna's name. Message is more important. Messenger has limited or no use at all. That irrelevance of messengers and saviors is what I find very refreshing. I do not have to owe my learning to any ONE entity. I can clearly see the thread of a concept all through the different messengers. Although different philosophers gave their own twists and their interpretation and, unfortunately, quite often cloaked in their own "brand name", but I can disregard such megalomaniacs and just learn from their interpretations. The irrelevance of messenger also underscores one thing... you are not concerned with the hierarchy of the messenger. He could have been a cobbler like Kabir or one with thousands of followers and numerous Rolls Royces like Osho. I let the messages seep my soul and enrich it. It helps.

Quite often one concept is articulated by one philosopher and is not so clear but when you are free to go through words of numerous messengers - suddenly the questions that plagued your mind and dis-satisfactorily answered by others gets clarified and you move forward to the next question. This has helped my quest and exploration tremendously. I can throw my questions to the Universe and somehow the Consciousness works to provide some answer to me through different people.

********* ***********

Now, all that goes on in the name of Hinduism is far from perfect or even basically good. Like, Swami Vivekananda, rued how Adi Shankara lost the opportunity to dissolve the menace of caste system and combine his unparalleled intellect with the compassion of say, a Buddha. But alas, he was limited by his ego. And this caste question is one that brings the imperfection and the mess created by the urge to formalize teachings/analysis so clearly to the fore. Vedantic Rishis were fond of making analytical inferences. The greatest of the minds of Vedic pantheon rarely ever gave prescriptive statements. They were, as a rule, not normative in construction. They were analytical. How is it different? Let me give you an example of how it can be different:

One philosopher says that the people living in the world comprise of four Varnas - those pursuing Learning, those pursuing statecraft, those indulging in commerce, those doing maintenance work. All this is correlated to what role one finds himself/herself in. This is an analytical view.

Another teacher says - Everyone HAS to fall in one of the four Varnas and it is dependent upon and decided by one's roles.

What was an inference - a correlation statement - is suddenly converted into an edict - a solid cause and effect statement.

The lesser minds were never able to fathom that the analytical statements of the earlier philosophers were not pronouncements on how the world should be, but were merely analytical inferences as to how the world seems to be. You may come up with another inference quite contrary to the earlier one, and there would be no fight over it. So, while the entire tradition of what is now known as Hinduism is not above this curse of "Prescriptive Preachers", the history does betray a tradition that was very different to start with. That urge to analyze and doing one's own homework to understand the world is what baffles me and excites me most.

*********** **************

Karma theory is very misunderstood paradigm. Most of the world is messed up in Moralistic pronoucements where if you do "good" you could reach salvation (whatever that means). Now, when you look at this urge to "do good" a little deeply you realize the nonsense of it all. What does mean by "doing good"? That I am going to take an Action that will yield a result that will be "good". So, is "Good" an adjective of the Action or the Result? Does the Action in itself have any qualification (or adjective)? If you look carefully, the answer is obviously.. NO! So, what am I saying by claiming I want to "do good". That I precisely and unequivocally know the Actionsthat will necessarily and definitely lead to good result! Now, this playing "God" flies in the face of the claims that most of us make of our "Gods" - creator, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient etc. Little do we realize that Morals are simply useless pegs that, on the one side, strengthen one's ego and on the other hand, they are relative based on context/space/time combinations.

What Karma theory does is to set one free one from the quagmire of arbitrary morals and codes of conduct. You can be a Bhishma who fights Krishna himself and YET be the hightest Karma-yogi of the century. You could be a butcher who kills animals everyday for meat honestly and without any ego and yet be celebrated by a Vyadha-Gita. All ways to tellingly bring forth the message that ACTION has NO COLOR! Action, in itself, has no qualificaton! So, if you just do your action honestly as a duty that you have to discharge without any judgments as to what is right or wrong, then things will take care of themself.

The letting go of playing "God" is what seems intriguing. That dissolution of the highest aspirations can give one actual shot at being "God" is what I find most ironic.

*********** *************

"God and Guru is irrelevant, only self effort (purusharth) can lead you to enlightenment" said Vasistha to Ram in Yoga Vasistha. And then he went onto explain Prahlad's enlightenment "By Vishnu's grace, Prahlad achieved enlightenment". Ram was obviously bewildered, just as I was and probed his teacher "Sir, but you said Guru and God is irrelevant and now you are extolling Vishnu's grace?" At that time, Vasistha gives the most potent explanation and one that left me just wondering at the profoundness of the thought. "Vishnu" Vasistha says "is just semantics. Prahlad is no different from Vishnu at that level of consciousness. There was no entity called Vishnu. There was just consciousness. You and I can call it Prahlad or Vishnu". Consciousness and what we call "divinity" is just a label! It is an orbit where one moves from one to another. There is no entity or God sitting who will promote or demote you by his grace or otherwise! It is you and you only! That I am God consciousness with a shot of reaching the highest levels of consciousness is very empowering.

Is the moon blue or red? asked a physicist and explained through Quantum Mechanics in a celebrated paper of theoretical physics that moon is BOTH, blue and red if I am not observing. It takes on one color when I observe it and inquire for the answer. Manifestation of the world, is therefore, a play of my mind. The quietening of my mind should therefore, lead me to experiencing the infinite.. or in this case, moon as both, blue and red!

