Indians: Argumentative versus Opinionated

There are different categories of people in Indian society. These categories I am talking about have got nothing to do with categories or groups that fall under the head - sociological but it is purely psychological. Sociological/Social groups are for example caste groups, religious groups and others. At least arguments or debates with such groups will be blunt and clear as the one who argues with them knows in advance what their stand is on a specific subject, and the possibility of obfuscation is minimal or none.

I shall explain these groups/categories in terms which we can easily understand and relate.

Category 1: Those who say that India is a pathetic country. Every invader who came here for pillage & plunder has helped us improve from being a highly pathetic society to a less pathetic one. Let’s see some clichés which people use who fall under this category.

• Thank god, Greeks invaded and enslaved us. Because of which we have learnt logic. Otherwise we would have been stupid.

• You know, if Mughals did not invade us we would have never learnt how to make Chicken Tikka & Kebab. So I salute Mughals.

• Thanks to Brits, we now have post offices, Railways, bridges & high-rise buildings. Most importantly they taught us English along with morals and a great religion through missionaries. Otherwise we would have been a bunch of idiots worshipping rocks, monkeys and idols. Thanks to Lord, they have given us Jesus. 

Category 2: Those who say that India is a best country in the world, and there is nothing wrong here and they say India is shining. There will be no need for any clichés because for them nothing is wrong with our society. These people will normally will hold their allegiance to a political party. For example, when BJP is in power, if you speak to a hard core BJP supporter he will say that “India is shining” and there is nothing wrong with India because all is well. When Congress is in power if you talk to a hard core congress party supporter, he will say that India has become a super power and all other parties are communal, we are the only secular party in India etc.,

Category 3: Though I am tempted to call this category as neutral, rational and objective, but they are not completely rational. Because Humans will never be completely rational. There is nothing called as rationality, but bounded rationality, says Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize winning Economist. Read his paper here  to understand as to what is Bounded Rationality. So, though in a way people who fall in this category are relatively better than the two categories mentioned above, they are not completely neutral. Because they will have a soft corner to a particular party or ideology, even though they don’t agree with them completely. Let’s take my example I have a soft corner for BJP at the moment when compared to the positions of other parties on subjects like national security etc., I go along with BJP but not on everything, but still have a soft corner. If not on all the occasions most of the times discussions will be driven by facts rather than by unsubstantiated opinions & obscurantism. 

In this occasion I will be my own judge and say that I fall under this category3. Because for most of the opinions I rely on facts. If I say that both LTTE & Sri Lankan establishment are equally responsible for the sufferings of Tamils, I will cite at least few facts to support my argument, instead of making claims out of my hat. If a person who falls under the category1 have to speak on this issue, he will blame either Sri Lanka or LTTE as fully responsible with least regard to facts but not both. LTTE sympathizer might just say that Prabhakaran was a freedom fighter notwithstanding the atrocities for which he was responsible, and a Srilankan supporter would just dismiss him as a terrorist. Truth may be in between? So, I claim that I fall under category3. Jury is out.

In my opinion we’ll be tempted to debate with people who fall under category1, because we fall in to the trap as we feel that they are sane and at first impression appear to be category3, but actually you can reason it out with category2 not with category1.

Let’s me quote few types of people who fall under category1. Most of the people who have secured a good social status through reservation, yes I am talking about a group which was institutionally oppressed i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe group. For our discussion here I am referring only to those who fall under the definition of category1, not all.

The reason for undertaking this painful exercise to explain the categories is to explain and share my experience of a conversation I have had with a person who falls under category1. Yes, the type who says that we are better off today only because of British. What appalled me was his reluctance to accept facts contrary to his beliefs and passes judgment only based on his experience. I sympathize for the sufferings he might have undergone, but his personal suffering is not enough to pass a judgement on a whole society which is saner, civil and forward looking, at least on a relative basis.

Let me briefly explain the profile of the person with whom I have had such a conversation. He is a Professor and Head of the department in a reputed university and claims to be teaching for the past 30 years or more. He is about to retire say in a year. An SC/ST who reached where he is now partly because of the policy of reservation or quota system. He is bustling with his prejudice towards Caste Brahmins. Of course he claims to be a victim of caste Brahmin bigotry. Normally he does not take pride in anything good about in India, even on our achievements, past & present. Everything that has gone wrong with this country he sees it through the prism of Caste Brahmins oppressing SC/ST groups.

The conversation started with his prejudicial statements that in those days Brahmins would pour melted copper in the ears of Dalits if they dared to study or educate themselves. For a very long time I have tried to find an evidence on this claim as this was not the first time I have heard such a statement, but I could not find any convincing evidence so far. Even if we have to agree with that statement for a moment, is this what India all about?

Without answering that question directly, I brought up the issue regarding the documentary made by BBC on 2012 Delhi gang rape case and the innuendos suggested in that documentary. I told him that, while rapes are bad and it happens in India too but neither all men are rapists or ours is a society of rapists as suggested by that documentary and tried to convince him that his example was also something like that. And apprised him with facts that the incidence of rape is much higher in western countries when compared to India. As per the official figures, every 25 seconds one woman is sexually harassed in US and in every 6 minutes one woman is sexually harassed in UK, by that I don’t mean that we are better off. Even if it is going to be one rape, we are ashamed of it as a society. But that one rape does not define our identity.

I further added that I have completely agreed with him on the question of discrimination of Dalits primarily by caste Brahmins and conversation is sealed as we have no differences on this subject.

But he was not convinced and went on and said that it is only because of British we are here not otherwise. Then came his clichés which I have explained in the introduction about the people who fall under category will normally use, that he is thankful to British for railways and buildings etc.,

I replied that I disagree with him on this and argued that he should read and understand the theories of Brain and Economic drain. The whole budget of England was based on the resources looted from India, such was the amount of limitless resources she had. Not long ago during Vijayanagara Empire Rayala seema (plains of stones) in Andhra Pradesh was called as Rathanala Seema (plains of diamond). Every piece of visible wealth was taken away from here. In 2000 years of recorded history (read Madison project) India was an economic power house for 17 centuries in a straight contributing towards nearly 30 % of global GDP consistently, only as a result of systematic exploitation of British we came down to 1% at the start of 20^th century. Without British we could have been better off. Though the Chinese were colonized by the British the Chinese never say that they are grateful to their colonizers. Why is it in India we have people praise British for what they have done? The answer is we are psychologically still slaves and we need to break these chains of slavery.

