One thing that constantly astonishes me is my ignorance of Indian history. I admit that freely and feel sorry for myself — and for the hundreds of millions of Indians who are ignorant like me. I am partly to blame but we should remember that the Indian government — what I should really call the British Government 2.0 which started off with faux Britisher Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm — did much to misrepresent Indian history. Thanks to the interwebs (and thanks to Al Gore for inventing them internets), slowly I am learning a bit of history.
The other day I was thinking that even though I am ignorant of history, I figured out that Nehru was a clueless retard even though his name is plastered all over the country and they all say what a great man he was. I figured out that MK Gandhi must have been a self-obsessed authoritarian with an inflated ego.
The thing is, as Yogi Berra pointed out, you’d be astonished what you observe if you care to see. (I don’t know if Yogi Berra actually said it but it sounds like something that he may have said.) I saw without distorting glasses and I observed that India is a disaster zone. There were people who directed it since its political independence in 1947. They were in control. They — what’s the word I am looking for — yes, fucked up. Pardon my French.
My reasoning was syllogistic:
Major premise: India is evidently in dire distress.
Minor premise: India was led by Cha-cha and friends.
Conclusion: Cha-cha and friends were retards.
Those worthies — Cha-cha Nehru and his gang of retards — are definitely to blame. Cha-cha. Don’t you just feel like getting up and doing a bit of a dance. One-two-cha-cha-cha. Let’s do the cha-cha-cha.
The other day I was thinking. (A different other day than the other day mentioned previously.) In his book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution“, Richard Dawkins makes a point that I had not pondered before. He argued that circumstantial evidence is not the poor county cousin of eyewitness evidence, but rather circumstantial evidence can be more solid than eyewitness evidence.
Did you see that man enter the house at 7 PM? Yes, says the witness. But memories can be very unreliable at times. People make mistakes in identifying people. Circumstantial evidence, if available, can be quite foolproof. The finger prints on the knife, the shirt of the accused with the bloodstains that DNA shows to be the victim’s blood, the motive that the accused had, etc.
I pondered that matter at some length. I realized that the history we are taught in school about how great a person Cha-cha Nehru was is like an eye-witness account which has been retold a few thousand times. Someone somewhere made the assertion that Nehru was smart — and then it got repeated uncritically by others.
The circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Nehru was clueless about economic policy. Fabian socialism was known to be a disaster. Nehru was clueless about military policy. Thousands of Indian soldiers died in the disastrous war with China, thanks to Cha-cha. He was clueless about industrial policy. Import substitution industrialization (ISI, not to be confused with the Pakistani organization that DiggyVijay Singh moonlights for) chained India’s growth to what is now rightly called the “Nehru rate of growth.” Nehru was clueless about military strategy. He told the Indian army to halt their campaign to throw out the Pakistanis from Kashmir and took the matter to the UN. Tens of thousands of military and civilians have died as a consequence, and a few million Kashmiri Hindus are languishing in refugee camps in their own country.
I’d love to continue on the subject of the Nabob of Cluelessness, Mr Nehru. But I am sure you have better things to do and I don’t have the time to list all the cluelessness of Mr Nehru. India’s pathetic education system is his doing. The IITs are a prime example of that. But I will go into why the IITs have been a curse to India later.
Anyway, if you need convincing that Nehru, Gandhi and the rest of the unholy bunch were crazily mistaken, take a look at India — and weep.
So here’s what I learned today. India owes a debt to Savarkar. Taken from The Daily Pioneer. Reproduced in full since it is hard to find the piece when you need it in a hurry. If they come after me for copyright violations, I will take this down.
India’s debt to Savarkar
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Second opinion: Priyadarsi Dutta
His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as ‘Sawarkar’, and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that “why the paper did not burn”. In those days, India’s freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal’s partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement.
India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength.
Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi’s policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream of “talking his way to leadership of the world”, and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was — a meek leader of a Third World country.
Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.