It is consciousness at the end of the day. This power of defining "myself" through dissolution of "myself" is the most powerful message I have come across. And although many philosophers tried to explain this, they fell short constantly, and it takes accessing the minds and teachings of many to get it clarified.

************ *************

But then if what I seeking is freedom and irrelevance of any pegs, then is it really a religion? And that is precisely my question. If a tradition inherently promotes freedom of thought in its most profound form then why should it have a label? Can someone "convert" to be a "Hindu"? I don't think so. It is a state of being.. a state of consciousness. You cannot say that today I "became" a Hindu!

When you abandon all labels and can be open to access the wisdom of all and also have the freedom to question everything relentlessly, then you can say you are a Hindu. Almost all the scriptures of the world are simply instructions. But the Vedantic traditions promoted questioning. Vasistha was grilled by Ram no end.. as was Krishna by Arjun. There was no insistence on "just believe what I say". The teacher was as much part of that learning process as the student was. And just as the teacher could choose a student.. the student could also choose a teacher. Such a scenario obviates any belief system. It was only when lesser minds took over the reigns of learning in Vedic society that such practices were replaced by supertstition and one sided traffic in schools.

Truth is an experience and a journey that one has to take individually. The conditioning of every mind is unique and so its dissolution will also be unique. The traditional learning enforced by a belief system can only take you so far. After a certain distance you have to let it go. And that is where most belief systems of the world fail. Leaving the confines of a belief system is considered blasphemous and damning.. when the reverse should be true!

So to leave the "Hindu" belief system while looking afresh at the world with the inquisitiveness of a child is what it means to be a "Hindu" for me.

It is abandoning the blind belief in Vishnu to be Vishnu consciousness myself!

And that is the journey I see for my kids when they grow up. A personal journey for self realization reliving the experiences of the Highest minds that gave up ego even when they were contributing the most profound thoughts to the world.

Why is Kashmir Important?

Desh — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:26:39 EDT

Disclaimer: I am writing this purely with statecraft as the basis. I have deliberately left out the influence of value systems and principles, as in prevalent in most discussions

Kashmir is a major problem between India and Pakistan. Most often the cloak on every issue and problem between state is sewn from the thread of emotions and principles in public opinion. Actually and in hard reality it is rarely so.

At the expense of sounding nonchalant, let me state that never have I ever believed, notwithstanding the public emotion, that Pakistan's establishment had ever coveted Kashmir because of its Muslim residents and India because of its secular credentials.

If there was ever any secularism worth the name in that land of Kashmir, then conversions and Islamic invasion had long destroyed it. What was being dragged on for last few centuries was the coffin of that secularism.

Secondly, if Islamic brotherhood was the concern of the Pakistanis then they should have had a better track record at home to convince even a weak critic.

Of course, my eternal question o Pakistan always strikes at the root of this "Islamic Brotherhood" claim:

Which "Muslim" and "Islam" are we talking about?

The truth about Pakistan's Islamic brotherhood is that its boundaries extend to only Punjabi Sunnis and then it abruptly stops. It assumes vicious forms as soon as it crosses over into the territory of those who believe in Prophet-hood beyond Mohammad. It is then that the love and acceptance that are the hallmark of any brotherhood should - ideally - be exemplified. And that is where it has failed and failed miserably!

Actually, and honestly, the frail "love" fails at the boundary of language itself. Bengalis, Mohajirs are living exhibits of that failure. So, to say that Kashmiri Muslim is any more important than Bengali Muslim.. .or that a Kashmiri Shia will have any more luck than a Punjabi or Sindhi Shia is a tough sell to anyone not unlucky enough to have been brainwashed!

Now, if the interests of Kashmiris and their land was any concern then the quid pro quo, where a third of Jammu & Kashmir (5800 sq.km) - Trans-Karakoram Tract (1963 agreement and 1987 ratification of Chinese ownership) - was bartered to China by Pakistan would not have occurred.

There is a reason why I or you cannot sell the Taj Mahal. Because we do not own it! It is the same case with the land that we hold in "good trust". A trustee does not have absolute rights on the property of the original owner. Trustee of a property cannot therefore sell a property held under trusteeship any more than you or I cannot sell Taj Mahal. That is how a logical law works. But it becomes a completely different matter if the trustee assumes the absolute rights and without any ratification from the original owner goes about wheeling-dealing in the property!

So, two tthe hings are very clear to me - for Pakistan, Kashmir is NOT about Islamic brotherhood and it is also NOT about love and care for Kashmiri interests.

What about India? If indeed Kashmir was the benchmark for secularism, without which the practice of this blessed principle would utterly fail and devastate India, then Kashmiri Pandits would not have been a casualty and that too in such a terrible way. The day the first Pandit was threatened and harmed and the Indian Government turned its eyes away, that pretense of Kashmir's importance for holding together our secular culture collapsed an unsung death! It has never been resurrected since. It never will.

True "Secularism" - if one insists on extolling this word, in my view, and since it has been a point of so much debate in one of my earlier post, resides in people's hearts. It is none other than love - pure love.

When the narrow minded look at Love being expressed to a person who swears by another "God", they call that territory as "Secularism". And Tolerance is basic building block of its definition by such a narrow mind. What they really mean is that Love was not a "natural" state when it saw a "different" opinion, yet this person exhibited it! It is quite obviously an unflattering characterization of "Love" to begin with, but to hide their own short-coming of terming Tolerance as a virtue, such people put Secularism on a high pedestal!

