Thursday, March 30, 2017

Politics of Extreme Polarization & Inherent Risks to National Security

Polarization is a natural process of bipolar existence and is reflected in every aspect of life. All forces in universe are manifestation of bipolar energies playing dance with each other. Bipolarity in essence is cause of cosmic dance which sustains lives and is reflected in each and every expression including human behavior, thoughts and politics. 

Since ancient times, natural course of polarization in politics has affected socio-economic and political evolution of mankind and India is no exception.  In India, which has a very complex social composition and equations of castes and religions, politics of polarization has always played key role in power politics. Whenever powers of polarization were intense and extreme, it resulted into a very high levels of violence and destruction every-time making India vulnerable, divided and weak.   

In ancient times; Parashuram; a mixed blood Brahman, used the forces of polarization to check growing political power of Jaduvanshi Kchatriyas. As is said Parashuram united all non Jaduvanshis to launch thirty six attacks to push them out of Central India (It appears that these wars were fought between Assyrians and Sumerians being on one side and Jaduvanshi Parthians being on other side and fought in Babylonia. The story is based on Parashuram Smriti, which are stories brought by migrants into India). Alignment of masses in favour of Parashuram gifted them political power and lasted till rule of Rawan. The military campaigns of Parashuram resulted into worst genocide carried out in Indian History (In Indian context it is the history of people and not only land. Many People have been migrants. India is land of Migrants).

The polarization created by Parashuram in due course of time gave birth to reverse polarization when Ram, a Kchatriya organised masses and tribes including Vanaras to defeat a Brahman King Rawan who had protection of Parashuram. It may be noted that Bharat was born to Jaduvanshi mother and he was rightful inheritor of throne as per treaty of Dashrath with father of Kaykai. 

Similarly in Mahabharat two groups of descendants of Yayati  (Jajati) who called themselves Partha/ Aryans fought with each other when one force became too dominant and refused to adjust with other peacefully. Alignment of Masses in fovour of Arjuna tilted the balance ( Ram and Parashuram never called themselves Aryans. The use of word Aryan started with Parthians using it during time of Mahabharat).

Later in history , when Shoodra and Budhist rulers were dominant in India, rise of statue worshiping Brahmanism brought by migrants from Arabia, Babylonia and Egypt, resulted into many bloody battles. Pushyamitra Sunga; a Brahman committed yet another worst genocide of Budhists in Indian History. (India is a land of Native Shoodras except Uttarapath which was under Parthian/Aryan. These Shoodras are present today in every castes including Brahmans. Statue worshiping religion of Brahmanism is the religion of migrants who came from Middle East and wrote Parashuram and Manu Smriti in India. Let us not forget India is land of Yagna and advait mat and not statue worshipers and followers of dvait manu smriti).  

The polarization between Budhism, Jainism, Shaivism, Krishnaism on one side and Brahmanism on other side saw rise and fall of many empires/ kings and resulted into many bloody battles.

By the time of Kanishka and Harsha, Brahaminism was marginalized by Budhism, which by now had mixed with Jainisms, Shaivism and Krishnaism to lay foundation of Sanatan Dharma, Brahmanism then aligned with rising Islam which resulted into many Arab raids into India and finally invasion of neo Islamists from Central Asia. This new alignment of power gave birth to new polarization resulting into marginalization of dominant Budhism in India and emergence of Muslim-Brahmanism Alliance. 

Muslims ruled India in close alliance with Brahmanism wherein a power sharing arrangement emerged. Muslims were rulers, Brahmans and their close allies like Kayasthas and some segments of Baniyas, were revenue collector and land record keepers and they together acted as political advisers of Muslims. Many Buddhist kings who with change of power dynamics adopted Brahmanism through a process of purification, retained their power under Muslim rule as their allies.

Aggressive Islamic-Brahman rule created yet another reverse polarization when under Bhakti movement masses organised and staged resistance. It gave birth to rise of Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers who were supported by masses. Unitedly they neutralized  aggressive Islamic- Brahman alliance and created a new power balance. The new power equation thus created a process of integration and assimilation to give birth of a Hindustani identity which followed the basic fundamentals of Sanatan Dharma where in Islam and other religions like Christianity were also accommodated. Assimilation with Brahmanism also started. India was settling when British arrived.