By now he is completely lost his posture and shot back that in China there was no caste oppression. I was getting bored by now, as he clearly lacked intellectual depth in his argument and completely handicapped by his casual opinions which is the result of hearsay & anecdotal evidence.

I humbly retorted “Sire, do you know nearly 33 million innocent people were killed in China during the Cultural Revolution! Doesn't that count as oppression to you? He replied, “No that is different”.

I don’t want to elaborate here on every thing we have discussed but only few important ones. Few things he said about Christian missionaries and their assistance to us. He declared that we are stone worshippers and not wise people etc and Christian Missionaries have helped us. I replied that if a religion or ideology has to be evaluated and a judgement needs to be passed we need to consider its history. A woman was not even treated as human being but slave and how the church persecuted scientists is an open secret, some were burnt alive just because they went against church, and you should really have credentials to preach. But in India Science & religion complimented each other, they were never at war with. Ours is an advanced thought process, but we have our own pitfalls and we agree that. Hence we don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Europe and say that Islam & Christianity is non-sense, your gods are false gods, why don’t you accept ours? But every other murderous crook who came here from these countries told us exactly that.

Then came his sexist remark, women in Europe are white and beautiful and that is why they wanted to keep them as slaves and women here may not be that beautiful. That is what he implied. Already it has been two hours since the start of this conversation with him. Only after that sexist remark I have decided that I might be wasting my time and offered him for a full day discussion on another day so that I can prove him wrong. He was not ready for that, as he said that he does not have a full day. He is nearly 55 or 60 years old and a Head of a Department in a university, and his ego is badly hurt. In all these hours I have not heard one single sane argument. In addition to the arguments I have explained in this write-up I have quoted many other examples to prove my points, but not discussed here all of them for the sake of time and space.

I have told him that it is certainly true that caste Brahmins have discriminated Dalits, but that should not become the only reason for him to hate India and I also said that “I disagree with your theory that only because of alien invaders we are better off”.  After that we have said goodbye to each other, as the discussion was reaching nowhere.

In conclusion all I would like to say is, that it is tough to help people who fall under the Category1 to come out of their mental prisons in which they are living right now, but it is not entirely impossible, and we should not stop trying. I have had positive results in the past. Just that this time I was stuck with a rigid old bird. 

Debate like a Christine Fair

People of Orient in general and Indians in particular love a good argument not based on falsehood but facts, though I should be saying Hindus (instead of Indians) not saying here because Atheists and bleeding heart secular humanists might protest saying that I am taking away Minority (read Muslims) rights, though Muslims are not the only minorities, and I am not sure how my assertion of Hinduness has got anything to do with Minority rights. Well that is what seculars say! Though it is a different matter that few idiots in west think that they are the last batch of brilliant people left in the world. You see that is why they patent turmeric as their invention.

Recently I had a friendly duel with Christine Fair. It started on her post on twitter regarding the recent Missouri shoot out.

She was trying to suggest or generalize this as an isolated man doing a mindless act; this is her assessment even before nobody knows about the motive including Police. Though all incidents of similar pattern in the past, be it Boston marathon bombings, fort hood killings or for that matter Sydney siege recently, all were motivated by Islamists or Islamic Jihad or simply Islamic Terrorism.

I was just replying that atheists like her rescue Islamists unknowingly by such sweeping unimaginative generalizations, though I have told her that this comment is not related to this incident. For which she said that not all Islamists are terrorists. Yes, correct but all terrorists are Islamists, I replied.

Then out of the blue she concluded that I am maligning the Islam religion and she declared that there are also Hindu Terrorists.

 I have been zealously maintaining the dignity of debate, but then she instantly dismissed me as a soapbox. I think this is how normally Atheists behave when they have no argument to make or they just lost one. Here is Tarek Fatah who does exactly that. Though it is a different case with Tarek because he is a self-declared Marxist. We know what they are.

Firstly I have admired her work on Pakistan, her recent book “Fighting to the End: Pakistan army’s way of war” which I have finished reading few weeks ago. The impression I had was that she would be objective with facts when her casual opinions are questioned. I was looking for a virile scholarship in her arguments but what I have got was vile bigotry in response. I am appalled by the behaviour of these PhD’s.

Hence I further questioned her to come up with incidents of Hindu terror, asked her to quote at least 10 and I have also said that she can include the Samjautha case which normally fancies Pakistan and Islamists of India. And I wanted to see what she has got to say on this. I was stunned by her conspicuous silence. Normally this is what PhD’s of west do when they fear of losing an argument.

I knew she had nothing to answer. Though she has blocked me on some flimsy grounds. But later it appears that she has cited LTTE as Hindu Terror and made few simplistic assumptions on Gujurat riots. I pity her ignorance.

I never thought she will bring her idiocy out in the open on subjects she knew nothing about. It is very clear that she is a half-baked crook on this subject when she says Tamil Tigers are Hindu Terrorists. Technically speaking she had nothing to cite on Hindu Terrorism apart from two sundry arguments that borders on lies and falsehood.

When it comes to LTTE, Prabhakaran was a self-declared Marxist/Communist, he being a Hindu or no Hindu makes any difference? People don’t call Islamic Terrorism just because of their whim, they (Islamic Terrorists) do what they do because of their allegiance to an ideology of death cult called Radical Islam which is structured and definitive. That is why it is called as Islamic Terrorism. It is not about being phobic about anybody or any religion. I think she has lost her way on this argument.

If she talks about Swami Assemanand and others then I would say that she is still living in her fools land. It has been argued in courts that Assemand’s confession was extracted through coercion and confessions made out of coercion will not be treated as an evidence or not enough to charge somebody, Section 24 Indian Evidence Act 1872.

After a losing an argument on Hindu Terror she conveniently chose to block me so that her PhD credentials can be saved.

This is the problem with academics whose scholarship is based on events not on some well informed theories; they react to how a specific act occurred not why. Hence their limited imagination and reliance on falsehood when they are cornered on issues on which they had nothing to say.

