Right to education act is being hailed as the landmark legislation in providing free and compulsory education to all Indian kids and is touted to be the greatest achievement of the UPA. The propaganda surrounding it is so severe that many Indians, who are otherwise sane, normal and anti-congress seem to think it is the best thing ever. They seem to have internalised the propaganda of the media and politicians that Free and Education are such good words that if they come together they will make the world even better. In the end, everyone seems to care more about the buzzword “free education” and the snake oil sales pitch, “Right to Education”, than its fine points or harmful effects on the ground. Even a brief analysis of the fine texts of the Right to Education act will tell a common reader, not fully drenched in propagandist nonsense, on how evil this law is. The government which has failed to provide decent education infrastructure in 60 years is now hell bent upon destroying whatever little is left in private education sector.
Quantity argument
Most of the support for RTE comes from the middle and poor class Hindus, who think that RTE is great because it forces the large private schools to collect less money than they otherwise would. But those Hindus don’t seem to understand that the RTE does more harm to the low tier, low budget private schools than it does to cap what the large schools will collect as fees. For example, many people don’t know that one of the RTE stipulations in many states, is to pay the teachers a minimum salary as recommended by 6th pay commission of India. For example, the teachers should be played a salary of 23,000 Rs/month in Delhi just like their government school counterparts. But most of the private schools in towns, villages and in some cases cities, are low budget/low tier ones where the fees they collect is minimal, to the tune of 500 to 1000 Rs/month. Do you expect them to pay their teachers the salary in accordance with 6th pay commission or shut shop? Also, there is stipulation that the student teacher ratio should be 30:1. Given fees of 500 Rs/month per students and 30 students per teacher, it gives a monthly collection of 15,000 Rs. So how exactly will the small school run after paying 30,000 Rs/month as salary to its teachers while getting a fee of 500 Rs/month per student? So either the small schools should increase the fees to make a profit or close down.
But raising the school fees above a point in villages and towns would make the parents leave the schools in favour of undermanned and under quality government schools, which successive governments have completely ignored till now. This is exactly how the small schools are getting closed down in India, with some estimates suggesting closure of 10,000+ schools till now. If you take an average student population of 500 in each of these closed schools, it is a total of 50,00,000 (50 lakhs) students who are forced to study in a school which is below par what they were studying before RTE came into force. Thanks to Jholachaps sitting in AC offices, these poor students are now studying in rag-tag government schools instead of low tier/low budget but better private school. Think logically why would the parents pay 500 Rs/month for a private school if they did not think that those schools were better quality than the neighbouring government schools, which were giving free education anyway. Also, those 10,000+ closed schools would have turned into 100,000+ schools if not for the fact that RTE is not implemented properly in many states and many schools bribe RTE enforcing officers as that is the only way for them to stay afloat. This is one of the examples where corruption is better than following law at giving results when the law is ridiculously stupid. Is it any wonder that in many areas poor Hindu students are forced to be educated in madarassas, since the advent of RTE has forced closure of Hindu schools but has exempted all minority ones? Also, the same presstitutes who ran horror stories on big school fees and pimped for RTE are now completely silent on the destruction of the Hindu schools under RTE. In which country except India the closure of 10,000+ schools will not be news worthy and remain confined to internet and social media?
As per RTE, the government has made it mandatory for the private schools to admit 25% of its students free of cost. Since schools are a service provider just like any service provider, they need profits to operate as they are not in the business for charity. Since 25% of the students will get education for free and schools are not there for social service, so someone needs to foot the extra bill. Who else but the remaining 75% students and their parents had to bear this cost to subsidize the 25% freeloaders. To prevent hue and cry against it, the government being a good Samaritan that it is, decided to help the 75% as well by stating that government would take care of the cost of those 25%. But schools, just like any service provider like IT industry or retail shops, would have taken advantage of the free government subsidy for the poor students and increased the fees for the education, in the hope that Government would pay for it any way. Given this incentive problem the government decided to cap the maximum fee that schools can charge from their students. So you can see how government created layers of problems and then laws to solve the initial problem.
The above maze of laws has created a big misconception that since the government subsidises the private schools for the 25% costs so there should be no problem. But this government subsidy for the 25% is based on the average school fees for the average student and hence the government subsides for the poor/low tier/low budget schools would still be only 500 Rs/month which is inadequate to help them. The government subsidies will only help the top tier schools which are already collecting 30,000 Rs/year or more as fees. But even they are not so lucky as the government subsidy for the poor students do not reach these schools in time, sometimes running arrears to the tune of 3-4 years. So in the short term, those schools have to face big financial crisis. One can only imagine how great it would be to run a business with 75% of the revenues which you are supposed to get at some point but don’t know when.
Quality argument
This fairy tale sounds perfect until one looks at the effect such law will have on school quality. The middle class wanted the schools to be cheap and found this proposal very good as they all see the schools as rip-offs, even though they voluntarily send their kids to these schools after fully knowing their fees. But since the government has now put a maximum cap on the school fees, the schools cannot increase the quality of the education nor the amount of extracurricular activities since they can’t afford any new activities given this fee cap. This has lead to stagnation of the quality of education in the schools. So not only schools have closed down but RTE has also had an effect on school quality.
So the middle class parents, who are now better off due to income increase or are simply ready to sacrifice to ensure better quality of education for their kids, need to find a new school and this new school will invariably be a Christian school since Christian schools are exempt from the RTE. These Christian schools can charge whatever fees they want and pay whatever salary they want to their employees. They can invariably operate under a profit and hence afford new extracurricular activities in their schools like horse raiding, tennis, swimming etc and leave behind all other schools operated by Hindus.
Since the middle class Hindus are too cool, too selfish and too intelligent to live with their parents, the children of such middle class Hindus would be raised in Christian schools, without any one teaching them their actual tradition and history. These same children would then grow up to be Hindus in name only(HINO) and die hard liberals who would think Hinduism is bad and illiberal while corpse worship and ritualised cannibalism of Christianity is a great tradition. They would end up thinking how Secularism is synonymous with anti-Hinduism and progress, just like how most urban Hindus educated in convent schools think today. Is it any wonder that UPA under the evangelical waitress Sonia Gandhi decided to come up with this brilliant education bill and got ample support by the anti-Hindu and anti-India Marxist cabal as well as the Hindus in name only brigade of BJP? Now you know why the American with brown skin and Hindu name i.e. BJP chief minister Devendra Fat Novice (oops Fadnavis) is more than happy to educate his daughter in Christian convent school.
Would RTE be less evil if it includes minority schools?
Even if this act is implemented in such a way that the minority institutions are to be included under it, it still won’t help the lower middle class Hindu parents, who want their sons and daughters to study in a school where there is a better quality of education than the one provided in the government schools but cannot afford to send their children to fancy convent schools or big shot private residency type schools since the RTE act is especially vicious against the low-tier private schools. So instead of news like how Hindu students are forced to go to madarassas, there will be news on how Hindus students are now stacked in low quality government schools. Of course, the media would ignore that those Hindu parents and children had no option of low-tier, low budget private schools, which were closed off due to RTE act, just like how media is ignoring the closure of more that 10,000+ schools since the implementation of this act. Hence, the suggestion by the pathologically altruistic and brainwashed Hindu middle class that RTE is flawed only because of its non-applicability to religious minority institutions and can be fixed by enforcing it on minorities is equally stupid.
In short, RTE is a travesty of justice to the educational rights of poor Hindu children, designed specifically to kill off Hindu educational institutions and to re-establish the hold on the private school education which the Church had before liberalization of Indian economy in 1991. The subsequent level playing field for Hindu educational institutes was destroyed in one strike by RTE by masquerading under a wonderful buzzword called “Free Education”. The useful idiots i.e. Hindu middle class still can’t see how they have willingly placed this dynamite under their own civilization. So long as destructive policies like RTE are supported based on personal feelings of goodness, disregarding the destruction they can cause to the future of the very same people they are supposed to help, there is no hope for a better India. Closure of 10,000+ schools has already denied a better future to 50 lakh students, how many more lives are you willing to destroy for feeling good about yourself and stoking your ego with fake charity whose cost will be ultimately borne by the dark future of poor students?