When the India was at peace under the rule of people and Dalits were being given new respect (Marathas, Jats and Sikhs recruited them in their armies and gave them official positions including new names like Mahar, Jatav and Ramgharias), British arrived with much more advanced technology and warfare techniques. Brahmanism found an opportunity and leaving the path of Sanatan Dharma aligned with British power.

Treaty of Vasai sealed the strategic alliance between British and Brahmanism and resulted into British rule. Once having captured power in India, clever British started neutralizing political power of Brahmanism. Peshwa was deported to Bithoor in Kanpur. Aggressive British attempted to consolidate political power and created a new form of polarization which led to 1857 revolt by masses.

After 1857, British changed their political strategy in India. They divided Indians into two dimensions of powers and created a very clever separation among them. Soft power of dominating caste of Brahmans, Kasythas and Baniyas and hard power of martial castes spread across all religions and castes including some gotras among Brahmans and Dalits. Soft power was given space in peaceful democratic politics wherein, It gave birth to Congress and other political parties like Hindu Mahasabha and social groups like RSS. Hard power manifested itself into British Indian Army and Princely States which had martial castes including Dalits and Tribal dominance.

British took care of marginalized suppressed Dalits and gave space to the rise of leaders like Baba Saheb Ambedkar who staked claim in power politics of India.

Within the hard power structure of India, British gave enough space to Muslims. However absence of Muslim leaders in soft power dimension and emergence of dominance of Brahmanism in new form of Hindutwa within it (rise of leaders like militant Tilak & Sawarkar and increased Hindutwa character of Congress), made some Muslim leaders like Jinnah suspicious. It polarized the soft power space and gave push to emergence of movement for Muslim Pakistan based on two nation theory. Newly emerging argument of fierce Hindu nationalism by many leaders like Tilak and Sawarkar and increased Brahmanised character of Congress in fact strengthened the argument for Muslim Pakistan.

WW I & II shook the foundation of British empire and helped rise of American power with Jews funding. In emerging new geo-political order, it made more sense for British to bi polarize Indian politics on communal lines to create a fault line between Hindus and Muslims.  Accordingly British with US consent, cleverly exploited prevailing bipolarity in soft power space and fueled two nation theory being advocated by some of Muslim leaders and equally fueled and supported by Hindu Rasthra theory (resurgence of  Brahmanism in new form).

Creation of Pakistan helped power projection of USA and UK alliance in Geo political space against Russia and also created weakness within South Asia by creating a communal fault line based on two nation and Hindu Rashtra theories. If two nation theory polarized Hindu and Muslims then Hindu Rashtra theory in addition created multiple fault lines in Indian society where in it also made other religious and social groups like Sikhs, Jains, Budhists, many tribes, many social groups like Jats, Marathas, Patels, Gurjars, Ahirs, Dalits and many more insecure.

Let us not forget that since inception till Indira Gandhi, though congress advocated secularism but in practice it always was dominated by moderate Neo Hindu Rashtrawadi leaders (a new avtar of Brahmanism). Hindu Rashtrawad deviates from teaching of Sanatan Dharma to create a religion for political and commercial purpose. The difference between strategy of Congress and Hindu Mahasabha or RSS is only that Congress practiced (till Indira) moderate and passive neo- Hindu nationalism and others aggressive/ militant and proactive Hindu Rashtrawad. In fact both express repackaged  Brahmanism in new form and are two faces of same coin of Brahmanism.

During British rule, emergence of two nation theory and Brahmanist Hindu Rashtrawad destroyed accommodating and assimilating Hindustani culture of Sanatan Dharma as emerging in Pre British Period.

British after creating Pakistan, left India to her fate in hands of Congress dominated by moderate passive Brahmanist Hindu nationalist leaders who put a very clever political strategy in place to take total control over political power. To leaders of soft power as expressed by Congress, martial castes holding hard power were treated as a threat. Prevailing political situation was cleverly polarized in favor of soft power of moderate Hindu Congress by two pronged strategy:-

1. Gaining political support of insecure groups like Muslims, tribal and dalits and creating a poll winning robust formula of Brahman- Muslim-Dalit/Tribal to have control over political power.

2. Progressive isolation, division, defamation, weakening and marginalization of farming martial castes and maintenance of insecurity among Muslims through riots and among Dalits/ Tribals portraying Martial Castes as Goondas and Criminal. 