I do not fall under the category of normally what people think I fall under. I have already made my positions clear.

My advice to PhD’s of west is that if you don’t know about few subjects please admit that you have nothing to say and shut up. Otherwise people are going to know that you are a bunch of idiots.

Conservatism: Political V/S Economic

The rise of Narendra Modi & BJP through a historic win in May 2014 General Elections has in a way marked the end of Centre of left forces on the political land scape. But it is generally perceived that this has got nothing to do with ideological affinity between voters and forces of political right, but about economics. Hence the dichotomy of political right versus economic right must be discerned with in the Indian context.

While the imagination of communists could not go beyond the narrower theory of economic exploitation of human condition by capitalist forces, the admirers of Communism did not want to accept this political ideology as it is, hence they have customized this to their local conditions and called it as socialism. That is why you could see in the name of communism/Socialism people could do horrible things across the world. Be it the polpot in Cambodia, Stalin & Lenin in USSR and on the other extreme Cuba and Venezuela.

When it comes to economic right the debate was always between Free trade v/s state controlled economic systems. If we have to go by results of the past 50 years then free trade has won the game, notwithstanding the 2008 crisis. India has always been at cross roads. Even though the congress leaders were entrenched in Communist ideology and their visceral hatred towards Political-Hindu right, they were confused as to which path they should take. As they were already aware of the violence that was being committed in the name of communism throughout the world during their time, though they could not have acknowledged this publicly. Hence this confused approach of mixed method of economic policies.

The intention of such an approach was to use the best of both the worlds. The other way of looking at it is as indecisiveness of Congress leaders who ruled right immediately after India’s independence for a considerably longer period of time. The other phenomenon that the left could not explain was why until economy was liberalized there was no change in human condition in India? We should pursue some answers for such questions.

The primary problem was that the communist (Congress & allied) forces clubbed the economic & political ideologies in to one. Though an effective articulation of their political ideologies could have kept them in power for decades, but since there is no impact in the lives of ordinary people because of leftwing economics, people started rejecting Communists as a whole, the defeat of Congress in general elections is a compounded result of such an effect in addition to other reasons.

Indian political right is normally associated with BJP & RSS, in other words Hindu right. The Muslim & Christian right is hushed up as minority rights etc, which is not only incorrect but dangerous. First of all Muslim & Christian right has got nothing in common with Hindutva i.e., Hindu right. While the former talks about a theocratic state they later emphasizes decentralized polity. The Ramrajya which Mahatma Gandhi desired is an example of polity which Hindutva aspires to achieve, after all nobody can call Gandhi a communal.

But the economic right is totally different from political right. We can loosely call the economic right as the lobby group of free market, but it does not end just there. Additionally there is no political party in India that supports blanket capitalism; the problem has always been that of an effective regulation & implementation of rules and role of the state as an impartial facilitator.

For decades Congress and Communists have managed to morph two different strains of thought in to one calling it as political ideology and churning out political explanations for the economic condition of peoples without actually improving their lives. They instead chose to feed citizens with subsidies and other free sops with out empowering them by generating employment and other opportunities.

Political stability is possible only through economic stability. We have had examples of an ordinary citizen trying to assassinate American president due to frustration out of economic insecurity, read Charles J. Guiteau.

At the moment the media stirred up controversies are used to feed the prime time watchers with some propaganda that Political Hindu-right messing it up. We should understand that this in in line with a larger game plan i.e., to restrict the chances of coming back. This might create an impression that political left (Non-BJP) is having an edge over the govt. we should see that when the time is up to pass the bridge.

The economic right has given the government a long rope and is still with the govt. People are fine with this as long as there is an improvement in their lives economically speaking in a time bound manner and BJP might not want to wait for all the five years. The Govt. should expect more distraction from political left further for the next four years, this will continue until they are defeated more decisively in 2019 elections. Along with addressing challenges of Political left, the govt. should simultaneously deliver on the economic prosperity. We all know Modi is just good at that. We have seen it in Gujarat. India wants to feel it. 

Bigotry & Communism : Two sides of the same coin

What should be known before falling prey to the #Communist trap. It should be admitted that it is appealing on the face of it. That is why the legends like S A Dange & HK Surjit felt helpless, though they knew that most horrible things are done in the name of Communism. Another side of the story is that we all know that for Communism the only enemy is capitalism and its world view was shaped out of oppression people have undergone when Europe caught up with Industrial Revolution. As they saw the reason for worker's suffering was capital that was funnelled in to industry and decided that they would eliminate capitalism. In principle these communists (or Marxists) are against religion,Imperialism etc.,

But only in India Communists collaborate/collaborated with their stated enemies, ie., imperialists,Christian missionaries & Islamists. That is why Karl Marx favoured the destruction which the colonial British administration was carrying out in Asia in general and in India particular. And concluded that what British is doing in India as Creative Destruction and hence we (Communists) should not oppose it. This is the background of Communist's anti-Hindu nature. If Marx has said that "religion is the opium of masses", shouldn't that include all religions ? Why do you think only Hinduism is singled out ? Not Christianity & Islam ? Almost all the so called rationalists are Communists, who are supposed to be fighting the Superstition in all religions, but they do it in only Hinduism not the superstition in Islam & Christianity. Firstly targeting superstition in Islam & Christianity is not their focus. Otherwise they should have highlighted gimmickry which is normally the feature of masses conducted by Christian missionaries where that father keeps his hand on the forehead of someone who understandably is affected by some disease and that touch heals him. This touch cures diseases from Brain tumor to AIDS, that is what the claim is.

Hence the takeaway is, though Religion (all religions),imperialism & capitalism are sworn enemies of Marxists (Communists), but when it comes to India goal posts are changed, only Hindus & Hinduism are their enemies and Islamists & Christian-Missionaries etc., are their friends. This is the highst form of bigotry in practice. We should know it.

On Kenneth Waltz's ‘Man, the State and War’

Many primers in the study of international politics have been suggesting that reading and understanding the analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s book Man, the State and war as some kind of prerequisite for a good grounding on further studies in this discipline and subsequently I have decided to spend my time on reading it. Without doubt that was a good start.