This is the fourth and final article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
The previous article clearly articulated that BJP is not a pro-Hindu party or a proper nationalist party, so now the question arises: how can Hindus get a proper Hindu party? One method which we earlier suggested was to vote out BJP in local elections like municipalities, corporations and panchayats as a punishment for deviating from its pro-Hindu status and pro-nationalist stance, while voting it in to give it one more chance to perform at the national and state levels. Instead, pro-Hindu independent candidates can be voted in within their respective constituencies. This is one way to generate feedback to BJP and dissuade it from deviating from a pro-Hindu agenda.
The next, more important step is to infiltrate parties with pro-Hindu leaders at various levels by preferentially voting for them where possible.
Thirdly, if BJP does not serve as a proper pro-Hindu, pro-nationalist party, and if Hindus make it clear that any new party which is pro-Hindu has huge prospects in India, a new political party will emerge from the vacuum, much like BJP emerged from the vacuum in the 1980s, from a party of two MPs to a party with a single-party majority today. Such a hardline Hindu stance can be conveyed by voting in staunch Hindus like Yogi Adityanath, Kalyan Singh, Sakshi Maharaj and Uma Bharati, giving them massive electoral victories by consolidating behind them.
Finally, the worst thing Hindus can do is keep voting for BJP without any change in their voting pattern or any tactical thought behind it, even though that is precisely what BJP fanboys want them to do. BJP fanboys claim that since BJP is the least-worst option, it should not be criticized or punished by Hindus when it engages in jumlas for votes without doing anything for Hindus. What is the point of having BJP in power if it won’t do anything good for Hindus anyway? Careful analysis of BJP fanboy rhetoric will show how pathetic their position is. They seem inclined to believe that constant whining and bellyaching by fanboys and Hindus on social media like Facebook and Twitter will solve the problem of BJP not doing anything for Hindus. This is absurd considering that BJP is a political party like any other and will not care about what its fanboys think so long as it can get their votes. It has even made clear on multiple occasions that BJP’s top leadership thinks its fanboys are a nuisance for the BJP and its inclusive agenda.
Also, BJP and its fanboys are probably the only people in the whole world, besides communists, who ask what their supporters did for them, as if supporters owe them anything. Natural logic goes the other way, as political parties exist to cater to the needs of their voters. Hence any logical and neutral person can clearly see that BJP fanboy logic — whining and bellyaching on social media but voting for BJP anyway — will not yield any results, as BJP is more than happy to keep the pot boiling at just the right temperature to stay in power without actually fixing any problems.
Ironically enough, sometimes the same BJP fanboys go to extreme lengths to defend BJP’s position by claiming that it is a truly secular party and hence should not do anything for Hindus, even though they jump everywhere to silence people who ask for a new right-wing Hindu party to emerge. This only begs the question: why do they even bother to speak against the call for a true Hindu party or an alternative to BJP which they claim is a truly secular and not pro-Hindu party? The cognitive dissonance of these fanboys can be judged from their circular logic:
BJP is not perfect.
But there is no alternative to BJP.
Therefore assume that BJP is perfect.
Since BJP is now assumed to be perfect, we cannot criticize it.
But since BJP cannot be criticized, there will never be an alternative.
Given there will be no alternative, BJP is the only option, which takes us back to point 2.
Even hardcore Hindus think that a Hindu voting bloc will fall like manna from heaven or BJP will suddenly start implementing the Hindu agenda. But the fact is that until Hindus learn to punish anyone who tramples on their traditions, no party will ever turn pro-Hindu. The day they start punishing anti-Hindu agendas, every party will turn pro-Hindu. But to achieve that they need to put Hindu priorities above party or organization. How will it work?
Voters go vocal on pro-Hindu issues.
Congress and all others see it and turn a bit right on Hindu issues.
Given this opportunity, a new vocal far-Hindu-right party will emerge.
Looking at all this change, BJP will turn even more right.
End result: the entire political spectrum in India will shift pro-Hindu.
India will then become something like the West, which is secular but still proudly proclaims its Judeo-Christian roots. But if you keep giving breathing space to every BJP politician when they backtrack on their promises, then it won’t happen. Just look again at the cognitive-dissonance algorithm of fanboys above to understand why. Shivraj needs to pay for his Bhojshala rollback; the same goes for Fat-Novice on the Shani temple fiasco.
It would be better if Hindus learn something from Jews instead of fawning over them with irrational love, so that the Hindu agenda is obeyed no matter who is in power. Such a transition in politics would require actual work on the ground, which would send a message to BJP and other political parties that pro-Hindu policies and parties have huge potential to achieve power in India. The least destructive way to achieve it is by voting out BJP in local elections while explaining why they wouldn’t vote for sell-outs and brown-skinned Americans with Hindu pretensions. If Hindus start to build a consensus together now, either BJP will turn into a real pro-Hindu party or an alternative pro-Hindu party will arise within a decade, much like how pro-Modi consensus was formed within two years after 2012.
This is the third article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 4.
Anyone who follows the realpolitik of the USA would observe that Republicans and their religious right are pro-Israel to the hilt. For instance, the Iraq war was orchestrated by Republican president Bush to help get rid of Israel’s local threat, Saddam’s Iraq. Does that mean that the left in the USA is anti-Jew or anti-Israel? In most communities or groups, when the right wing is pro-something, is the left wing usually anti the same thing? Of course not. The Democrats are equally fanatical supporters of Zionism and Israel, and Democrats under Obama and Hillary destabilized the entire Middle East from Libya to Syria for protecting the interests of Israel, often wasting the overall geopolitical influence, power and wealth of the USA. Jews usually have massive influence over the countries they live in, often disproportionate to their numbers, which forms an interesting case study in simple realpolitik. How Jews get their agenda implemented in the USA should be a case study for all aspiring Hindus.
Hindu nationalists often have an irrational love for Israel and huge admiration for Jews and their resilience. But have they learnt anything from them for implementing their own agenda? No. For instance, compare how Jews try to play both sides of the political spectrum by influencing both Democrats and Republicans in elections, so that no matter who comes to power, both serve the interests of Israel and Jews. Comparatively, Hindu nationalists still can’t seem to make up their minds whether their loyalty is to the ideology and Hindu cause or the supposedly Hindu party called BJP.
If Hindus have to win this ideological war against the Abrahamics and their numerous cousins — Marxists, feminists, liberals, seculars, etc. — they need to learn these games from the Jews they admire rather than chanting pro-Israel slogans without caring for Indian national interests. Thus, the first step is to determine whether their loyalty lies with any organization or with their ideology. Blind loyalty to a party or organization will only lead to the betterment of the party and not their ideology, and vice versa. So even if BJP portrays itself as a pro-Hindu party, it is much better to have an alternative as well in case BJP fails to deliver on its promises to Hindus or meet the expectations of its core Hindu voters. The objective should be to force all parties towards accepting a Hindu core agenda, such that they get punished for violating a certain threshold or Lakshman Rekha.
To achieve this objective one first needs to make up one’s mind and analyse whether BJP is actually a pro-Hindu party or whether it is just a bubble created by media to keep Hindus bogged down and never let them realize what a pro-Hindu party should look like. To do this study, one needs to look at recent events and assess whether BJP passes the smell test of being a pro-Hindu party:
Shani temple issue, where Dev Fadnavis, a brown American with Hindu pretensions, decided to desecrate Hindu traditions just to appease an anti-Hindu feminist, even though the majority of common Hindus in Maharashtra, and indeed the whole of India, are against the idea, except perhaps his equally deracinated brown-American brothers stuck in Hindu India.
Bhojshala temple, where the BJP government of Madhya Pradesh sold out Hindus and their temple to Mullahs.