At time of Partition, Muslims in India felt insecure and favored congress for protection. Congress cleverly kept Muslim insecurity alive by constantly staging communal riots, maintaining armed dispute with Pakistan and taking help of militant groups advocating aggressive Hindutwa like RSS. In fact all actions of RSS till Indira Gandhi helped Cong politically.

Congress strategy to keep Dalits and Tribal to her side was bit different. They were given reservation in political power structure of India (which was rejected when Muslims during British period demanded same), reservation in govt jobs, certain legal protections, promise of ownership of agricultural lands and generating fear of Goondaism of Martial Castes (Modi in recent election has used the word Goonda/ Criminals playing same politics). The strategy though helped Congress to remain in power but in reality did not help Dalits in their economic upliftment and assimilation with rest of the society. Yes untouchability to some extent has been diluted but a new identity of Dalits has emerged.

Let us not forget, politics of reservation is most deceptive and cunning strategy. In reality, it brings only 24% reservation in jobs in organised sector and with almost 50% positions being vacant the real gains in jobs are only 12% and that too is taken by creamy layer whereas real loot is happening through banks where almost 20% of the bulk of bank business loans given to high castes, are stressed. In addition, 8 lakh temples in India provide a very secure and safe money supply to this lobby. They hold almost 8000 tons of Gold which if used can remove the poverty of India. India in fact is a rich country of deliberately kept poor people. 

Politically, the above strategy polarized Indian society into two. One power center was reflected in Brahman, Muslims and Dalit alignment and other was in dis-organised martial castes. Congress put forth the strategy to weaken martial castes and their hard power by:

1. Some of the martial castes of Brahmans and Dalits aligned with rest of them and supported Congress.

2. Initial Isolation of princely states, then their systematic marginalization and then its unconstitutional abolition just after 1971 war when popularity of Indra was at its peak. Please note that Shashi Tharoor in his latest book "An Era of Darkness" has admired princely states for looking after farmers better than British. In fact performance of Cong rule in Independence India has been worst than even British. Shashi Tharoor has kept quite on it. Princely States have given the biggest sacrifice of giving away their sovereign power to create the Idea of India and yet they have always been portrayed as Goondas. In fact they together deserve the Bharat Ratna to make India happen. 

3. Abolition of Zamindaris and land holdings ( Land Ceiling Act)  in name of socialism. Most of the land holders were martial castes.

4. Putting agricultural products selling and price control mechanism in place in name of creating food security. It created total control of govt over rural economy with no say of farmers. Most of them being from martial castes and communities. They suffered and are suffering.

5. Preventing farmers from change of land usage without Govt approvals thus debarring them from making its use for business by raising debt from banks.

6. Disarming martial castes by Arms Control Act.

7. Not developing education infrastructure & banking in rural areas to keep them in age of darkness. And also not providing same banking and tax advantages as given to business communities (like HUF). In fact almost 90% bank loans for business since independence has been given to high caste lobby.

8.  Defaming martial castes branding them as Goondas, criminals and fools. Post independence movies helped in creation and sustenance of such fear and impressions.

9. Isolating and marginalizing martial castes based army from political decision making of the govt and reducing the salary, compensation and support systems of soldiers. It further hit the martial castes and rural economy. After 1973 Indra went ahead to even tweak officers cadres to have her loyalists in key positions.

The above strategy helped Congress till Indira not to govern but rule India. However it also created reverse polarization wherein political landscape saw emergence of third front and political regionalism.

After death of Indira, Rajiv emerged as leader riding sympathy wave. But here was the problem. He was married to a foreigner Sonia Gandhi of a Christian faith and was not seen as a moderate Hindu leader and same was not acceptable to many other high caste temple lobbies. To please them Rajiv even allowed opening of locks in Ayodhya in disputed Babri Mosque but it did not win him their favour and at last he was eliminated.

By now, more aware Muslims and Dalits, who were also desperate for inclusive growth, searched for more political options and started switching support away from Congress. Marginalized farmers most being martial castes, were becoming assertive under their leaders like Charan Singh. The extreme polarization which kept Congress in power weakened. India thus moved into an era of political coalition and adjustments which brought many benefits.