Acceptance of all is a virtue. And acceptance is not despite the differences, but irrespective and beyond the narrow boundaries of similarities and differences.

Love of Heer, of Shirin, of Juliet could not even dwell on such boundaries or mind-blocks. It was just love.

In my view, THAT can be the ONLY true "Secularism" - if you still want to use that semantics. Love and Secularism are, therefore, the same. Anything less than that is just a pretense and hypocrisy! Just as Jesus' unbounded and unconditioned love cannot be characterized and defined in narrow terms... similarly Love of One's own "God" - if it is really a God and not its cheap surrogate - has to and should include everyone's "God"! So where is the reason or need for uncomfortably pretended "love" famously called "Tolerance" and its derivative "Secularism"!!

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote something for Sherlock Holmes that remains - in my book - an excellent benchmark for getting to any truth - "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth!"

So, now, if the public stances of India and Pakistan were never honest or even plausible ones to begin with, then why has so much of blood been shed over it? And its corollary - Is Kashmir even important and if yes, Why?

I am sure, there are many who will keep arguing on the above negated "principles" and "virtues" no end as the major issues in Kashmir, but it is quite obvious, given the actions and track record on the ground that they are akin to fleeting flirtings of schizophrenic administrations. No more defensible or believe-able than promises of love and faithfulness from a playboy Casanova, who pretends love and screws women because...well.. he can!!

The women who believe such playboys and jump into bed with them, usually keep bearing bastards and crying over their "bad fortune". I have little sympathy or serious concern for such blind idealists. That is why I want to move on to the real (as opposed to pretended) reasons for so much importance of Kashmir and let the lovers of political Cassanovas cry over bastardization of the most coveted principles and blame the "bad fortune" and villainous world for all that. Too bad.

Blood and money is generally spilled by "intelligent", though bluffing regimes, always because and if, that land provides "Net Benefits". When "Revenue" over a long time period is higher than the costs to sustain and hold that land. When the Net Return turned below the accepted "Investment threshold" for British, they quietly handed over the sub-continent to its impoverished residents and made it look as an act of greatness. That was political stage-craft... and victory of independence for the romantics!

A Nigerian friend recently made an interesting - and telling - remark (Nigeria was freed in 1960) "If the oil had been discovered in Nigeria before the Brits decided to leave our country, we would have been forever colonized. Our luck was their mis-fortune".

That is why Darfur is not as important as Iraq or two small provinces of Georgia are to the big powers of the world. Benefits outweigh the costs and the risks in those ventures, and Darfur, by contrast, is a net-net loss.

Kashmir has no oil. But it is a gateway. Yes, to Central Asia. But more importantly to the Himalayas - the ONLY consistent and bountiful source of water to the sub continent. For centuries, sub continent has seen its civilization been decided by that one element. While Saraswati enabled a flourishing civilization, its vanishing destroyed it. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to lose that source.

While Pakistan's hurry is that before India assumes un-beatable dominance in the region, to cut its life-force itself. India has the same aim. It also has a large population that any semi-honest political administration would want to plan for.

Narendra Modi for Prime Minister

Desh — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:44:04 EDT

Since 2002, when the Gujarat riots broke up a lot of things have happened. The Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was a villain in my eyes as for others at that time. But over the years, pragmatism and realism have taken over.

I have had this firm realization now that words like Secularism and Communalism have NO meaning. They are bastardized words which people AGAIN use for their self interest...nothing more.

Here is why:

The Massacres

In the Gujarat riots, the break up of the killed was: Muslims - 790; Hindus: 254. 2548 people were injured and 223 are missing. This is as per figures given by the Union Minister of State for Home Shriprakash Jaiswal (Congress Party) in Parliament on 11 May 2005. Some NGOs put the figure close to 2000 but I have as much faith in Indian activist NGOs as I have in the used car salesmen in my city.

The figures in Delhi massacres in 1984 were: Sikhs: 2733 killed in Delhi alone. as per Ahuja Committee, which submitted the report in August 1987.

The barbarity that one saw in both the areas was the same in the ways people killed each other. So, I am taking a common factor to understand the scale and spread of the madness.

It is quite obvious, that the 1984 killings were the biggest in scale and intensity that one has seen in a long time. Mind you, the numbers given were ONLY from Delhi!

Dr. Manmohan Singh who found a new whipping boy in L K Advani in his last speech to the Indian Parliament, had installed JD Tytler, one of the masterminds of the Delhi massacre, as a Cabinet Minister. It finally took protests after the Nanavati Commission had pointed fingers at him to ease him out of the Government.

Of course there is Nandigram, where Muslims and lower caste people were specifically targetted and killed in a genocide as well. There is no number of how many were killed but the killings continue in trickles EVEN today!

Questions

So, obviously one wants to ask a question - How do you define "Religious Fundamentalism" and Secularism?

Is religious genocide when any ONE section of the society is targetted? Or is it when ONLY minorities are targetted?

Or is it when ONLY one minority is targetted? Or is it when THAT ONE minority is targetted by ONLY one party??

When does violence enter the realm of a religious fundamentalism??

These are important questions. But they have been rendered useless. The very Congress which targets BJP was the culprit in the worst killings of any minority! The CPM which points fingers at any one they can find in the 20 mile radius have been even worse at Nandigram!! So, WHO should throw the stones? And WHY?