Right to Education Act, which is a special case of BJP not backstabbing Hindus but being outright anti-Hindu, where BJP actively supported getting it passed and till now hasn’t taken any interest in fixing it. In fact, the brown American with an Indian passport, Devendra Fadnavis, is actively implementing the RTE Act with zealotry in Maharashtra, causing the closure of several thousand Hindu schools, while his daughter gets educated in a Christian convent which is outside the ambit of the RTE Act.
NIT students were backstabbed by BJP for staying in power in Kashmir. While apologists claim that BJP is doing good by staying in power, any neutral observer should ask what good such power is in the hands of BJP if their ground supporters are going to be screwed by Islamists and anti-nationals anyway.
Not showing any interest in fixing academia in India, which is the fountainhead of Hinduphobic discourse, sowing seeds for sectarianism, often spewing venom against Hindus and justifying Islamic savagery in medieval India while simultaneously downplaying facts like the destruction of thousands of temples as fiction of Hindutva imagination, even though the Islamic barbarians themselves wrote books praising and extolling their rulers for destroying these temples and killing millions of innocent Hindus.
To make matters worse, the esteemed HRD minister Smriti Irani is more concerned about veg and non-veg food being served in Indian colleges than fixing the rot in today’s academia — going after useless brainwashed idiots like Kanhaiya rather than the academic snakes and ringmasters who brainwash newer generations of students through anti-national propaganda in institutes like JNU. Smriti Irani even gets applause from BJP fanboys when she proudly proclaims how she hasn’t changed a single book, academician, course or syllabus since she became HRD minister, to bolster her neutral credentials. The fact is that fixing academia is something which doesn’t need Rajya Sabha backing or a majority, but just political will.
The decision to induct women into combat forces, with Home Minister Rajnath saying that they will give 33% reservation for women in CRPF and open frontline combat roles for women in the Army. Should we not learn from the Ambur Muslim riots in Tamil Nadu, where many policewomen were molested and harassed? And this is an incident which happened inside India where Hindus are the majority. You can easily imagine the horror of sending Hindu women into combat against the Pakistani army, which is ISIS except in name. It’s not that they will refrain from rape or torture or treat them like saints, given the way they behaved in Bangladesh. BJP is once again more interested in being brown Americans with Hindu names, just like their fanboys who support this initiative against common sense merely to satisfy an imported ideology of absolute gender equality without understanding India’s security environment. Of course, women have a place in police and that should be limited to women police dealing with women in riots or brown-skinned American degenerates like Trupti Desai when they try to turn India into a brown-skinned version of the Western cesspool, but not fighting against Pakistani barbarians outside and inside India.
Multiple flip-flops on Pakistani diplomacy — from “terror and dialogue cannot go hand in hand” as promised in the election manifesto, to currently following the clone policy of Congress, i.e. uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue no matter how many terrorist attacks happen inside India. BJP fanboys now shamelessly defend it by invoking the fallacy of authority, while they derided Congress as anti-national for doing the same thing.
So it can be established fairly certainly that BJP is not a pro-Hindu party or an actual Indian nationalist party with any sort of common sense beyond what its white masters deem fit to be progressive and appropriate. If you have any doubt, read this to understand what should be the demands to classify any party pro-Hindu. It is only the media which has built this image for BJP over a long period of time. At best BJP can be claimed to be a less anti-Hindu and less anti-national party than the Communist-Congress cabal. This is one reason BJP can be given some slack for now and should still be voted into power in state and national elections with a thumping majority if possible, because voting for other parties, especially the Communists, Congress cabal or its numerous clones like AAP, BSP, JDU and DMK, in such crucial elections is akin to Hindus committing harakiri.
This is the second article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 1 and Part 3.
The media and intellectual environment has been so anti-Hindu in India that most issues which pass off as pro-Hindu issues hardly pass the smell test when looked at carefully. Given this hostile environment, it is no surprise that entire generations of Hindus have been brainwashed and converted into such meek cows that they have lost the mental faculty to challenge and question the narrative which goes around as pro-Hindu.
The benchmark criterion to decide whether a policy is pro-Hindu or not is to look at it and ask the question: are Hindus the only beneficiaries of this policy? If a policy helps all Indians then it cannot be pro-Hindu, so call it a nationalistic policy. Similarly, all policies which bring Hindus to a level playing field with other religions are again not pro-Hindu as they only correct historical bias against them, so call them secular. Using this criterion we can now look at some long-standing issues to understand whether they are pro-Hindu issues or not.
Uniform Civil Code: It does not help Hindus explicitly in any way. Hindu civil law is almost modern and Hindus will hardly gain anything if Muslims cannot divorce their wives through triple talaq or have four wives. It is a secular issue and if India really is a secular country, as the libtards claim, then they should support implementation of UCC. Implementation of UCC will not really help Hindus but it will definitely bolster the secular image of India by dismantling religion-specific civil laws.
Article 370: J&K as a region is important for national security given that it can connect India to Central Asian republics and also provides a connection between India’s two big rivals, China and Pakistan. It is in India’s interest to integrate J&K completely into the country and wrest back PoK. So again, repealing Article 370 does not help Hindus alone and is an issue of national importance. Any person opposing it is helping Pakistan and China against India and weakening India’s security environment.
Right to Education Act: Hindu institutions are taxed under this law while minority institutes have no obligation to give quotas to SC/STs or follow the stringent requirements of this law. Minority institutions are thriving thanks to this law while thousands of Hindu schools have closed down. So again, repealing this law will put Hindus on par with other minorities. It is therefore a secular issue and not pro-Hindu in any way. In any other country with a basic framework of law, this discriminatory tax on schools operated by the majority would have been quashed by the courts on first hearing. It was in fact quashed by the courts before Congress brought in the 93rd Amendment to strangle and kill Hindu schools.
Temple Control: Money from Hindu temples is siphoned off and used by greedy governments while they pay Hajj subsidies to Muslims. Churches and mosques are free to receive all donations they can and use their own funds in whichever way they deem important. Hindu organizations, on the other hand, are helpless against this state intervention and watch meekly while government takes away their donations. So freeing temples and putting them on par with other religious institutions is not a pro-Hindu but a secular agenda, requiring the state not to rob money from temples and hand it out as Hajj subsidy.
Jallikattu ban: This is an assault on local traditions while minorities are allowed to mutilate small children under freedom of religion. A secular state has no mandate to dictate how religious festivals should be organized. Freedom to practise one’s religion and celebrate festivals in ways one deems important is not a place for government intervention, which again makes it a secular issue. If Muslims can slay thousands of meek goats on Bakrid, it reeks of hypocrisy when courts challenge healthy Jallikattu bulls under the pretext of animal rights.
Some of the above-mentioned issues have been paraded around as pro-Hindu issues, but a careful look demolishes the whole narrative. Most gospel truths about pro-Hindu policies are taken at face value by gullible Hindus, while actually they hardly help Hindus in any way. It is like asking a runner to start 20 metres behind everyone else in a 100-metre race. When this runner demands to start at the same position as everyone else, the thekedars in the racing fraternity rule against him, citing that they cannot put him on par with other runners as it gives him an undue advantage, completely ignoring the initial bias.
Given the above-mentioned policies don’t explicitly help Hindus, what can be classified as pro-Hindu policies?
Ram Temple: This is a long-standing issue and important for collective Hindu consciousness given the importance of Lord Ram in Hindu history. Hindus are the rightful owners of the land in Ayodhya. One random mosque hardly counts for Muslims and they don’t think twice before demolishing one in the Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia. It is Muslim iconoclasm which stands in the way of showing a big heart and allowing Hindus to build the temple of one of the most important Hindu icons at his birthplace. In case government decides to solve this issue in favour of the Hindu temple using its legislative powers, then it can be classified as a pro-Hindu issue. However, current litigation in the Supreme Court just makes it another property dispute rather than a pro-Hindu issue.