It is surprising to note that India has made rapid growth in the era of political coalition and regionalism. Governance become more responsive and inclusive. India saw higher GDP growth. Till Indira, when the total political control remained in hands of Congress, the GDP growth of India was lesser than even British period. In fact the era of political coalition and regionalism has opened new opportunities to put India as developing economies.

It also had its pitfalls, as political battles became intensive and more divided, it gave prominence to political funding thus giving rise to corporate manipulation of political policies and rise of crony capitalism.

Naturally the era of coalition and regionalism is not palatable to Hindu Rashtrawadis, who till now had ruled India as moderate Congressmen. The new power polarization was required to put them back in absolute power control.  Rise of Islamic radicalism in Middle East, Afghanistan and to some extent in Pakistan has provided them an opportunity of polarizing people. The new game thus started and new multi pronged strategy as under for grabbing political power has been put in place:

1. Keep mask of development as face. As people in all section of society need development so launch certain populist schemes to keep them mesmerized.

2. Keep political funding in control by assured support to crony capitalists. Govt policies favour rich.

3. Polarise people on Hindutwa and Muslim terror lines but do not adopt Congress strategy of triggering riots. If riots helped congress to maintain insecurities among Muslims for votes, fear of Muslim terror has helped consolidation of non Muslim vote making Brahmanist Hindutwa more attractive as reverse polarisation. Keep using Pakistan and few actions by own army to strengthen the argument.

4. Create more social fault lines by creating more identities like maha Dalits and maha OBCs to create more divisions and exploit it for political advantage.

5. Keep conflict with Pakistan alive and use it for polarization. After all it helps politicians on both side of borders. If Congress has best relations with PPP of Pakistan then BJP is having similar relations with PMNL. 

The above strategy has succeeded in creating polarization of almost same intensity which was achieved post independence during Congress rule. BJP hopes to rule India for another 15-20 years using same strategy but creation of more social fault lines is a dangerous trend which may result into new reverse polarized alignments and carries the risk of division of the country if it goes out of control.

Political desperation for power using intense and extreme polarization strategy and possibility of reverse polarization in same intensity, is hurting the foundation and idea of India. Some in western power block are happy to see new fault lines which may at last check the growth of India sinking her in darkness of violence like Pakistan. Regional violent polarization of Hindu- Muslim in South Asia will also help these vested interests in Western block to divert attention of radical Islam from West to India. Radical Islam is posing serious threat to global peace specially so Western Economic Powers. It needs to be contained and best way is to pitch it against Hindutwa. Most unfortunate part is, many in India are willing to play this Western funded game and push India into darkness of violence.

Though power game of polarization and reverse polarization are natural phenomenon but are required to be kept below critical limits of tolerance. Any crossing of lines breaking these critical limits carry risk of violent reactions and shall be avoided.

India has no choice but to follow the path of Sanatan Dharma of Hindustani Tahzeeb as is also structured in her constitution. History is testimony to the fact that India has performed best when political debates have been done peacefully and conducted under the principles  of Santan Dharma. Whenever the intense pressures has been used India has witnessed the worst kind of violence.

In given situation and under the present Constitution, as long as we have a strong professional military to uphold national sovereign power, the pitch of internal political debate for elections shall be kept below critical limits of tolerance.  Our military shall be powerful enough to neutralize any internal or external threat to defend Constitution. There is no need to increase the pitch of political debates to the levels of shouting and fist raising. The graceful conduct of politics is an essential need of the hours as political pitch is surely rising to create intense polarization which is a threat to national security and must be avoided at all cost.

India has no option but build her future on foundation of Sanatan Dharma assimilating and infusing every religion, faith and belief to set and example of co existence and harmony. Such path shall also guide the world to manage differences and conflicts towards achieving global peace. In information age, when rigidness of religious ideas must soften up to reason science and knowledge, India shall not create a religion out of Sanatan Dharma which it is not. Education and development to remove poverty is the bigger challenge.

Radicalism in Islam threatening world peace is passing natural phase wherein modern and ancient Islams are at conflicts. It will settle down with process of reasoning and some military actions. It will be defeated at last and Muslims need help for same. It shall not give a ground for Indians to adopt to reactive radical ideas and invite conflict & destruction to themselves. Indian Muslims are more like rest of Indians in behavior and reject violence. Some aberrations may be there but Indian authorities are capable enough to deal with it. There is surely no need for public to panic and take this battle in rigid manner to streets. India shall not allow rise of non state actors. We shall learn from the bad and failed experiments of Pakistan.