The author for the purpose of analysis has picked up three independent components one more or less states that Man is a sole reason for all that is happening or to go bit further it is human’s mental makeup that leads to a decision to go for war for a variety of reasons, which is purely a psychological view. And another view (image) is how human tendencies are conditioned through institutions. Third image is when there are no binding rules with transactions between independent nation states, to prove one’s point one decides to go for war.

The central elements of this whole analysis is Individual, Institution and the vacuum of authority in relation between independent nation states i.e., Anarchy.

On the face of it, it is convincing to hear that neither man nor institution is the reason for war but the anarchic nature of international relations as a fundamental reason for war.

Though I do not intend to pass a judgment. I have always believed that without a reformation of an individual mind, reformation of a society is impossible and we cannot help it if it sounds more psychological. All incorrect judgments and vanity are because of man’s inherent mental impulses. If Hitler wanted to annex the whole Europe it was his individual decision rather than of all Germans. So the example of Hitler and Chamberlain is ubiquitous. In the context of South Asia, Chamberlain moment for India was when Nehru an ideologically indoctrinated prime minister of India said that Indians and Chinese are brothers.

Just Chamberlain appealed Hitler, Nehru too appealed China and Zhou and went on to say that India has got no business in Tibet and relinquished a seat in Security Council, all this was taken as a cue of weakness which emboldened China to attack India. Again two minds involved here, Chinese and Indian leadership both can be called as causes.As institutions and social conditions are the creation of man, with man corrected all will be perfected.

I have a slight disagreement with the way anarchy is portrayed. It has two conditions/assumptions one is there will be no government to govern and the other important condition is there should be no wicked men in society. If society has no single wicked man then there is no need for government and institutions not to mention the nation state.

Ken eventually deduced that anarchical nature of International relations is the sole reason of war, that conclusion goes against the very definition of Anarchy. If there is a condition of anarchy in operation then there will be no wars, no suicide bombing, and no violence.

If we ever wanted to hold an entity responsible for causing war it is the human mind. If we are looking for solutions to condition human mind then institutions are needed. Because society consists of both good and bad men and they will never stop fighting each other.

Encounter with Marxists

Recently I had a conversation with Tarek Fatah, Author of “Chasing the Mirage” a great book which exposes Islamists, who was also briefly joined by his fellow Indian Marxist Irfan Habib – a historian of Romila Thappar’s creed. I know very well that Tarek’s allegiance to Marxism is absolute and there are no two ways about that. What appalled me was there were no convincing answers for the counter arguments posed to him on his attempt to claim Nationalists like Netaji and Shaheed Bhagat Singh as Marxists.

The reason why Tarek stands in different pedal is that he is not an Indian or not living in India at the moment and his focus is not India but to denounce every religion (especially Islam) in his own subtle way, that is not his mistake because that is a standard issue with any Marxist who is thoroughly indoctrinated and goes up to any length to prove that religion is rubbish.

Marx’s take on religion is that, it is used by bourgeoisie to deceive the proletariat. May be I would say “Marx why do not you get a life” now. Let’s see what his views are on religion

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”

 “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo”

All this was said based on the history of papal cruelty on Europeans in the name of Christianity and he had no firsthand account of any other religion.

For the millions who perished and are still dying so much for this euphoria called Marxist state did not get justice. Just like Jihadis who are killing and maiming for the establishment of caliphate in the name of Allah.

Two evils that threaten this world at the moment is one Murderous Marxism and the other is Militant Islam. Tarek does what Marx intended to do with religion in abroad with Islam. With so much dark spots which Islam has on its back Tarek’s job of doing Marx on Islam is easy.

But his fellows in India when they take up the job of doing Marx to Hinduism, problem arises. There are not many loop holes to say that the whole Hinduism is rubbish. The Indian Left is currently trying what Islamic Invaders have tried for over 800 years and what Christian invaders tried to do for 200 years, ie., converting this whole country from a Culturally Hindu Majority to 100 % Muslim or 100% Christian.

Both the Abraham religions (Christianity, Islam) have lost their battle with Marxism because when it comes to atrocities they committed on non-believers they are gory. And in this context whatever Marx ranted about religion is more or less true with respect to these two religions. But when it comes to Hinduism which I have already called it a religion of thousand prophets and if I have to explain this to Marxists then Hinduism is a religion of 100,000 Marxists whose thoughts are so great which we can very well see it from the work they have produced and from their teachings too.

All hell broke loose when the moment I have uttered Murderous Marxists. Tarek has no answers for all atrocities committed by Marxists for which millions were killed by Stalin, Lenin and polpot in the name Marxist Garbage, not to mention that China executes thousands of people on an yearly basis in the name of capital punishment. And you will not hear a word from double standard Marxist Intellectuals when it comes to condemning the acts committed by China, simply because China is doing what Marx has prescribed to do.

Violence is at the core of Marxist scheme of things. Let’s not forget what the murderer Mao said “Power flows from the barrel of gun” you don't need to know any further. Violence is in Marxist’s genetic makeup. They do not give a damn about all that, cleansing is their priority which they have done and are still doing it to meet their end objective ie., to turn this world in to a communist state. Though he momentarily chose to call these Marxist killers as goons his stand is that he is a Marxist.

Instead of answering the questions posed he started saying that Bhgat Singh and Netaji too committed Murderous acts or they too are Murderous Marxists. Let’s get this record straight. To call Bhagat Singh and Netaji as Marxists is a lie which the Indian Pseudo-Intellectuals are doing it for a very longtime.

And Tarek’s argument sounded so hollow when he calls Bhagat Singh a Marxist because he happens to be an Atheist. This shows how deep he (and his fellow traveler) is in to this Marxist abyss. Either he does it willingly as a standard Marxist technique taken from the cook book given to him by Karl Marx or he does not know the truth. Atheism is one of the central components of Hinduism. It is possible that you can be an atheist and a Hindu at a same time. But if you are a Marxist you have to be an atheist. 