Ban on proselytization by non-Hindus: A policy which disallows missionaries from converting the local population would fall under this category. Banning conversions for all religions does not make it pro-Hindu. Only a policy which bans conversion out of Hinduism while allowing Ghar Wapsi can be called pro-Hindu. Under the current Constitution, covert policies can be implemented to stop missionaries. For example, in tribal belts under the garb of protecting local culture, missionaries can be denied entry into the whole region while allowing Hindus to target Christian converts. This is not explicitly pro-Hindu but covertly achieves the same agenda.
Birth-control restrictions on Muslims: To maintain demographic superiority of Hindus, it is very important to reduce the current boom in Muslim population. Any policy which explicitly or implicitly reduces Muslim births while having no impact on Hindus can be called pro-Hindu.
Force minority institutes to implement reservations: Reservation benefits are restricted to Hindus in most cases, so if minority institutes are forced to educate SC/STs, it will increase opportunities for Hindus while reducing them for minorities. If a 50% quota can be implemented in minority institutes, it can be called a pro-Hindu policy as it will educate Hindu masses while minorities foot the bill. This is not a big tax given minority institutes will still get a chance to preserve their culture, but at a small cost of educating backward Hindus.
Throw out illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh and give citizenship to minority Hindus from Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The above examples clearly show that many other similar policies can be designed with explicit benefit for Hindus. But it is essential for Hindus to push back on unnecessary tags awarded to policies which do not pass the pro-Hindu criterion. Policies that do not exclusively help Hindus need to be declassified and placed under secular or national policy headings. Implementation of pro-Hindu policies will only be feasible after Hindus dismantle the narrative and repeal anti-Hindu policies. But the first step is to stop classifying secular policies under the pro-Hindu basket. This brings us to the million-dollar question: is there any political party which can really claim to be pro-Hindu?
Indian National Congress is probably the most pathetic party in India and its voters the most shameless and self-respect lacking Hindus in the universe. Even Pakistanis stranded in India and their parties like AIMIM of the Owaisi brothers won’t come close to the treachery done by Congress against India and Hindus. At least, the Islamist brothers from Hyderabad are pretty honest about their opinions about India and Hindu society but Congress hides its rabid Hinduphobia and anti-national agenda behind the veneer of fake secularism.
When India got its independence in 1947, it had the same per capita income, poverty levels, literacy rate as that of South Korea, which got its independence in 1948. But today, South Korea is 20 times as rich as India with a poverty rate that should make every Indian who voted for congress and its socialism squirm in disgust. Congress wasted the economic potential of India under its pathetic socialist policies, which ensured that poor stayed poor forever without any way out of poverty, all under the pretence of preventing rich from exploiting them. By keeping poor poorer for almost 5 decades, Congress has built its legacy and wealth on the death and starvation of poor Indians. If Communist Mao had destroyed 50 million Chinese in cultural revolution, Indian National Congress have starved billions of Indians so far by denying their rightful opportunity at better life. It wasn’t done out of any concern or idealism either as the same congress party today also is the most corrupt wealthy party in India, with Italian waitress Sonia being the wealthiest Indian in India unofficially, even though she claims to have only a very limited wealth.
The injustices done to Hindus under the Indian National Congress is immeasurable. Indian National Congress is instrumental in destroying Hindu pride and the sense of identity among Hindus. Even now the pathetic worms in the congress party haven’t given up their ways to destroy Indians from within, by trying to destroy local traditions of Hindus, like Jallikattu or Shani Temple. The damage done by Congress party to Hindus is actually worse than the damage Hindus suffered under the Islamic and British barbarians. Congress being the cunning parasitic worm party it is, cleverly destroyed the Hindu pride, Hindu identity and self-respect under the name of secularism.
Congress party is so pathetic that it did not even think twice before collaborating with ISI and Pakistan to target Hindu politicians, just for political gains. They invented the term saffron terror for non-existent phenomenon, just to create an equal-equal with Islamic terror and framed innocent patriotic Hindus on false case of terrorism.
If Bharat Mata is our mother, then Congress actions of selling out Bharat Mata or her sons, just for staying in power and looting India, is no less pathetic than a vermin selling out his mother for profit and cash.
Other than the above mentioned problems, Congress has also undermined the efficiency of Indian armed forces by slandering them with allegations of coup, using their media prostitutes/presstitutes and demoralized them. There is no bigger sin than compromising national security and defence. By the time Congress left office, situation was so grim that Indian army reserves were down to just 20 days of ammo supplies in case of a war.
Such a self hating, anti-national and anti-Hindu party like Congress and its current clones like AAP, along with the corrupt ecosystem of parasites should be eliminated if the country is to have any meaningful future. Congress-Mukt Bharat is becoming a reality and it has been already eliminated and reduced to joke in states like Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa, Bengal, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, UP etc. It is about time to get rid of Congress fully for a better future of India.
This is the first article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
So, why do you think Hindus don’t get a real Hindu party which can enforce their cultural agenda? Brief answer: the naivety of Hindus makes them think about nation first and religion later. Although they have only one homeland in the world, they still struggle to make the optimal choice. This all-encompassing attitude of Hindus allows other slackers to pursue their pointed agenda while taking for granted that stupid Hindus will take care of the economy and infrastructure anyway. No surprise that every time some freak raises the bogey of real Hindu issues, he is shot down by the many “Economics is Everything” naysayers whose numbers have rapidly swelled in the Hindu fold now. The usual copybook response then goes along the lines: “Don’t you think rural electrification is for Hindus as well? You are mistaken if you think a poor farmer cares about Ram temple.”
Just to fix ideas: Hindus need to learn and start playing the realpolitik game. It’s not that bad economy and bad roads don’t adversely affect Muslims, but that is never an election issue for them as they know someone else, i.e. Hindus, will make sure that roads are built, the economy is bolstered and the nation is protected by Hindu soldiers anyway. So making economy, infrastructure or security an election demand becomes redundant for them. Actually, no matter how hard BJP tries to sell its developmental agenda, Muslims never buy it. Once Hindus start playing realpolitik and caring for their own agenda more than caring about the universe, they too will start seeing a change in not just politicians but also Muslim voting patterns because, for the first time, the spoiled brats will have to take up the mantle of nation building given that Hindus would no longer consider it their sole responsibility.
The case about Hindu and Muslim responsibility is like that of a cuckoo laying eggs in a crow’s nest. The cuckoo is the Muslim here and the crow is the hard-working Hindu. It’s not that the cuckoo doesn’t care about its eggs, but it outsources its labour to the crow and takes time to pursue its own goals, while the crow is left with both its own and the cuckoo’s eggs to attend to and fails to pursue its own goals despite being the bigger bird. Similarly, Muslims have cleverly intermingled their interests with Hindus to make sure it becomes difficult for Hindus to separate the two, like the crow can’t differentiate between its own and the cuckoo’s eggs. Once the crow starts saying, “You know what — I feel like behaving irresponsibly for a change and I don’t give a shit about any eggs. Let all eggs die,” the cuckoo will have to take corrective measures if it has to ensure survival of its species and make alternate arrangements for its eggs henceforth.
It’s the same with Muslims. They have outsourced development, economy, infrastructure, social harmony, soldiering and martyrdom to Hindus, so that they can themselves pursue their narrow goals knowing very well that everything else is taken care of by the bania Hindus. This arrangement has worked great for them. But Muslims freeloading on civilized society is not restricted to India or even the 21st century. You can go to any Western country and Muslims are usually among the lowest income groups and use social security to make ends meet. Why wouldn’t they freeload since civilized society will not let them die when they demand breaks for namaz five times a day and get fired from work to go back and live like parasites on social security? But this is not a new phenomenon, as reported by British officer Ibbetson in 1881. This is what he had to say:
Reading the above summary, it seems as if Ibbetson wrote these paragraphs just yesterday. This common trait of free riding explains Muslim lethargy and poverty across the world, where they simply exploit the civilization-building efforts of Kafirs while at the same time pushing their societies to adopt Muslim norms such as halal products and burqa through democracy. In military terms it is called “grabbing the enemy by the belt”, as espoused by Giap against the Americans during the Vietnam War. Vietnam mixed its soldiers with Americans in close-quarter battles to prevent Americans from using air power because they knew that if American bombs fell, American soldiers would die too. In the end, Americans decided to sacrifice a few soldiers, which turned the tide in America’s favour.