Hope good sense prevails. Greed of power shall not push the future of our children to darkness and invite yet another violent division of India and this time it may be in many parts. India is nation of many sub-nationalities which are well integrated in the glue of Sanatan Dharma. Sanatan Dharma is based on reason and freedom to carry out modern interpretation of ancient thoughts. It is the most apt path to the human future. 


Difference Between Sanatan Dharma and Hindutwa. Sanatan Dharma Accommodates All Religions Including Islam

In political circle use of word 'Hindutwa' is quite frequent and being used for politics of polarisation. General impression is being created among youths that Hindutwa is nothing but Sanatan Dharma. But is it so? Let us carry out a check?

Q 1 - Are Sanatan Dharma & Hindutwa not same?

Answer -

No. Sanatan Dharma is more of way of life which is supposed to be lived following certain fundamentals which are more of humane in nature and is not a religion. Whereas Hindutwa makes an attempt to make a religion out of Sanatan Dharma and pitches it against other religions like Islam and Christianity and tries to use it for political advantage.

Q 2- What is the difference between Dharma and Religion?


Sanatan Dharma is broad path for humans which can have many panths and sampradya. Sanatan Dharma talks about human lives as a flow of rivers, which may have origin like steams from different places, travel in different country side but at the end meet in same sea. It talks of unity in diversity. Krishna said in Geeta every human shall follow his own path as he believes is right. Sanatan Dharma is based on four main fundamentals

1. Objective of human life is to liberate from sufferings and achieve Nirvana or Mokcha by realising truth of cosmic existence. Every religion including Islam has described this stage in different forms as perceived or understood in a given time and place. Every enlighten human may describe it in his own words.

2. To achieve that humans shall make attempt to awaken consciousness (Chetna) or follow path of Bhakti as with out awakening consciousness or bhakti  it is not possible to achieve Nirvana or Mokcha. God is interpreted as per the stage of consciousness. People of lesser consciousness worship statues whereas with higher consciousness follow the path of Chintan and meditation  .

3. Every human shall use the God gifted reason to awaken consciousness as it is not possible to do so without constant reasoning with self and with surroundings. It is fundamental right of every human to reason every teachings and adopt it as per his or her understanding. Sanatan Dharma discourages indoctrination of minds to create false strong and impulsive impressions of blind faiths.

4. The human reasoning shall be done in the atmosphere of peace where all emotions are stable and balanced and the reason can prevail. Called Sat Sangh- The company of truth.

Sanatan Dharma applies above fundamental principles on all humans and gives them freedom to choose  their own path as realized by them provided above principles are not violated. The teachings of Sanatan Dharma can accommodate any religion and have universal applications.

Whereas Hinduism as promoted by concept of Hindutwa is more like religion which tries to differentiate from other religions. Religions by concept have more strict codes and does not give space to reason. It wants humans to follow and believe what is preached by few notified people of elite classes. Religions promote indoctrination of minds and support radicalism.  Religions have political objectives of establishing supremacy of one thought over others. Religions try to control money and always have commercial objectives as part of its order. Extreme radicalism may lead to barbaric violence.

Hindutwa tries to create a religious order citing teachings of Sanatan Dharma and adopts a very narrow approach.

Q 3. How is it so that approach of Sanatan Dharma is broad and can be followed by all humans and approach of Hindutwa is narrow?


Sanatan Dharma is not only broad but it has 360 degree approach in all three dimensions of human existence. A Muslim following Islam peacefully reasoning its teaching interpreting it in light of modern science is following Sanatan Dharma as any other Budhist, or Chritian or Sikhs, Or Jain or Jews, or Shaive or vaishnav in similar manner. Where as Hindutwa tries to hi jack teachings of Sanatan Dharam to present it as religion playing it against religions.

Question 4. So does it mean concept of Hindutwa tries to degrade Sanatan Dharma?


yes. As explained Sanatan Dharma has very broad based approach and acts as glue to cement brotherhood and love among all faiths where as Hindutwa tries to create a very narrow faith.