There is no denial that Shaheed Bhagat singh was inspired by Marxism and he read so much about that, and the limited violence he engaged was to prove his point to colonial oppressors. He did not kill anybody because someone did not agree with Marxism. Did he kill his fellow citizens/human beings because they did not agree with Marxism? But what happened when Bolshevik mobs took over the reins of power in Russia? And what the Murderer Stalin did once he became the ruler of Russia, not to mention Polpot and Cambodia.

It is a blatant lie perpetuated by Marxists especially by the complicit Indian Left when they call Bhagat Singh and Netaji as Marxists, no they are Nationalists by blood. All they did is for the sake of Independence not for the sake of Marxist gibberish. If they have lived on to see what Marxism did to this world they would have called it as the ideology of liars and barbarians. It is convenient to quote a book written by Bhagat Singh called as “why I am an atheist” rather than to acknowledge the truth.

Marxism is a failed Idea. There are umpteen examples throughout the world. If someone shows China and Cuba as success stories they are actually wrong, these are indeed aristocratic states. In an absolute Marxist state anarchy prevails, where supporters will be spared and not the others just like status of non-believers in a caliphate. There used to be days when most of the populace was illiterate they were easily deceived by this Mob called Indian Left with their cohorts in Media and political parties. It is not going to work anymore. While I would have no problem with Tarek and his band doing the Marx to Islam and Islamists, he may not be able to do the same to Bharath, Hindus and Nationalists.

When asked about the Murderous acts committed by Stalin, Lenin and other fellow Marxist travelers. See what they have to say 

Do you see how they divert the question? Thanks to Marxists for making this world a dangerous place to live.

Reflecting on Col.PK.Gautam’s One Hundred Years of Kautilya's Arthasastra

Reflecting on Col.PK.Gautam’s One Hundred Years of Kautilya's Arthasastra

This is the first time I am reading a Monograph on Kautilya’s Arthasastra. I am really grateful to author for showing a direction to younger generation to look in to wisdom given to us by our forefathers.

Few years ago I have been habitually doing an unguided reading which took me to Shama Sastry’s translation of Arthasastra for the first time and as a first time reader with no stated goals and specific object in reading it apart from satisfying the adrenaline started reading few pages, I already got a sense that this is highly advanced treatise on governmental and state affairs. One of the topics that did attract me was “Ascertaining by temptations Purity or Impurity in the character of Ministers” and this must essentially be followed in the appointment of ministers in modern day governments. But sadly on all such appointments loyalties take precedence than honesty. Especially in a coalition era choices of ministers are being imposed. Then due to vagaries of time I could not keep up the reading, but looking to revive my interest.

And this is the first time I get a clear explanation of the term sama, dana, beda, danda (conciliation, gifts, rupture and force), that was simply enlightening, a method which is still alive in the practice of Foreign policy and diplomacy. The leftist rhetoric has done a considerable damage by showing the indigenous knowledge in low light. Because all the ancient literature is apparently the work of Hindus and their vague worry is that speaking truth about a treatise like Arthasastra would revive the Hindu glory which will become a detriment to their propaganda industry and will impact their communist support base, whose cadres are drawn mainly from Hindus.

We would do well by reading a Supreme Court judgment on what Hinduism is, if we ever have to gauge its secular credentials.

 I am quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Justice J S Verma on this question.

The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir founded Jainism: Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion; Jnaneshwar and Tukaram initiated the Varakari cult: Guru Nanak inspired Sikhism: Dayananda founded Arya Samaj: and Chaitanya began Bhakti cult; and as a result of the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Hindu religion flowered into its most attractive, progressive and dynamic form. If we study the teachings of these saints and religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in their respective views. but underneath that divergence, there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of the broad and progressive Hindu religion.

There is no dearth of great men in Hindu religion and it will not be an exaggeration to call it a religion of 1000 prophets.

The Judge goes on and says that:

The Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion: and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, explanation II to Art. 25 has made it clear that in sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jam or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly." (from pages 259-266)

There should be no worry in accepting the truth that Hinduism is the only secular religion, and the word secularism does not in any way contradicts with Hinduism. In India and abroad there is some kind of an unofficial embargo on those who speak for Hinduism or on any classics which even has a remote connection to Hindus and their glory. And the Hindu scholars are chastised for their stand in their work. There is of course a grand conspiracy which constantly obstructs processes through which the history can be set right, ie., where we can get a rightful place in the world for our knowledge and wisdom.

For Europeans who endured the pain of religion which controlled their very private affairs the secular/Non-secular question was more relevant to them not for us, because implicitly Hindus are secular. Hence for Europeans age of enlightenment is some kind of higher calling but people in this sub-continent have always lived in enlightenment. With sages and seers walking this land by foot teaching values which benefits and befits humans and imparting practical wisdom for a day to day life was a routine. But for Europeans and others it was new.

If there is one thing that propelled westerners in the forefront of supremacy it is because they are organized and it is our curse that we could not organize ourselves and even after enduring 1000 years of enslavement from Islamic and Christian aliens from distant lands we are still busy with our petty internal fights which arise out of Ego and prejudice. After his whirlwind tour of west when Swami Vivekananda returned Bharath he acknowledged the fact that we are not organized like England. Moreover the only reason why a tiny Island ruled most of this world is because it is organized.

It is a matter of grave concern that the Indian political thought is not promoted on par with the western political thought. When the outsiders are taking a serious interest in all that is Bharath and India we are yet to learn what our roots are. It will be a great service to this country if governments can take serious note of this and promote our residual knowledge.

US state department paying $50,000 grant to digitize our manuscripts shows where we stand and what our priorities are not to mention that it highlights our indifference. It is a sad state of affairs.

At the end author suggested many research themes based on Arthasastra and students should very well pick up some cues from this and bring this trove of knowledge to the fore with their new, intriguing and brilliant interpretations. Thanks for Author’s service to a greater cause.

Responding to Col. PK Gautam's comment

Thanks for responding.

It is agreed that much needs to be done on the secular aspect of education. But all those epics and other religious texts when they were written originally they were not meant to be non-secular. In my opinion this secularism debate came to the fore because of the church-state debacle in Europe and I feel that it has been unduly imposed on earth with out giving due regard to unique conditions of others cultures.