Similarly, if Hindus decide that they want something — like Ram Mandir or Article 370 — they can get it. But today if you ask a random Hindu about it, he would say, “Let the courts decide, else there would be riots,” knowing very well that it is not just Hindus who would die or bear the losses. Yet Hindus unilaterally take a step back, despite the fact that in case of riots consequences are usually far worse for Muslims. This is how this ideological subversion works and has been working since the time of Gandhi. The mantle of maintaining social harmony is placed singularly on Hindu shoulders while Muslims free ride and the likes of Owaisi and Azam Khan go around threatening riots and stop the larger community from peacefully pursuing its right to build a temple for one of its most important civilizational heroes, that too in his birthplace. Now, no one is advocating violence here, but this is how realpolitik works. Politicians know this very well. Once Hindus overcome this self-enforced mental burden and say, “We don’t care and let it happen,” both Muslims and politicians will have to change their tune.
Similar was the case in Gujarat prior to 2002 when riots were taking place daily but Hindus were told not to retaliate for fear of escalation. Dead cows were being thrown into temples but Hindus were told not to retaliate because “there will be a riot”. Then there was an attack on Somnath temple but Hindus were told not to retaliate because “there will be a riot”. It took the burning down of 56 saints in Godhra when Hindus lost their patience and said, “Let it be.” After that day hardly anyone ever dared to use that phrase to scare Hindus into submission again. The same word which had been their strength became their weakness after that. Not to mention, there have hardly been any mentionable riots in Gujarat post-2002.
Again, without looking at it as an incitement to violence, one can clearly see that the more considerate you are, the more attrition you face. Hit the reset button once and things can progress differently. Think about it: if Mamata gives a monthly allowance to imams while poor Hindu priests go hungry, whose fault is it — Muslims, who know how to bend the system, or Hindus, who don’t know their priorities? So a reset is needed in the political sphere, but for that Hindus need to unite and realize the importance of their identity. Once all political parties realize that there is a certain red line which cannot be crossed without paying heavy political costs, no one will take Hindus for a ride. No one would dare coin terms like “Hindu terror” for a non-existent phenomenon while hounding you with Islamophobia, even though most terrorist activities are [sentence incomplete in archived text]. All these jumlas that “the economy will improve, have patience” are like giving a lollipop to infants and nothing else. If Hindus themselves are complacent and keep saying they are very happy with BJP’s performance, even though it has not moved an inch on the cultural Hindu agenda, and overtly express their commitment to vote for BJP in 2019, then what makes you think BJP won’t start taking Hindus for granted?
If you don’t like parasites eating your tax money through doles, stop paying taxes — what will then happen to the parasites? But Hindus won’t play that game and continue to pay taxes so that “roads could be built” while whining about socialism. So if BJP keeps going down the path it is going now, what will it show at the end of five years? “We prevented some hypothetical riots and built some roads, but please give us another chance in 2019 to build Ram Mandir, abolish Article 370, bring UCC and repeal RTE. We will definitely finish them next time.” Well, Congress has been making promises for the past 70 years as well and even Manmohan can run the economy, so what is the difference between BJP and Congress? Is it just Congress plus cow?
This is the first article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
How to draw maritime boundaries is as much a long standing legal battle on paper as it is in real water and has an interesting history. I’ll give you the gist of the current issues especially in the wake of a rising China and its growing list of maritime disputes.
As per international law, every nation can claim territorial water and an Exclusive Economic Zone. There is a legal provision that allows a country to have its EEZ extended by making a formal application to the international body, which in turn recognizes it as such.
In case of India, we have territorial waters plus a 200-mile EEZ and applied for an extended economic zone. We continue to treat that total area as our de facto zone of control, which the US disagrees with and deliberately runs warships through just to make a point.
Legally, the US has the right to challenge India in extended waters since an extended economic zone is not the same as territorial waters and it cannot be considered an intrusion or an act of war. But legality is not the only relevant benchmark because the current global order derives its legality from laws written by victors of the Second World War.
There are many nuances and technicalities within these guidelines, including submerged continental reefs and archipelago baselines. Because ocean beds are uneven and the dichotomy between land and sea is not always well defined, maritime borders are often disputed.
The same game is being played out in the South China Sea where China is treating the continental shelf as de facto land and then extending their argument from there to claim full sovereignty over disputed areas. Since claims over territorial waters extend themselves into Air Defence Identification Zone protocols, it impacts the control of airspace as well.
The US allowed a large overlapping claim to arise between China and Japan by encouraging Japan to redefine territorial claims over Senkaku Islands. The article argues that this provoked China to open another front in the South China Sea.
Essentially all territorial water disputes until now followed the theme of “this land belongs to us therefore the adjacent waters belong to us”. The paradigm shift that China has brought to this equation is: this water belongs to us, therefore the land belongs to us, therefore more water belongs to us.
Cutting long story short, ‘Freedom of Navigation’ is to capitalism what ‘Freedom of Religion’ is to Christianity. The former is meant to extend western capitalist hegemony and the latter is meant to extend Christian hegemony.
This ‘challenging’ business has got more to do with geopolitics than legality. The framework for these laws was laid when the US was a rising global power, and the US weakened and subverted international forums once it became the apex power. Now that the world is moving from a unipolar to a multipolar one, the US is again strengthening these laws to make it difficult for new powers to rise.
Consider the ranges and speeds of missiles these days: 200 miles is only a stone’s throw away. Yet, a warship parked just beyond this distance is technically considered to be in international waters, disregarding the fact that it can hit vital targets in seconds. This is gunboat diplomacy.
Maritime security, or security and geopolitics in general, has always been given step-motherly treatment by Indian politicians, despite the fact that the fate of our civilization hangs from it. No other civilization shuns their responsibilities like we do. In light of all the vultures who have an eye on India’s maritime interests, let’s Shun No Varuna, or as the Navy likes to say it: शन्नो वरुणः.
GoI under PM Modi cracked the whip on foreign funding of NGOs last year, which culminated in the orchestrated attack on GoI by local and foreign media through highlighting a non-existent intolerance debate in the country. Fake Church attack stories were planted to tarnish the image of the government. A large number of these NGOs with foreign funding are engaged in subversion activities in India and a significant part of this foreign money is channelled through organizations related to the Church. So fake Church attacks not only generated large donations for them worldwide, but probably also made GoI go softer on the conversion business of the Church. It raises the question whether Hindus can somehow manipulate the Church mafia for their own benefit.
The manipulation in this case means using Church money to fund conversion of Muslims into Christianity. To use this strategy one first needs to ask: why is it better to have Christians than Muslims in India? It is more than evident that Christians are usually much less of a nuisance than Muslims in any neighbourhood. Also, since such conversion will cut into the already present high Muslim population in India, it will divide the population among these two Abrahamics. This will make it slightly easier to handle them instead of just handling Muslims. What makes a few more Christians instead of Muslims even better is the fact that Christians have even lower fertility rates than Hindus and are more affected by the liberal memes of the West. So it would be easier to outbreed them than outbreed the Muslims in the long run. So, it can be established beyond doubt that having a few more Christians at the cost of a few fewer Muslims is a better deal any day.
Now comes the question: why is it beneficial for Hindus to ask or aid Christians to convert Muslims?
It is like killing one snake with another. Christians have money and want to harvest more souls, so if they can evangelize Muslims, it reduces their numbers which is better for India in the long run.