When Best Bakery case victims change their statements it is a BIG deal. At the SAME time when the 1984 victims change their statements in Delhi, no one even cares for them!

When Rajiv Gandhi justifies the Sikh killings (Jab bada per girta hai.. ), that is a person laden with sorrow and a case of miscommunication. But when anyone who is remotely related to a particular party talks about the Godhra incident ALONG with the Gujarat killings, he is termed a saffronite and a fundamentalist!

Political Currency - Self Interest

So, I am sick and tired of this utter hypocrisy. I find anyone mouthing words like Secularism and Communalism a Hypocrite and a Scoundrel!

So, let's get these useless terms like Secularism, Communalism, Fundamentalism, Tolerance OUT OF THE WAY! Politics only works on Self Interest and I want to treat that as the only major currency of political interaction. Those who want to pretend otherwise, I dont want to join them in their "wonderland"... they are more than welcome to dance away the rest of their lives with Alice and her friends!

NOW, knowing there is only self interest - what would be the best way to choose the bad among the worse?

Terrorism and Economy

I believe those who at the very least take care of their administrative duties in the best possible manner, should be pushed up.

Today, India's biggest threat is Terrorism. Even bigger than the economy! And no, I am not a mere "Nationalist". I am more interested in economic development than anything else. But if anyone has cared to look, the terrorists have made it their goal to target India's economy and science & Technology strength!

If you remember the December 2005 attack in Indian Institute of Science - where in a failed attack, one died and 4 got injured. It was an attack calibrated against the scientific establishment of India.

In the recent attacks, techies were used very effectively. These techies not only distributed the material and helped planned, but also used the computer of a US employee of a MNC to hack and then send emails through it to the Indian agencies!!

Hence, even if the economy is one's PRIMARY concern, it will be torn by terrorists. So, to preserve the economy, taking care of terrorism is the first task!

Gujarat Case

In the last two years, many bomb blasts have occurred in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Jaipur. None of the cases were solved. Why? because there was NO political will to do so. The Chief Ministers were either busy in horse trading or filling up their coffers. They were not concerned of their state.

The only case that was solved is that of Gujarat. Why? Because Modi and his establishment took it up as a major endeavor and a challenge. They made sure no riots occured, and even if they would have, the order to the 11 investigation teams was to ignore it and keep working. He gave the the investigating teams complete authority and full support - they had money, resources, people and also a chartered plane to pursue whatever they wanted.

For almost 3 weeks the team members did not sleep. They worked round the clock to get to the bottom of the case.

More than 11 teams were formed within the first few hours of the blasts. One team was asked to handle the investigations into the material used in the bombs. Another team was asked to investigate the use of bicycles. Another team was formed to thoroughly check all the phone calls made in Ahmedabad from certain areas just before and after the blasts. Another team was set up to reach out to all the police informers and gather their opinions on and information of the blasts. One team followed the cyber crime aspect of the case. The overall investigation of the case was assigned to the crime branch of Ahmedabad where more than 100 people started following whatever little leads that were available, from the midnight of July 26

What has happened and what was uncovered is nothing short of amazing given those three weeks.

Yes, the administration failed the residents in not preventing the attacks, but thankfully this administration did not wallow and start finger-pointing in its aftermath. It went into action from get go. Also, and importantly, it prevented any reactions and went about their work professionally.

My Vote

In my view, this is what I expect from my country's administration!

Leaving the hypocrisy of such lofty words and "principles" as secularism and communalism aside and not indulging in make-believe.. let me state what I would NOT have some years back. My candidate for the Prime Minister of India would be Narendra Singh Modi.

There are many people in India who say with an air of self constructed self-righteousness that "I am ashamed" of Modi.

Well, I am at a point where I am ashamed of the shamelessness of those have made a career in being ashamed!!

And it's not that they are any better than these politicians - they THEMSELVES function ONLY on self interest!

Interview: Michael Levin - The Next Great Clash

Desh — Mon, 5 May 2008 09:38:50 EDT

I very rarely find a book that I cannot keep down, specially when it comes to politics. The Next Great Clash: China and Russia vs. The United States by Michael Levin is a revelation. Not many analysts really do serious research before writing. Levin is different. He is a serious analyst who has had long stints in Soviet Union/Russia and China and he is currently Executive-in-Residence at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

The introduction to the book starts in the most thoughtful manner. It is so gripping that you start believing in the power of book introductions once again - an art that had long vanished! He discusses his tough childhood and fight with disease as well as his struggle to learn about Russia and his success after some aimless times.

I love Levin's expression as it is profound, although it talks of some mundane things like global politics. Like he says:

"Reading is the collecting of intellectual income, writing is the spreading of it."

He uses a lot of research and the models of other researchers to test his conclusions that are based on his experience and knowledge.

Overall, a great book to read! Here is my interview with Michael Levin, the author.

1. You have talked of "One Radical Imbalance (American Debt) sustains another (Asian Surplus)". Just as the "rich" in the US are betting, foolishly, on a never ending stream of debt; aren't the Chinese, again foolishly, betting on unending stream of export wealth? And while talking of the aging US (and Western) population, we forget the same trend for China as well. So two questions:

(a) Is this a game of "who blinks first?" between the US and China and - in that sense - a repeat of the Star Wars tactic to destroy Soviet Union under its own weight?
(b) Is the Chinese "surplus" a notional surplus since it's invested in an instrument that it can best see ride down as the clash with the US increases?