If there is any civilization which is truly secular it is Hindu Civilization, I am sure you would agree. Though we cannot say that it is perfect one but is best of all, which was verily agreed by Swami Vivekananda who argued that barring Vedas the whole body of Hindu scriptures must be re-worked to reflect the current day realities. But you & I know that, the scholar who could do this Himalayan task is yet to be born.

You have talked about alliances which Cholas practiced. But all that grand alliances, strategy and diplomacy has been practiced in its advanced form in Mahabharata long ago.

The begging question is how to handle the grave threat of Militant Islam & Islamists and does our indigenous wisdom help us address this question ? Yes. I agree, for this we have to remain bi-partisan, ideological-neutral and religious neutral. But remaining neutral does not definitely mean being prejudicial to one point of view and this is exactly why we should differ ourselves from our Marxist friends who have different yardsticks for measuring secularism.

Looking forward to read some of your other work too.

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA on Enduring issues of Statecraft, Military Issues andInternational Relations from Cholas the powerful southern kingdom.

It is a scintillating write up which talks about areas which needs focus to solve some of the serious issues which afflict the present day world. Col. PK Gautam talked about indigenous solutions to global problems.

All major issues which remain unsolved in the arena of international politics India has solutions. Firstly in the academic domain there is no great interest in researching our glorious past, even if somebody does, it is completely distorted because of researcher’s ideological moorings. For example, we have Romila Thappar who in a way eulogizes all Islamic Invasions and the destruction that ensued in the name of their religion.

Supremacy of Cholas:

Based on my elementary reading on Cholas I can say that, they were like Brits of 16 th and 17 th century, especially with respect to the invincibility of their naval fleet. They ruled throughout the Southeast Asia uninterrupted for nearly 500 years, engaged in trade with southern part of Africa. And the northern Kingdoms did not dare to enter in to their fiefdom. There was more of an internal conflict within the triumvirate of chera, chola and pandyas.

The take away for a budding student especially like me would be firstly not to go for foreign sources and ideas for everything and waste time, but look within. India was an intellectual power house once and we were systematically indoctrinated by a highly organized but a very small group of people called Brits and were forced to agree that everything indigenous was inferior. This feeling remains intact till this date.

Gandhi said if we have to for a moment imagine that the whole written literature of Hinduism is disappeared and only the first phrase of Isho Upanishad remains, all that lost literature can be re-constructed from that one phrase, Amitabh Mattoo described this in one of his op-ed some time ago. Mattoo went on and added that if the whole international literature has disappeared from this world, all can be re-constructed from the epic Mahabharata. That is the power of indigenous wisdom. Mahabharath is the best teacher you can ever have especially if you are a student of International Politics.

Yes. There were myriad independent political entities in the name of kingdoms but people were united with one culture, which we can conveniently call it as Hindu religion. Though few in the current days who were completely indoctrinated with Marxist ideology might have an objection with that “H” word, truth remains unsullied.

We Indians should take the study of history seriously and learn from our past for the sake of addressing our own problems and subsequently to help others too.

Thanks to Shri. Col. P K Gautam.

My Comment on The Politics of going public

Commenting on John W. Patty's The Politics of Going Public

One of the earliest constitutions which gives so much of power (Near absolute ?) and enough room to react on exigencies, doing public vetting on certain decisions (few may be less important) looks like some kind of precedent setting.

America appears to have guarded itself from an outright tyranny which is prevalent in third and Muslim world, because most of the presidents were some kind of Plato's Philosopher kings, but I know many would disagree with this assertion.

While there is no disagreement that the president gets to decide when and in front of whom, but the larger question I feel it should be, is he not shackling the future presidents by his current actions.The expectations of the public will be raised ?

Going or not going to public may not be an issue in a country like India for example, they are mostly ritualistic, where once a year the prime minister or the president will address the nation on independence day and opening session etc., And no importance is given to clarify their stance to the public directly before/after taking critical decisions.

I forgot to mention they go around during election campaigns.

My Comment on Arms Race in Asia between China and India

Responding to Arms race between China and India

There is another possibility like Chinese media some time ago quoted, that India is actually underplaying its missile development program. And Agni V itself is some kind of ICBM, just to avoid an arms race in ASIA India constantly projects a  picture to the world in general and China in particular that it is not racing with them but in reality it is reaching near China's military prowess. But I hope Chinese intelligence is not that dumb in not knowing what we are up to.

Western powers have realized that the embargoes and regimes like MTCR(Missile technology control regime) have in no meaningful way obstructed India's indigenous development of ballistic missiles, though we have to agree that it did sluggish the pace. The job of our scientists is commendable. The issue was always with political leadership.

May be the statements like the one which Avinash Ji made could be because of current circumstances where Chinese at will cross Indian borders and go back. The strategic leadership may have stage managed such comments and reactions in their attempt to create some kind of deterrent to Chinese with respect to border intrusions.

We really do not know if mere statements could cause deterrence. But there is a profound pride on reaching this milestone by India among the educated citizenry.

The reply I got for the above comment :

From JB :

Having something in your drawing room showcase does not mean you know how to or you have the mental strength to use them. In 1962 having far superior air power India failed to put it to resulting in lasting humiliation!

And my further response to it is mentioned below :

Agreed ! But that was exactly what I have said as it has to do with Political unpreparedness rather than Military unpreparedness.

You know, Nehru once declared that India does not need a military. All it needed was a police force to control the public. How naive. The strategic thinking itself was not in deficit, but the strategic thinking of political leadership was in deficit. China never had this problem.

My Comment on "Can forecasting conflict help to make better foreign policy decisions? " in The Monkey Cage

My Comment on Can forecasting conflict help to make better foreign policy decisions? in The Monkey Cage

As a novice one thing that sounds appealing is inherent limitations in both the worlds are agreed by scholars in both the camps, if I may say. Jay sometime ago discussed about few limitations as a data guy in the context of excessive romanticism on "Big Data". But he actually explained the limitations of accurateness in the domain of social science[i]. A physics scientist doing an experiment in a lab has an opportunity to try with different variations of his newly formulated equation, finding, idea etc. But in the case of a Political scientist, outputs generated by statistical models at best can end up on the table of a policy decision maker or it could be useful for new paper editor.