It takes the heat off Hindutva groups engaged in Ghar Wapsi. This trick can pit one set of Abrahamics against another without hurting the image of Hindus. International and local media, which lose no chance to paint Hindutva organizations as fascists over one Ghar Wapsi incident, cannot do anything if one minority group converts another.
If Muslims and Christians fight over it, then Hindus do not lose anything. If Muslims get too violent, they would further erode their image as the Religion of Piece.
Having outlined the benefits of such a strategy, the only remaining piece of this puzzle is how to implement it. Using one set of Abrahamics against the other is not an easy task, especially when they would always gang up against pagans, in this case Hindus. Look below at the flow of foreign funds to NGOs in Kerala. The northern districts are Muslim dominated while the southern districts are Hindu majority. Although all these funds are not related to conversion activity, they still give a rough hint that the prime target for conversion is southern districts like Pathanamthitta with large Hindu populations, as it has received significantly higher foreign funds.
But does this mean Hindus can do nothing and lose their brothers to Christians while the Muslim womb goes into overdrive? The fact is, if GoI is serious it can break this nexus and force the Church to only convert Muslims. How will that work?
GoI gives the Church the choice to convert Muslims or shut shop in India. Given they will still prefer to harvest some souls rather than none, they would choose to convert Muslims.
Future conversion licences will be based on the performance of these organizations in converting Muslims. If they are found to be engaged in activities of converting Hindus, their licence will be revoked under one pretext or another and their funds will be seized.
In return for the services of these missionaries, the state will provide them full protection during this activity, i.e. strict action against Muslims who harass the foot soldiers of the Church engaged in converting Muslims.
Given huge repercussions for not toeing the line of GoI, any Church would prefer to make do with whatever number of souls it can harvest. Also, it is cheaper to hound the Church using sleuths and use its funds rather than force the entire responsibility of Ghar Wapsi on Hindus.
Long-run strategy:
First use evangelization and Ghar Wapsi in low-density Muslim areas so that there are low chances of riots.
Once the above areas are clear of Muslims, then one can resettle Hindus and converted Christians in high-Muslim-density areas like West Bengal and Western UP.
The above two strategies can be reformed to make them more effective over time. In an ideal scenario, given that Islam and Christianity are majority religions in the world, a sensible GoI could have banned conversion out of Hinduism and forced a one-child policy on Muslims. But since we live in a non-ideal secular world, probably it is the best option to make friends with the lesser enemy in the short run and let them finish each other off.
Indian population has been brought up on such a steady diet of government intervention and socialism that feel-good but ineffective policies are not only passed unopposed but actually appreciated widely. Odd-even car rationing system is one such law which is hailed blindly not only by Aaptards but also by some serious economists!
Here is another long but inconclusive study by IIT.
But there are serious issues with any policy evaluation study. The biggest problem usually faced under such evaluation is to make sure that apples are compared with apples and not with oranges. What it means in the case of pollution study is that you need to find a comparative group similar to Delhi 1-15 January 2016 to benchmark performance of odd-even rule. You cannot use the data from last year because it was another year and had different weather conditions. The above mentioned Harvard-Chicago study carefully addresses this problem by comparing Delhi’s pollution with Faridabad because the two are geographically pretty close and one implemented odd-even rule while the other did not. The IIT study although more comprehensive does not do well from an empirical perspective.
But guess what- while this study does well in the textbook sense of evaluating a policy, it comes really short on economics principles. Why? Because it does not take into account the behavioural changes such a policy implementation will induce.
Many if not most economic policies can lead to behavioural change and this is what makes any policy evaluation difficult. And what is the behavioural change in this case? It would be captured by pollution reducing measures like car pooling, people using more public transport etc.- the good things that a policy maker would expect. But on the other hand it would also lead to other behavioural changes like buying extra car, switching to two wheelers, etc which would effectively reduce the impact of this policy i.e. increase pollution again. It is the latter which socialism infected brains do not get.
Another important point to notice here is that while the good behavioural changes will happen immediately in the short run because people need some time to adapt to policy change. Also, at least during January the uncertainty about the implementation of this rule ensured that people did not buy new cars immediately for the 15 day period and game the system because they were not sure that government will implement this policy permanently. But once government commits to implement this policy permanently, people will show bad behavioural changes and buy new cars or find other ways to overcome the system in the long run.
Given the fact that behavioural changes will take some time to be adopted, it is foolhardy to even resort to any such policy evaluation studies based on short term. If you read the above studies before going through the whole article- sorry for wasting your time.
So given that these short term evaluation reports can be trashed into junk, the question still remains- should Delhi go forward with the policy or not? Thankfully, the world is full of AAP style Tuglaq governments, which gives us a sneak peak into the results of any such policy. New York city grappled with the same problem in 2007 and evaluated car rationing systems around the world and its impact on pollution levels. Similar systems had been tried and tested in Mexico City, Bogota, Sao Paolo etc and this case study is based on these experiments.
So, how did the Mexican experiment fare in the end? Well, people were smarter than the government thought and they just bought old vehicles from outside Mexico city, which effectively increased the pollution. In the Indian context, you should expect both purchase of old vehicles and two-wheelers to again increase the pollution levels after a temporary reduction.
What makes this whole experiment even more stupid is that 4-wheelers contribute very little to the overall pollution levels in Delhi. Here is the break-up of particulate matter emissions from IIT study:
Out of the transport sector, 4-wheelers contribute 16% to PM 2.5 emissions i.e. 3.6% of total emissions. Even if we say that odd-even policy would lead to 20% drop in PM emissions from cars, it would lead to 0.72% of total emission reduction in the long run.
So now comes the biggest question that all Delhites need to ask themselves, is it worth buying a new car for 0.7% reduction in PM emissions? Is it worth the total cost that poor middle class families have to pay for buying extra cars, if this policy will only lead to 0.7% reduction in emissions? The bedrock of any policy evaluation exercise is what are the total benefit vs the total losses. All the above mentioned studies, short or long term, look at decrease in pollution levels as the only outcome. But there is welfare loss due to penalties like being forced to use public transport system or buying a new car. It is important to also calculate these efficiency losses for complete welfare evaluation of any policy. Reduction in pollution level should be compared against inconvenience and efficiency loss due to any such policy.
But as the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So good intentions do much more harm in the end than one expects. Once accounting for all the pain people have to go through to implement odd-even policy, it seems like one more good intention will go wrong. Sadly, in the last 70 years India has seen enough of these good intentions go haywire. So why not just bear one more!
The history books written by Marxists in India are big puddles of lies but one of the biggest myth propped up by them today is that British rule was not completely bad as it helped modernize India, an otherwise backward and unsalvable country. This myth is so preposterous that any objective look at facts will demolish it in seconds. It is understandable that the British want to sanitize their role in the destitution, destruction and poverty they unleashed on India and portray themselves as benevolent souls who did their job of fulfilling white man’s burden, but what is sickening is that so many naive Hindus also seem to buy this propaganda, often aided by modern day Sepoys working for western masters in Guardian, DailyMail, New York Times, Washington Post and Indian Universities. But this should come as no surprise because the education system and the syllabus which is currently followed in Indian schools is largely under the control of Marxists, who don’t want to give credit to the Hindu kingdoms and rulers, for the want of not making their Abrahamic cousins like Mughals and British look bad.
Given how these lies are sprouted and planted by the British and their coolies, it becomes very important to dismantle this false narrative they have been spreading, not just for the sake of truth but also for the restoration of common sense in Indian minds and freeing them up from the mental colonisation that they still suffer from, specially the minds which are brainwashed in the English medium schools. One of the biggest opposition to establishment of Hindu Dharma in India today is the false narrative that moving away from Hindu Dharma and fake secularization by British helped modernize India. It is important to set this record straight once and for all so that the future generations will know about what actually happened in India and how the British killed the Dharmic spirit.
