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.

The Myth of India’s Nuclear Deterrence

The recent unprovoked transgressions in to Indian territory by both Chinese and Pakistan bring to fore the oft repeated question whether India’s Nuclear deterrence is working when it comes to Pakistan and China. It was raised by Prof.Rajesh Rajagopalan in a periodical recently. And it almost sounds true that when India flanked by ideologically hardened neighbors whose commitment towards it appears to be beyond the interest of its own people’s welfare. At least this question may not be relevant to China as it enjoys near superiority in military hardware not to mention strategic advantages.

But it is shocking that with its inferiority on conventional weapons Pakistan frustrates India on a daily basis. While reports suggest that India’s nuclear arsenal is primarily directed on China, it has never taken a clear stand on Pakistan. It is felt that though the “No First Use" doctrine has given some level of moral depth but it has yielded no tangible benefits. While the fixation of Pakistan on Kashmir is understandable, but for all its irrational behavior starting from unprovoked border firing on Indian posts , assisting terrorists to infiltrate to perpetuate proxy war to inhumane acts like beheading Indian soldiers, Pakistan has a tacit approval of China for all its acts.

The deterrence worked only till such time when Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons. There is no asymmetry between India and Pakistan with respect to number of Nuclear weapons. The message is clear for Pakistan on the no first use doctrine. If we are not going to use Nuclear weapon until we are bombarded by a nuclear weapon, there is no question of deterrence. So time has come for us to annul the no first use doctrine..

Unlike Pakistan, Indian society is not anarchic where all decisions had to be taken based on collective consensus especially if it is a decision on military retaliation. If Pakistan was in the same position it would have launched unilateral strikes on India long ago taking the advantage of conventional weapon’s asymmetry.

With the drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan is understandably in tremendous pressure to engage Jihadis in a different theater, ethnic cleansing of hazaras and ahmedia’s is a task which will be taken care by domestic Jihadis and for Jihadis whose business is transnational in nature, Kashmir in particular and India in general is their preferred battlefield and Pakistan’s security establishments are more than willing to assist their quest.

More than anything else India’s stature is taking a severe beating in international arena for its response of zero reaction on Pakistan’s violations. India had two had chances 26/11 and parliament attack. It will be absolutely foolish to wait for another such moment if we ever wanted to retaliate. Tolstoy said you may not like war but war likes you. Without a strong military, diplomacy will not work. If you do not have capability or the intention to neutralize your adversary on the battlefield your diplomacy of talking will be a waste of time, especially with a state like Pakistan.

Military dictators of Pakistan have ensured the acquisition of Nuclear weapons making both Pakistan and India even on this platform. Firstly internationally community must be held completely responsible for allowing a hardened Islamist country like Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons.

To make our message clear it must be communicated to Pakistan that being a democracy does not mean we are weak and when it comes to national security all political parties have a same line of thought, maybe this is impossible having communists in India, but we should try out.

And importantly “no first use” doctrine must be scraped with immediate effect and the new doctrine must be worded in such a way that when a conventional and limited war is not forcing an adversary to negotiating table, nuclear weapons will be used. This will send a message to Pakistan that India will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If we are doing that it means we are talking.

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.