LEVIN: Two things to keep in mind: if there is an economic break between the US and China, China has an ace in the hole: it can divert its attention to satisfying the demand of its domestic consumers as a replacement for export-led growth. The US seems to be at a disadvantage - it does not have an ace in the hole.

Second: You are right - both countries face demographic imbalances that will pose challenges in the future. It seems that America's advantage is its ability to absorb immigrants - recent protectionist sentiments aside. China also has some advantages: its social structure dictates that children take care of parents; it is a private, family matter - so the state is not, thus far, burdened with pension plans.

Imagine the additional wealth that China will have at its disposal as it implements pension schemes.

2. For the clash to tangibly occur as a military confrontation, a complete decoupling between China and US economies needs to occur. What will be that mechanism? Is it possible for either to voluntarily decouple from each other?

If there is outright war, the decoupling will be a byproduct. The whole global economy will go haywire.

But China is developing asymmetric capabilities that exploit US weaknesses. If China is able to prevent the US from protecting Taiwan during a military confrontation - it has won.

By the way - I would like to emphasize: I hope I am all wrong about the next great clash. As you see though, the evidence is quite compelling.

3. Like you said very well, Europe learnt to use the "Human Rights Imperialism" with telling effect. It is very true that all the major powers use a Utopian ideal to create surrogates and followers. Again, as you have very rightly said - the US has considerably weakened two major alliances (UN and NATO) in recent years (probably the worst foreign affairs folly of the last 8 years despite Iraq). So, the US has lost that romantic "Moral Imperialistic Ideal" that inspired other people in its "mission". China, on the other hand, has embraced capitalism and has also weakened its position in its strongest "base" - the Communists and Marxists! Predictably, China has also lost its "Moral Imperialistic Ideal". How will these two powers gather vassals and followers?

Not really. The Chinese have demonstrated that they are successful communists - unlike their Soviet brethren. The Beijing consensus of economic development seems to have more adherents than the current Washington consensus. And the Chinese have very skillfully honed their image (although the recent disturbances in Tibet have upset China's "charm offensive") in the Muslim world, in Africa, and in Latin America.

4. India's "fascination" for the USSR and Russia is mainly because of a consistent and uninterrupted arms flow as opposed to wavering US positions. In the last one and a half decades, India has sent more professional immigrants to the US than all the other countries put together (every year, Indians get 40-50% of all H1B visas). That creates an intellectual ripple effect over two generations that moves out to influence minds as opposed to lobbyists. At the same time, with the highest percentage of younger population in the major economies, English education, and an education system that is privately owned so it can adjust to the demand rapidly, India is positioned to become the provider of world's management and executive talent over the next few years. How does that change the dynamics of the world's economies in the coming centuries? (PS: Rajat Gupta, the CEO of McKinsey, for example was instrumental in opening a world class business school in India - ISB - and also has expanded McKinsey's presence in India. Same goes for the PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi).

You know way more about India than I ever will.

5. Does India's business elite have a great deal of influence within the corridors of political power, or are they simply one more lobby to contend with? It seems that India's leaders rise through political parties/families - they do not come from business circles. Also, the Indian business community in Russia is highly organized and very wealthy. I would imagine that they are very involved with the Congress party, whereas Indian business elites in the U.S. might identify more with the BJP. What do you think?

Undoubtedly India has a great competitive advantage in its English-language capability - but the Chinese are very determined and hard-working. And they seem to be much better organized politically and so could easily launch a national English-language campaign (Incidentally, there is a fascinating article about this in the most recent New Yorker).

6. Despite its earlier start and higher percentage rise in GDP over last 3 decades, China has less than half the number of billionaires (official wealth counted) than India. Does that tell a tale? Is China's economy a government-sponsored musical chairs of using money where it sees the best returns and forcing its decisions into enterprise-led initiatives? With rising paper surpluses and a challenge from the US and a private-government combine of Indian economy* apart from a slowly awaking Japanese military power, does the Chinese economy appear to you as a "House of Cards"?

(PS: the Kazakhastan deal for oil was greatly influenced by the Lakshmi Mittal - who owns large steel plants in that country and has a JV with ONGC - in India's favor against the Chinese bids.)

China's economy does have many weak points - chief amongst them, its high percentage of non-performing bank loans (which you point out elsewhere). But China also has many strengths that are not captured by statistics and economic data - such as its ability to mobilize the population and a fervent belief that their time has come. The Chinese are also used to deprivation and sacrifice - something that most westerners are not familiar with.

Regarding the number of billionaires - some thoughts: Do these statistics take into account the number of overseas Chinese who are billionaires?

Also, in China, political connections are more important than wealth (although that may start to change). It would seem that the massive levels of corruption also distort the wealth statistics.

In a sense, all of the members of the central committee (approximately 300) are billionaires of power. And they are not wanting for material comforts.

7. In World War II, the US was an Aaly of Western Europe for the most part. It did not START any war until the end, which many believe it ended in an immoral way. Since then, there have been very few, if any, wars which the US has started and won. Does the US have the ability to attract allies that can forge its position? China has created its vassal states like Pakistan and North Korea to fight its wars that it does not want to fight itself. It has chosen to use the poverty of these vassal states while arming them and providing them with a sense of self-esteem in the absence of actual wealth (a policy very fruitfully used by the British with Indian kings during colonial rule) to create a vast strong set of "allies". How do these two strategies (or otherwise) of the US and China in the recent decades affect the future dynamics?