Myth 1: British gave India its educational infrastructure
This is the most important myth in circulation today that India did not have any educational institutions before the advent of British and it was only with British help that some educational institutions could be set up in India. This is a ridiculous claim because India had educational infra-structure well before British had a proper language. Be it the Tamil Sangams of the Pandyan Kingdom in Tamil Nadu or the Takshila and Nalanda universities of North India, India had educational institutes before the hunter gatherer and barbaric British were civilised by Romans and later Vikings through their conquests. Irony here of course is that the Marxist historians who have no problem mentioning the existence of Buddhist centres of learning in India, also claim that it was British who gave educational institutions to India, while completely ignoring the destruction of learning centres in India by Muslim invaders.
Of course the British apologists and their Indian Marxist coolies when confronted with these facts, change their goal posts and claim that Indian educational institutes were sub-par and that it was the British who modernised Indian educational institutes, implying that without British, India would not have gotten modern educational institutes.This conclusion is arrived at by looking at the state of Indian educational institutes of that time and comparing it with the Oxford and Cambridge universities of today. While it is true that Indian educational institutions of that period were not at par with Oxford or Cambridge, but the crucial point which is missed is that British institutions weren’t exactly that advanced either during the same period. For all chest thumping, one cannot ignore that the most of the big universities in Europe in 17-18th century were in their nascent phases and Indian institutes could have caught up with them in time, a fact which is completely disregarded.
The actual impact of the British Raj was actually very negative on the Indian education system. British closed down most Gurukuls which were run by local villages and communities, through systematic plunder of resources and excessive taxation. A very good source material on destruction of Indian traditional schools is provided by Dharampal, who surveyed the state of traditional education systems in 17-18th century India. Dharampal carefully documented facts from the early British surveys on Indian schooling system. Below are his findings from Bengal and Bihar as reported in the first survey by Adam:
a1
Similar surveys from other regions very well document the fact that Indian education system was very robust in the 18th century and British systematically closed it down for preparing a class of Brown clerks. This systematic assault came in three phases. Firstly, they criticized the local educational system for its inadequacies, then killed it by withdrawing financial support or excessive taxation, which prevented the locals from supporting their own schools and finally used the missionaries to thrust upon India their own system saying it was the best. It is the last point which is still used by local Marxists to this day and supported through anti-Hindu laws like RTE.
On top of this destruction of local schools, one also needs to know that the British and the rest of Europe only started pulling ahead post Enlightenment which started during the 16-17th centuries and modernized themselves during the 18-19th centuries. This is also the period when British conquered India and denied the same educational growth and modernization for India. The best way to demonstrate what India lost can be done by looking at performance of other countries which were not colonised by Europeans i.e. – Russia or Japan. Neither Russia nor Japan had massive educational institutions, which can be considered modern for that period. But since neither were colonised by Europeans, they were able to modernise their education which was denied to India during her 200 years of slavery under the British. In fact, most institutes British opened were for training clerks for the British Raj which helped them in exploiting India better by using local trained coolies instead of importing more English men from UK. No surprise that the current generation of Marxist historians trained by these institutions have such a fond memory and inclination towards them.
Another lie which is peddled is that without British, the education would have been monopolized by only the upper castes and lower castes would have been left out. This is patently wrong for two reasons. One, this implies that British were egalitarian at that time. Fact is- they were not. In fact, the word caste itself comes from the Spanish word for it and it indicates the caste hierarchy at the time in Europe. The European societies were no less casteist at that time, just that they organised their castes a bit differently. Second, the literacy rate of Europe at the time was no better than India and the education there was elitist as well. It is only post manufacturing revolution and increase in services sector that the white men decided to extend universal education to create more workers and brainwash their population. It is very disingenuous to claim that Indian education system was elitist while praising British education as modern when it was itself elitist. In fact, by enslaving India, British denied Indians the chance to modernise the education like the non-colonised countries of the time like Japan(which had a much stricter caste system at the time), Russia, Austria etc. Dharampal again provides numbers from early surveys on caste breakup of students in higher-learning centres and it clearly refutes that lower castes were excluded from education as claimed by later Marxist historians:
a1
So in fact most of the problems of Indian lower castes today can be traced back to British Raj unlike what the British barbarians, without any guilt, and their coolies here claim- by effectively destroying 200 years of a country.
Myth 2: British rule was no worse than rule by Hindu Kings
This is another myth perpetuated by Marxists and British alike, surprise surprise, that British were as benevolent or as despotic as Hindu rulers. This is again patently false. British rulers treated their Indian subjects as colonial subjects to be exploited and enslaved unlike Hindu Kings who saw them as their own subjects. While all Hindus can rise up in the hierarchy under Hindu kings, British Civil Service was reserved for Goras for most of the time. Does this sound like equality to Marxist ears? The narrative of course is intentionally manipulative to make it out as if serfdom, in the form of lower castes, which was found in India under Hindu Kings was unique to India and as if the contemporary European countries at the time were egalitarian honeylands where queen and kings mingled and married commoners. It is important here to note that the same Europeans call Martin Luther, who brought the Lutheran/protestant reformation in Europe, a great reformer, when the same person had said that all peasants/serfs of Europe should be mass killed in the streets and it would be morally right. Bengal Famine, 1942
Another important point to note here is that unlike the European countries which experienced massive unrest because their serfs/peasant populations i.e. lower castes of Europe, had been starved by their kings, India under Hindu kings had no such massive uprisings or orchestrated famines as Dharma was their guide and they hardly resorted to excessive taxation. There is no French revolution and murdering of kings in Indian history because the peasants were relatively well off under the Hindu Kings. Is it any wonder that the unrest for Indian peasants and lower castes increased under Mughal and British rule, leading to the overthrow of the former by Sikhs and Marathas and latter by Indians as a whole unlike the rule by Hindu Kings which experienced no such unrest. All else aside, India under the so called oppressive Hindu kings was an economic powerhouse with extensive artisan network and contributed 25% to the world GDP till the end of 18th century, before British strangulated the entire economy through export controls and killing all indigenous attempts at innovation. No surprise by the time British left there were hardly any local industries and India contributed a measly 2% to the world GDP.
Myth 3: British helped reduce caste system and caste discrimination
British helped end/reduce caste discrimination is perhaps one the worst misconceptions about the British rule even though the empirical evidence says otherwise. Be it the educational institutes or the living standards, British made the life of the Indian lower castes much worse post plunder and loot of India. Before the advent of British, the villages used to have free Gurukuls suppported by the villagers, where lower castes participated in equally high number but post British clampdown on all local school systems the lower castes were the worst hit and failed to get any education under scarce and controlled education regime of British. Even upper castes were hit by this scarcity but lower castes bore the maximum burnt of this policy and increased the disparity between different communities. Also it created fresh generations of lower castes by destroying local artisans, who were landless but skilled and were left without any income opportunities in the wake of British imposed trade barriers to support British industries.
Second disastrous effect of British rule was the destruction of indigenous industries and their role in engineering massive famines across India. British were instrumental in the establishment of Zamindari system which destroyed the livelihood of millions of peasants/serfs across India who were almost exclusively lower castes. Is it any wonder that in many of the British engineered famines, the biggest hit were lower caste peasants who died in tens of millions? What happened to lower castes under British rule was literally a genocide. The same peasants/lower castes who were pretty content under Hindu Kings, were also pretty angry with the British and hence participated in huge numbers in the Indian independence movement. Also, in many areas, British actually worsened the caste discrimination by encouraging conversions from lower castes. In fact, missionaries actively took advantage of the famines engineered by British and offered poor suffering lower castes pounds of rice for converting them to their blood thirsty religion.
But the biggest injustice to lower castes done by the British is the way they robbed India of the chance to reform the caste system, the way Japan reformed itself under Meiji restoration period. Reforms in Indian society had always happened without any foreign influence, just like under Buddhism and Jainism. By colonizing India during 17-20th century, Europeans robbed 300 years of history during which Indian society could have reformed itself rather than fight another group of barbarians. In fact, it was the same period during which the same Europeans reformed themselves through French revolution(self-glorified revolution), but Indians were robbed of their time and improve their society.