The argument on false positive and false negatives is highly relevant. What if a false positive becomes a pre-cursor for Cold War -II or WW III. I am not sure if forecasted political events gain much of a fanfare beyond academic circles, or in other words policy decisions rarely taken based on forecasts. At the same time we cannot discount the fact that a decision taken based on a specific forecast will always add value and support to the argument made.

It is helpful to distinguish the Warfare forecasts and others, because there are chances of things going terribly wrong even if they are statistically correct. Observational studies comes in handy for many policy decision makers and they continue to remain as an important tool if not the only one for decision making, which is still better than taking decisions based on a gut feeling.

---

[i] http://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/im-down-with-complexity-and-all-but/

Reflections on a paper authored by Terrorism Scholars Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula : Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory

Reflections on a paper authored by Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory 

Terrorism as a Puzzle:

What an apt addition of the adjective "Puzzle" with terrorism. It is certainly puzzling to see why terrorists kill civilians as if someone kills an enemy in video game for pleasure. If we do a fish bone analysis and see what was the cause, all roads will probably lead to non-adherence of real democratic ideals, where a citizen's free will is encouraged and also to ensure some one's free will does not affect others, and equal availability of opportunities to pursue one's dream. Even in the so called England, the country which is touted as the inventor of democracy, the claim which can be disputed and will not stand for an intense scrutiny, we have had Guy Falkes a terrorist, should we assume that England was despotic? Yes. Why not? Those who create colonies out of hapless communities and exploit for the benefit of small group of people they must be called despotic. we can say that it wasn't a puzzle because people's displeasure towards government was evident and they targeted government and rulers to avenge themselves of the horrible acts of governments of those days.

Yes. Organized Terrorism (freedom fight) diverted on colonial masters to an extent made them (colonizers) shudder though they never agreed it publicly. Once the goal (ie., attaining political independence) was achieved they never had to resort to such violence for their legitimate political demands, there were or are other means. Hagganah, Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose could be few examples who were labelled as terrorists by the occupiers. In this context we can say that those who are with Palestinian resistance are terrorists? With one exception that they have directed or directing their violence towards civilians too, which is definitely becoming counterproductive according to Max's research.

The new age Islamic Terrorism:

Thought Leftists and other pseudos would not want to precede the word "Islamic" with terrorism, but truth is indisputable, most of the countries are victims of Islamic Terrorism. To a question whether terrorists are irrational in their behavior because there is hardly any political yield out of their actions? In this light Binladen's statement comes in handy,

"We do not distinguish between those dressed in
military uniform and civilians because Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes"

This One statement is enough to weigh in the mental out look of Jihadi leadership, though Max argues that there was a change in his approach towards his last days. When man reaches towards his last days, he attains wisdom. But for a hardcore Islamic mind if it is not to create Dar al-Islam it is to eliminate Dar-ul-Harb, he shall employ any means he thinks appropriate and it is his pious duty. So killing innocent civilians is allowed?

Terrorists taking cues from History:

In this aspect the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan certainly bolstered Jihadis and they have chosen American Heartland as their new battle ground and Americans their enemy. This thinking pattern is certainly oblivion of the fact that it was America's fight against USSR's hegemonic ambitions and was not a fight to save Islam for which Jihadi's were used merely as instruments or means because US is aware of de-merits of a conventional war. But since then Frankenstein monster has turned against its master who had no interest to control or subdue it and suddenly he woke up to 9/11 and the rest is history. Without an organized human effort supported by military and technological supremacy heading for a showdown with a pre-eminent military power is impossible. So instead of running indefinite campaigns they (Jihadis) must organize and develop their followers for a bigger fight in future ? Not sure.Or the only intention could be to constantly irritate the super power thereby blocking it to gain further eminence?

Who won the "War on Terror”?

In this context few would argue that in the so called war on terror it was not America which won but Al-Qaida. With its domestic compulsions on economic growth and sustainability is it not becoming tough for America to manage the war on terror? It will be obviously foolish to claim that US is the victor because it could eliminate Bin laden physically, the only utility US has derived may  be "vengeance is served" and nothing more than that.
When terrorists know that governments do not concede for violence against civilians, why then they engage in terrorism?

In this context Che's advice to his foot soldier is relevant

“Avoid useless acts of terrorism. He stressed that the tactic is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution"

This is one remarkable difference between Islamic Terrorism and Non-Islamic Terrorism. So Jihadi Terrorists know that while they cannot convert the whole world in to a Dar al-Islam in any time soon but they do not want anyone to have the power that could threaten their superiority, if at all they are going to achieve that status. So all infidels are enemies of Islam?

Terrorists drawing incorrect lessons from Guerilla campaigns?

If they plan their strategy on the premise of successful guerilla campaigns then they are certainly irrational if it is not a bounded rationality, Herbert Simon taught us there is nothing called as Rationality but bounded rationality. In that sense yes, I agree that there must be further research conducted to find out on what basis terrorists take cues from guerilla campaigns.

Poverty or Ideology which drives terrorism?

Of course I agree with Max's finding that it is not always poverty that drives terrorists. There must be something else? Indoctrination? The successful Indoctrination campaigns are run by LeT of Pakistan. The main challenge for democracies is to educate and prove their populace that terrorism is not the way to achieve their political demands and not to fall prey to terrorist's propaganda, which often exalts Jihad, is a duty towards god. So affluent, educated, rational and psychologically balanced fall in to the same pit. Apparently elected governments fail in their part making it much worse when they play with divisions. India's vote bank politics based on Muslim vote bank is a case in point.

Competitive quantifying and forecasting in political science ?

At least in US that is how it is. Going by the little knowledge I have, in US decisions and projections based out of gut feelings are considered as rubbish. But at the same time best way to part from this statistical jugglery is to go for Psychological explanations. Am I saying this because I am poor at statistics ? I could not judge right now.

"Over fifty years ago, Sidney Verba instructed social scientists to embrace psychological explanations when they outperform assumptions of perfect rationality. Contrary to the view of many political scientists, terrorists are not masterminds. Even their leaders make the same cognitive mistake as do other mortals—overestimating the political effectiveness of terrorist
campaigns by drawing false analogies from recently successful guerrilla campaigns. To a surprising degree, this simple theory can account for the global diffusion of terrorism despite its political futility"

The verbatim from Max's paper which I have reproduced above is convincing. That is Social Scientists must take Sidney Verba's instructions seriously and must not be only data guys.