No one likes a bully - all the kids gang up on the bully as soon as he is down. George Bush/the US is perceived as the bully, and China is skillfully exploiting this, but recent events in Tibet are a great threat to China's strategy of seeking a more "multipolar" world.

8. Finally, a rather small detail: You said that you would sell expensive editions of the Koran in Russia - where your contacts were "refuseniks" (Jews refused immigration to Israel) to earn money. Why were these Jews buying the Koran, and not the Torah?

Please note: i did not sell the Korans - i gave them to the refuseniks, who in turn sold them on the black market to muslims. Access to the Torah was not a problem.

Memories of Lahore Breezes

Desh — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:20:17 EST

She must have walked on the same streets that were once walked by my father. Maybe the fruits that had falled from the trees that had once fed my grandfather had also been tasted by her. Now, she was standing right in our house bringing the air of Lahore with her. Rubab Saleem (blogs at Pakistan Times) was visiting us in Houston and I could not miss being mesmerized by the situation. It was ridden with quiet nostalgia in my mind.

Both my parents and their forefathers came from Lahore. While my father's family was from Lahore proper, my mother's family came from Sheikhupura, near Lahore. While my father and his parents migrated in 1920's due to my grandfather's Government job, my mother's side came during partition. I would sit down with my Nanaji for hours discussing his childhood and youth. I still remember him picking up the Hindustan Times with a story on the terrorist training camps for the Khalistanis in 1980's with a map of the various places where those camps were and pointing those places to me. "Here I played my first hockey match"... and "Here I went to college".. etc. He had travelled wide and well in that land and was fluent in Farsi and Urdu (oral and written).

After all these decades, the Internet had accomplished me to do another thing. Sort of close the loop that had been left open - a young girl from Lahore finally brought that whiff of that city - which has a special place in Punjabiyat of South Asia - to our home.

She, unbeknownest, returned something to my family that we had left "back there". Lahore's persona.

Internet is a great equalizer. It can bring two completely different people with different histories together. They may not agree but the platform's "maryada" or the value system, provides you with a certain serenity to accept divergence that you may not have accepted otherwise. I have disagreed with many and yet learned from them. The process goes on.

A close friend once told me that he does not judge people, for he may lose out on another's perspective on the same issue and maybe he could learn from it! I cannot say I am as good as he is, but I am learning. I am quite sure that I might see the world differently than many but the important thing is that despite that we still look at each other. As friends.

Rubab has furthered my education in that process of such acceptance. She may not agree with my views always but she accepts me as another perspective. And in the end, I believe, that is what Lahore was really about. It brought passionate people of all hues who were tied to each other through one thread - of acceptance and love born out of that acceptance. I am not using the word "Tolerance" for it is negative and a compromise. Acceptance is not a compromise. It is a positive way to open your arms and bring people into your world as one. In accepting you become complete. This young lady from Lahore made me complete.

YouTube, Idol Worship and Fanaticism

Desh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:32:13 EST

Pakistan's government does not want its people to watch Youtube. Why? Because it has some videos on the Prophet cartoon story. So, they think their youngsters shouldn't be seeing anything on thevideo site including some of the most wonderful videos that can be informative.

The madness in closing your mind seems empowering in immediate term but is debilitating thereafter.

I am not sure why the Muslims over the centuries do not want to see an image of their Prophet or their God, but I assume its genesis would have been in the negatives of idol worship. And that, in turn, would be in the principle that if you start "capturing" a God in an idol you are basically negating the boundless-ness of God-consciousness.

However, who ever came up with this Islamic formulation did not understand another side of the idol worship story: form and name are immaterial - characteristics that you associate with the form or name are more important.

Another way to look at it: Name and Form are NOT different either. If you have a name for something.. you have already created a form in your mind. Description preceeds a name. Description is the verbal FORM of a physical representation. So if someone has a name for God and asserts that he does not want to have a "physical form" is, politely putting, hallucinating!

Then, does form - idol, painting or just a name or description matter? Our thoughts have already restricted the "God" in any case.

In fact, a person who creates an Idol and worships the deity by nevertheless saying that notwithstanding the restrictions of my small mind - You are boundless and Infinite - is probably more honest in his acceptance of an Infinite God than a person who tries his best to restrict that Infinite Entity by ascribing motives to "His" actions and extrapolating to "Him" the weaknesses of a human mind and still seeking to destroy the idols with a vengeance!

At least the Idol Worshipper who - mindfully - interacts with his God by ascribing Infiniteness is pointing to the obvious problem that human existence brings along - we cannot possibly "imagine" Infinity" in the real sense. He is admitting it to start off with but has found a "workaround".

Of course, the issue occurs when this workaround becomes the sine qua non of holiness and God realization.

But this is the problem with religion, priests, prophets and saints. They come up with "Philosophies for Dummies" series by trying to come up with simplified stuff and that simplification, instead of being "cues" becomes THE reality for the followers. So, while the beginnings of "not recommending" Idol Worship were probably more spiritual in intent, banning it and being fanatic about such a ban took on a decidedly superstitious route.

Similarly on the other hand, using an idol for a concentrated session of meditation may be extremely helpful, while you chant - knowingfully - verses describing the infiniteness of the entity's reality; but restricting the same entity to just that idol can be very debilitating and another route to superstition.

Therefore, in my book, both are superstitions - unmindful Idol Worship and Fanatical opposition to it.