Myth 4: British helped Hindus by ending Mughal rule
This is a myth which even many Hindu nationalists believe that the Muslim tyranny in India came to an end as British uprooted the Mughal rule. But this is only true in NCERT textbooks which hardly mentions the glorious comeback by Hindu Kings. By the time British came to India, Marathas in combination with Sikhs, Jats and others had already ended the Mughal rule in India for all practical purposes. Maratha empire at its peak stretched from Punjab in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south and Bihar/Orissa in the East. Sikh empire had destroyed the Muslim strongholds of the north India, in west Punjab, Afghanistan and Kashmir. They also had started reconversion of Muslims during their period. In fact, Marathas had a very important role in Sanskritising the Marathi language which had been bastardised by the Persian and Urdu, the court languages of the Mughals. The situation for the Muslims in India was so dire that the one or two Muslim rulers left in India had to beg Afghan rulers to overthrow the Marathas and save them. One such Muslim ruler was Tipu Sultan, whom the Marxists and certain secularists shamelessly claim was a nationalistic freedom fighter. It is of no surprise that the Marxists in charge of Indian history make no mention of this at all and make it out as if British got India from Mughals even though the British got India slowly from Marathas through four Anglo-Maratha wars.
That said, the actual effect of British rule on Hindus is very pathetic. British being Abrahamics themselves actively supported their Abrahmic cousins i.e. the Muslims over the polytheistic pagan Hindus. Even the two nation theory and Muslim league had massive patronage from British. More than that, they completely de-fanged Hindus for the Muslims to attack by actively banning Shastra Puja and other martial rituals. Also, British support to Gandhi cannot be disregarded given how he sowed Ahimsa i.e. non-violence meme in Hindu minds. The basis for today’s lopsided secularism which treats Hindus as the second class citizens in their own lands vis-a-vis Muslims and Christians was laid down during British rule by the British. Even Mughals didn’t destroy Hindu morale as much as British did. Whenever Mughals pressed too much against Hindus, they lost their control over the places, like how they lost to Marathas in the Indian mainland and Sikhs in the Northwest India. But under the guise of secularism, British cursed Hindus into slow death– much like a frog which if put inside boiling water will jump out immediately but if slowly boiled to death it will hardly realize the increasing temperature.
Myth 5: British helped reformed social evils in India
This is another blatant lie cooked up by British to justify their slavery of Indians as the benevolent white overlords civilising the savage browns in India, which is now perpetuated by their coolies and Marxist Indian historians. They usually claim that British helped end Sati, child marriage etc. But the truth is far more complex. Sati for instance was a social reaction by Hindu society against the Muslim invaders, who after killing the husbands took their wives and daughters as sex slaves. Since many Hindu women preferred honour over slavery, unlike the British coolies and Marxists of today’s India, they chose to end their lives in cleansing fire. Is it any wonder that prevalence of Sati was maximum in areas which were under maximal Muslim tyranny like Rajputana and Bengal. In the south, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc Sati was practically unheard of and very rare and usually voluntary? The attempt to paint Sati as a pan-Indian problem was another theory planed by British and actively supported by Hindu hating Marxists. In fact, as soon as the Muslim menace was over, Sati started going down, and in places like Sikh empire and Maratha empire, Sati was banned even before it was banned in Bengal by the British. Purdah or veil i.e. another Muslim custom is again more prominent in north India when compared to the South. This again had its roots in Muslim rule and how Hindus had to adapt to fight their new enemy.
Another social evil i.e. child marriage at that time is usually seen through the moral lens of today and often reviled as a nasty savage practice. Being the disingenuous rats, what the Marxists and British coolies usually don’t point out is that child marriage was the norm at the time among all societies. The average age of marriage for girls and boys at the time was 14-15 in Europe and 12-14 in India. But sadly it is an issue only in India as it helps beat down Hindus into submission. But even while talking about child marriage, these Marxists completely forget to tell that Indian children were not allowed to stay together even after marriage and girls were sent to groom’s house only after they achieved maturity i.e. 3-4 years post marriage. Of course, the analysis is not complete without actually giving the context for such marriages. Child marriages in India again grew as a direct reaction to the Muslim invasion of India and their virgin child fetish which forced Hindus to marry off their kids earlier than they would have liked.
Myth 6: British modernised Indian industry by introducing railways
British claim that without them colonizing and looting India, India would have never gotten railways. This again ignores the fact that most countries in the world have gotten railways without colonised- Russia, Japan, Persia etc. So colonization is not a necessary condition for adopting railways. And even the notion that British helped Indian industries to develop is ridiculous because the railways and roads built by the British were specifically built to loot and plunder Indian wealth faster and more efficiently. Some British even claim that more than 4 Tn£ British looted from India is justified as British invested back the money into railways, ignoring the fact that the very reason the British built those railways was to destroy and loot the 4tn£ from India and not to help Indians.
It is a sad topic to even rebut because the very industrialisation that happened in Britain was done on the progressive de-industrialisation of India. British systematically wiped out Indian artisans and craftsmen, almost all of whom belonged to lower castes, often clipping their thumbs and limbs and destroyed their livelihood because their product was qualitatively superior to the industrialized British goods of that time. In fact most of the Indian famines which killed millions of lower caste peasants/serfs in India were because of British forcing the peasants to grow cash crops like jute, rubber, dyes, cotton etc as raw materials for their industries in place of the food crops needed by the peasants to eat. This slow starving caused by the British is even worse than the quick death given to Jews by the Nazis in world war-2. And worse than that is the defence of these famines by Marxist sell-outs like Amartya Sen, who tried hard to whitewash British role in engineering Bengal famine during World War-2.
Not only did the Indian population starved to death and were condemned to poverty, they also were denied any avenue for industrial growth. They actively suppressed the industries in India and made India lose out on the 200 years of massive industrial revolution the European countries experienced during that time. They allowed only limited industries to be established and that too by their sycophants. Most of the Indian poverty today can be traced back to the lack of industrialisation due to technological denial and export controls by the British administration. Lets give an example of the British imposed restraints on Indian industries- even a writing pen was banned from being manufactured in India and had to be imported from Britain.
It is by no accident that Indian economy went from 25% of world GDP in 18th century to 2% by the end of British rule. Some coolies shamelessly credit the British barbarians for bringing the modern sanitation to India. This is despite the fact that the sanitation in Britain was as worse as India of that time. By robbing the modernisation, industrialisation, economic growth and condemning the Indian population to poverty, British actually worsened the sanitation in the country by removing the scope for modern improved sanitation, which comes from economic growth.
In fact, the real reason industrialisation hasn’t really taken off today in India is because many of Indian laws are a relic of colonial era, designed to prevent industrialisation and growth and is instead designed to exploit the poor masses. Only difference is, British stopped Indian industrialisation under colonialism and the Indian socialist leaders prevent industrialisation under the garbage of preventing rich people getting richer but the net result was and is the same. So thank Britain again for laying the template for bad industrial laws copied and parroted by Indian coolies of today.
Conclusion
To say that British rule was in anyway good for India is to spit on the toil of ancestors who fought against their tyranny. Sure British coolies, who benefited a lot by betraying their fellow Indians for few paisas, may look at them with massive nostalgia and Marxists being the ideological coolies without self respect might love to downplay the atrocities by the British. Amartya Sen can definitely whitewash the death of millions in Bengal famine for his Nobel prize, but self respecting Indians should stop desecrating the hard work of our ancestors.
Even then, if this logic that any help by mistake is positive even if India paid through millions of deaths is to be used as an excuse for justifying British Raj, then it is equally justified that Indians invade and plunder British now and save British women from the British barbarians, who are 2000% as likely to rape them compared to Indians. Perhaps invading Britian and enslaving them will be doing humanity and themselves a huge favour.