 

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper : The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics (International Studies Quarterly, December 2013)

The underlying theme appears to be that indulgence of violence will be a double edged sword and would be detrimental to the objectives of perpetrators (Terrorists) and challengers (States). I generalized under the following heads.

Terrorism as a double edged sword:

Yes. It is. Countries which are democratic or otherwise maintain certain degree of flexibility and attempt to accommodate perpetrator's concerns to an extent. But there is always a threshold once breached by terrorists it is common to expect that they might face stern reaction from affected states. Especially when terrorists are waging a war against a pre-eminent military power like America. The response from countries such as these could be overwhelming that the very survival of terrorist organizations could be at stake. In that context the warning given to Osama against a massive attack on America (9/11) is indeed telling, I know his rage could not take it. At least theoretically Al-Qaeda cannot boast the same capabilities which it did more than a decade ago, i.e., before 9/11 attack.

It is not only because of high intensity of crimes committed by terrorists the states react, but also to low intensity crimes given that it has been committed on a continuous basis over a period of time irrespective of whether it is after significant concessions or they are no concessions at all. To a question whether how a state would react to two terrorist attacks first one which kills 5000 civilians and another attack kills 50 civilians at a given point of time? The obvious assumption appears to be that in the former case response from challenger states could be so overwhelming that either terrorist organization will be wiped out completely or their attack capabilities will be reduced significantly apparently through the counter actions of affected state in question. And in the later case, we may think that state would be ready to talk, this will be considered as an option only if it is for the first time or few more times until the state feels that perpetrator is so adamant and will not change his stand. So time dimension must be taken in to account. If there are 100 such attacks in a span of decade or more which actually claims 5000 civilians? Then too we can expect a stern response from the state, as if it was a single massive attack. States would not react decisively until a specific threshold is breached.

A case in point could be the terrorist organization LTTE which maimed and killed thousands of the very Tamils it claimed for whom it is fighting. For more than a decade or nearly two decades SriLankan citizens endured the onslaught of LTTE violence, this in no way to discount the atrocities committed by state on minority Tamils. For all such low intensity terrorist attacks for a longer period of time, the Sri Lankan populace completely fed up and wanted to wipe them (LTTE) out completely, atleast that was the popular opinion and on that popular theme the current president acquired absolute majority in presidential elections. The arrogance of LTTE leadership was so enormous that it accepted nothing short of a separate country and denounced a viable option of devolution of powers which was acceptable to Tamils but not acceptable for the LTTE terrorists.

Maoism & Terrorism:

Like their LTTE counterparts Maoists are engaged in low intensity attacks for quite some time. And response of the state to their violence is at best none. But if Maoists kill 2000 civilians in one terrorist attack, that may be considered as threshold breached. If sanity prevails no leadership of a terror group would chose to do that, unlike Osama’s decision to target huge number of civilians in the case of 9/11 attack. It is completely based on availability of resources at some one's disposal, a bustling number of death squad in his control. I consider Maoists are most notorious when compared to hard-line Jihadis, for the simple reason being Jihadis thrive in no man's land but Maoists are confined to specific geography that too in a state which is touted as a largest functioning democracy. And they continue to operate on their to be achieved goal ie., to throw the elected democracy by 2050 and make this country a Maoist state. In this front there is a great competition between Islamist Terrorists and Maoists, where the former wants to turn this land in to Islamic State and the later wants to turn it in to a Maoist state with democratically elected government acting as a fence sitter.

Demands such as prisoner release, is it moderate compared to indiscriminate killing?

Yes. States especially large democracies easily concede for such demands because they think that they can save a lot of lives for the moment, though it will be foolish on terrorist’s part to kill all the civilians even if demands are not met, I agree with Max on this. Consider the hijack of IC 814 to Afghanistan when BJP was in power in India. Maulana Massod Azhar was released, who after his release went on to kill scores in organized attacks and not to mention the parliament attack. So I think on a broader view there is nothing moderate about terrorists or their demands, if they are they would never have resorted to terrorism?

Target population's reaction & Electorate moving to Political Right:

Pakistan is such a deviation where terrorists get absolute moral support from majority of the population, at best the target population such as Hazara shias, Baloch activists, ahmedias and Hindus have no avenues to react or make an impact. In complex societies like India unless it is a conventional war with other state (kargil war) people are insensitive towards such acts. Ie., a 2008 type terrorist attack in Mumbai may not evoke much of a response in extreme south or in North east or J&K for that matter. At worse security of state or terrorism is not even considered as an electoral issue. And there is this large scale sympathy towards Islamist Terrorism from Muslim populace and the leftists. Consolidation of votes does not happen on this issue. So we have a Muslim Vote bank, presumably a vote bank for Christians, but there is no Hindu Vote Bank if there is one BJP would be ruling India for ever. Also is it not a wonder that Americans chose to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans who are considered as far Right who acted sternly by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11? Israel is an exception I suppose, but there too its (Political Right) base is dwindling as per recent election results.

State’s violence against its citizens:

This is a most important component within the realm of political violence. When state which is a democratic, aristocratic or in any other form roughs up its deserters (as in deserters of the ruling party or clique) the fall of ruling dispensation is almost sealed, either they themselves try to strike the empire back or support an outsider. Iraq is a case in point for all the atrocities committed on Kurds by S.Hussien, they celebrated once he was condemned to death and also supported the outsider, NATO. Though democratic countries exercise restraint, there is a temptation to resort to such tactics even when they know how it ends. To quote legendary Gandhi, it is impossible to govern men without their consent.

Survey:

I hope such surveys should be conducted in India too. I am not sure if Max has such interests?

It is natural that responses for questions 3 & 4 are high on terrorism in Vignette 1.

Unofficial accounts confirm that even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan which has been a reason for terrorists to wage terrorist attacks on Democratic India, they will not halt attacks, because at the end they want to turn the whole Indian state in to sharia fold. Yes they would derive great satisfaction if Americans or Hindus harmed in an unrelated incident.

Looking forward to read more of Max's work.