A fanatical and a restless mind can never be at peace with itself or be one with the infinite. A mind that has an ideal or a belief to live upto has to constantly measure itself against the pole of an arbitrary prescription as opposed to the boundless-ness of the Infinite. That noise of constant, restrictive and useless evaluation creates fanaticism and restlessness taking the person FAR away from where the Truth really lies.

Raj Thackeray - Let Him Be Maharashtrian, Not Indian

Desh — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:39:44 EST

Can the Central Government please take away Raj Thackeray Indian passport and let him travel around the world with his "Maharashtrian Passport"? Also, there is no reason for him to have Indian citizenship. Let him call himself a Maharashtra citizen and get by with his bank account and elections. Good luck to him. I have a very simple adage for such guys - those who want by the yard but try by the inch, should be kicked by the foot!

The situation is similar to pseudos like Arundhati Roy - who live on Indian hospitality and yet abuses it repeatedly; or Teesta Setalvad who shoots from the hip and wants to taken seriously. This idiot, and these mad pseudos are a curse on our nation and deserve similar treatment. The interest of the Indian nation - a complete one at that - is paramount but if any one wants to upstage it with anything narrower, then s/he should be tackled right away!

Raj Thackeray might be the nephew of Bal Thackeray but the idiocy of that bloodline runs through his veins as well, and in fact he is far more vicious and worse for Indian national security than his Uncle.

Such idiots should be asked to leave the country right away! Or better still just move Bollywood out of Bombay. This will accomplish many things:

1. De-congest Mumbai, so the residents would be happier!
2. Bollywood can do with a more open space and the studios can get better and cheaper access to supplies and real estate - leading to lower cost of making movies.
3. The new struggling actors will no longer have to sleep on the railway stations because they cannot afford the rent. They can rent apartments at Rs 2000 per month between 2-3 guys.
4. We as India would not have all the eggs - finance, Bollywood, soft industries - in one basket. It is, in any case, not conducive to India's National Interest.

Unless we Indians cannot get this unity thing pat down we will never be able to proceed. Many years back, Chanakya went from one king to another to ask them to come together. But they threw him out. He vowed to not tie his hair until he could put them out of business. I have said many times now, we do not and did not need a Gandhi today or in the last 100 years, we need and needed all along a Chanakya! Someone who can vow to get these foolish and vicious people "out of business"!

Meanwhile, I believe, if Amitabh Bachchan has guts and intelligence he will stand up to this guy - not necessarily through the Amar Singh brigade - on his OWN and bring him down.

Such people hallucinate a lot - they start believing in their own invincibility. Give them a shock and they melt away.

We need someone to stand up to them.

God is A Demonstration of Ignorance

Desh — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:21:28 EST

We have a need to belong. To look for support. Because basically and inherently we are afraid of our own selves. We cannot deal with being alone in this world. Through our lives we get to realize the temporary nature of the relationships and of everything material. Even happiness and joy. So, we look for that everlasting Utopian "friend" or companion.

Also, in our attempt to justify our deeds, our hypocrisy.. we need a accomplice. Someone we can USE as our justification. Whether it is through the use of that magic word called Morals or through the use of a "scripture". We need a legitimacy to our hypocrisy.

The Concept of "God" fits the bill perfectly. God is the grossest expression of infinite and omniscience there ever could be!

When the infinite reality of a wave is collapsed into the finite possibility of "a" particle and we then "experience" it as reality, our world is born. We try our lives to understand the interplay of such finite possibilities. What our observation leaves out are Infinite - 1 possibilities which also constitute reality!

In our arrogance, we use whatever knowledge we have of interplay of this ONE possible dimension and extrapolate it to rest of Infinite - 1 part of reality and claim we know the "Truth"! If there was ever a testament to man's egotistic hypocrisy, then God is at the top of that heap!

We probably accumulate a fraction of knowledge of that 1 possible dimension that we witness and experience in our lifetimes, and that One possibility itself is such an unmentionable tiny part of reality. How can such lack of experience qualify us to explain the "Truth" that is infinite? Isn't talking about God then really our Ignorance?? Isn't God then a reflection of our own vanities? Our frailities? Our egos? Our hopes and fears?

Why do we still believe in it? Because we are afraid to look in the direction of the "Truth" and say - 'I DON'T KNOW!". We cannot bare our ignorance. And such display of ignorance will be of cosmic proportions!

Our collective and historical lack of confidence in admitting the obvious has created this unique need to believe in a utopian God, who is a personification of our own minds. Minds, which are imperfect, self-centered and limited.

Even if we do understand this - after being repeated by many Saints like parrots do - we look for certain signs for that experience of the infinite! Forgetting that such a beckoned experience is in itself no different than our alchemy of God! A beckoned God is a Gross God. A figment of our own imagination. Reflection of us really!

Myths of Gandhism, Ram, and the Partition

Desh — Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:46:19 EST

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948. It has been about 60 years since then. For all these years, a lie - and a blatant one at that - has been perpetuated by the Indian National Congress. That, while dying he uttered the words - Hey Ram. This was to make him popular with the majority community and take the sting out of any leanings to the Jan Sangh family.

Jawaharlal Nehru had to bypass many obstacles for him and his family be the rulers of India forever. The Jan Sangh's influence was one. He first had Nathuram Godse linked to the RSS and then demonized them forever. The myth that RSS was to Hindus what Muslim League was to the Muslims was perpetuated in a very methodical fashion. The truth, however, was very different.

The pre-Partition's cycle of deadly and unending violence was set in motion the day Mohd. Ali Jinnah held a press conference in Bombay in July 1946, in the presence of Margaret Bourke-White (LIFE Magazine journalist) and said categorically that if Muslims were not granted Pakistan, he would launch "Direct Action". This little known "Direct Action" was what set the fire in motion that has since burnt and engulfed many in its hatred.

Direct Action Day, also known as the Affirmative Action Plan, the Calcutta Riots, the Great Calcutta killings, and "The Week of the Long Knives", started on August 16, 1946. It was a day when the Muslim League planned peaceful protests all over India to voice the Muslim demand for a separate homeland during the Indian Freedom Struggle against the British Raj. This protest was followed by massive riots in Calcutta instigated by the Muslim League and led to further riots in the surrounding regions of Bengal and Bihar by Muslims against Hindus and Sikhs, followed by retaliatory attacks on Muslims by Congress followers and supporters. Within 72 hours, more than 5,000 people lost their lives, at least 20,000 were got seriously injured and 100,000 residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless.

The crowds on Hooghly and Howrah bridge were followed by massacre of thousands of Hindus in Noakhali (between 50-75,000).

If at all, it was Jinnah and the Congress supporters who were involved in these massacres. But what do the intellectuals say? This:

Since the early summer of 1947, the abstract notion of "not-belonging" had become real when private armies belonging to the Muslim League's national guard), the Sikh Akal Fauj and the Hindu-nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) began orchestrating major attacks on minority groups in their area of influence. The formal creation of borders in August meant that what was considered a temporary movement by many people to avoid violence months before had now became absolute and permanent.

It is as if this urge suddenly started off in the Muslims and Hindus to kill each other. And of course, no mention of the involvement of Indian National Congress in this entire drama!

It was in early 1947 that RSS finally got actively involved in the violence - after thousands had been massacred in Noakhali (October 1946) and elsewhere.

It was in this atmosphere of "power-at-all-costs" and Machiavellian one-up-manship by Nehru that in 1946 election for Congress Presidency, Gandhi asked all 16 Congress states representatives to choose the person who would lead Free India. 13 of the 16 states sent back Sardar Patel's name.

Gandhi put his foot down in favor of Nehru, and the Sardar as a faithful "foot soldier" accepted to step down.

Now, as his personal assistant from 1943 to 1948 tells us of the letters Gandhi wrote prior to his death as a "disillusioned man":

"The celebration of Independence Day with great pomp and show was quite appropriate when we were fighting for independence, which we had neither seen nor handled. Now, we have handled it and seem to be disillusioned. At least I am, even if you are not. "What are we celebrating today? Surely, not our disillusionment," are the words written by Gandhi.

How could complete faith in a structure and polity by a person change into disillusionment in one year is beyond me when he is the one who kept putting his foot down to over-rule people's desire and voice? However, he did.

Let us go back to where we started - Hey Ram. Now, after 60 odd years, the same personal assistant - Kalyanam Venkitaraman - has chosen to reveal that Gandhi in fact never said anything! This myth started when some one filed an FIR which was incorrect anyway.

"Somebody claimed he had heard Gandhi uttering Ram...Ram, which was filed in the FIR, but the truth is that not one word was uttered. For, how can one do so when he is shot at from such a close range?" Venkitaraman, who worked with Gandhi from 1943 till his death in 1948, asked.

So, it was a myth. What begs a question is WHY would a "Gandhian" not come out with this truth all these years? I am sure he must have talked about this to everyone in Indian Congress. I can understand Nehru's (and clan's) motivations, but what about the rest? Shastri? Patel? Azad? Vinobha Bhave? What happened to that principle of Truth?

Was Gandhism and the associated "truth" all a sham? Well, apparently so.

But what intrigues me most is why would an entire myth be created with those specific words? Why not "Hey Bharat"? Why not "Hey Rahim"? Why "Ram"?

Why was the object of this mythical utterance a "Hindu symbol"? Was it another cog in the wheel that was used to destroy RSS and the Hindu Nationalist parties through lie and deceit?

I know in this day and age to challenge and stand up for anything related to Hinduism in India is akin to suicide, but then the truth - supposedly, the cornerstone of Gandhian principles - should be spoken and questions asked.. however bitter or counter-intuitive it may all seem?

What was the purchase that the Indian National Congress expected to get from Ram? For irrespective of what was filed in the FIR, if it was not going to help Nehru's ambitions, I am pretty sure it would have remained ink on a long forgotten and lost paper in a police station as opposed to the metallic letters on Gandhi's memorial.

These days when the intellectuals speak of RSS and Muslim League in the same breath, it seems very justified, because after all the RSS demons must have been equally crazy. But when you look at the decades of violence and ethnic cleansing in India (Kashmir), Pakistan and Bangladesh of the Hindus in a very systematic manner and no one to raise even a voice - you wonder.. .. was Jinnah just freaking plain stupid or Nehru's long lost brother?? For, if he had played his cards a little better he could have easily have let Congress throw out the Jan Sangh and then "cleansed" Nehru in the name of secularism, that he anyways espoused in his first speech of Independent Pakistan to have a strong Islamic state with Hindu minority!

And Gandhi would have died with just a sigh on his lips sparing Ram of all the trouble!