Someone sent me this article as a WhatsApp forward:
https://scroll.in/article/882970/why-i-am-resigning-from-the-bjp-a-narendra-modi-supporter-and-party-campaign-analyst-explains
The person who had sent me this is the sort of nationalist who is unlikely to vote 'NOTA' in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and yet probably believes that neutrality as a format of discussion is important in order to arrive at a fair assessment of political reality. It is important for readers to first read the above article in order to understand my response to it, in the following.
I decided to give a considered and systematic response, partly in order to influence public opinion on this issue to the extent possible. I have always maintained that engagement with the general public is inherently pointless, and extremely taxing and thankless even when better than pointless, and yet sometimes it is difficult to let go without responding meaningfully to something that seems so obviously misleading to people that pride themselves on their considered attitude of fairness and neutrality, for whatever such attitude may be worth in terms of actually making a fair assessment of political reality.
There are several points that I wish to make regarding this chap's narrative because it is important to analyse the circumstances holistically, instead of assigning credibility to some person's narrative simply because he was a BJP insider at some point in time.
1. One has to understand something in the wider geopolitical narrative that not even BJP's campaign team is able to state publicly, and not all of them are likely aware of, as evidenced by this former campaign analyst's obvious ignorance in this matter. I'm referring here to the elite globalists, the collective of wealthiest business families in the world, that owned the East India Company and controls the British crown through majority ownership of Bank of England sovereign bonds, since 1812. They are the owners of the sort of businesses that operate through the dark web - drugs, terrorism funding, money laundering, contract killers for hire, human trafficking, several other unmentionables - the whole nine yards. So the transfer of power from the company to the crown in 1857 was actually a sham transfer of power. Similarly, the transfer of power from the crown to Nehru in India under a false pretext of democracy, and to Jinnah in Pakistan without such pretext, were also sham transfers of power. That is my real reason for being against the Congress, and also the reason that the Congress is able to successfully rally all non-BJP parties behind it - the elite globalists had already set up a deep state within the political-administrative structure of the country well before 1947, the Congress inherited the deep state from them, and so it was obviously expected that the Congress had to remain a puppet of the elite globalists forever. PMs like Lal Bahadur Shastri and P V Narasimha Rao within the Congress who were conscientious enough to not toe the line were removed either physically or politically. Sonia Gandhi was planted by these globalists as early as the 1970's so that they had someone at the top who was not only an administrative puppet of the Indian deep state, who might prove inconvenient at times (Indira Gandhi being such an instance), but also uneducated and stupid enough to do their bidding without question.
2. It has been the pattern of the elite globalists, not only in India, but also in the largest democracies (in economic terms) under their control, such as the US and UK, to buy over the mainstream media, because the power that controls the media, the fourth estate in a democracy, effectively controls the democracy itself. In that sense, BJP discrediting most of the mainstream media narrative is something that the media had earned for itself, and was long overdue. One might argue that BJP did it because the media was against them, but if the media is basically owned/controlled by imperialist powers, I think discrediting them is not only moral but politically and geostrategically appropriate. It isn't clear why the author has an issue with morals in the case of the present government when this issue of morality is far bigger than most others that he deems important. When you are faced with a powerful, ponderous enemy like mainstream media owned/controlled by foreign imperialist powers, I don't see the harm in responding with an Internet-based fake news strategy, if it proves to be a deadly response. The enemy is anyway so big and powerful that playing straight on every battlefront would be ineffective. Moreover, if one analyses these strategies in terms of statecraft instead of simplistic middle-class morality, it wouldn't appear to be that big an issue. Statecraft isn't meant for those whose sense of morality extends only to the obvious, like the author of the article cited above, and who ignore the insidious and the invisible either because they cannot fathom it, or because don't have the intellectual capacity to make sense of it. They are unable to understand a deceptively simple principle that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense, especially to the masses.
3. हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं is not a fake narrative, as the emerging situation in Kerala and West Bengal is a testimony to. The manner in which Islamic expansionism expresses itself when the Muslims reach a demographic majority in any region or country establishes it as a clear and present danger to Hindus in India, and in fact to non-Muslims all over the world. Dr Subramanian Swamy has elaborated on this issue in at least one of his public speeches. And to add to all of this, the UN controlled by the elite globalists and represented by Priyanka Chopra wishes for India to take in cannibals like the Rohingya Muslims as refugees so that Islamic expansionism receives a significant boost within the country. It is clearly seen that if Islamic expansionism is not checked effectively, by 2040 India would become a Muslim-majority country, and normal people like us would be forced to live under the Shariah law with basically few to none of the fundamental rights that we enjoy at present. Just because this author isn't able to see the geometric progression in Muslim population in the country at present, because he obviously doesn't understand simple high-school mathematics, his assessment that there is nothing on the ground to suggest that हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं, is not something that is worth taking seriously, at least by those with some logical persuasion.
4. The green revolution that the Congress had brought about was pushed through mainly by the promotion of mainstream industries owned or controlled by the elite globalists - chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The long-term ecological harm caused by these substances was probably meant for the agricultural enslavement of the country to foreign imperialist powers because they would obviously know that dropping soil yields caused by the widespread and long-term usage of chemicals would ensure this outcome. We are witness to farmer suicides that are quite common nowadays. Is it not likely that crop yields dropping over time have at least something to do with this issue? The green revolution propagated by successive Congress governments was in all likelihood a Trojan horse brought in by them on behalf of the elite globalists in order to ensure continued economic exploitation in a manner similar to pre-1947 colonialism. He cites agrarian self-sufficiency and even over-sufficiency as a consequence of this green revolution, but very conveniently fails to mention (intentionally, or more likely due to ignorance) that this self-sufficiency is a time bomb on which we're sitting at present unless the Modi administration does something to shift the agrarian economy entirely over to biofertiliser and biopesticide-based organic farming.
5. The polarisation that he talks about is not only very real but also quite necessary. This necessity appears to be beyond the ability of a seeming simpleton like the author to fathom, but I would like to elaborate on it to the extent that I can. When a nation has to fight a battle for survival on cultural and economic battlefronts, it needs to identify friends and enemies very clearly, and not being aligned on either side because one prefers convenience, mental laziness and lack of stress etc. isn't really an ethical way of dealing with the situation. There are many such non-aligned people in society nowadays, a proud yet cowardly subset being the NOTA-voting impractical idealists, and I do not even care to engage with them in conversation or otherwise, because their apathy and political ignorance (when in spite of education) makes them unfit to interact with anyone with a more responsible attitude towards the nation and civilisation. Balaram had decided to go on a pilgrimage during the Mahabharat war because he had his favourite disciples, Duryodhan and Bheem pitted against each other, on either side. When Balaram came to the battlefield with his "righteous" anger et al, to prevent Bheem from killing Duryodhan in an obviously unethical manner, Krishna had pointed out this exact thing to him - that he had lost his moral high ground to interfere already, by choosing neutrality when it wasn't really a fair option. Two things emerge from this situation: Firstly, (a) the need for polarisation against adharma has always been there in human society, and so is equally important in the present times since any kind of unilateral imperialist agenda is adharma in practice. When Krishna had polarised the forces of dharma onto the side of the Pandavas, it is unrealistic to imagine that all the kings and their armies on the side of the Pandavas were entirely honest and consistently straightforward in all their thoughts, actions and behaviour. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that all the forces of adharma on the side of the Kauravas were entirely dishonest in their persuasion, and twisted in the intentions informing their actions - in fact, there were people like Karna, Bhishma and Dronacharya in whose case this wasn't even clearly established as their mainstream narrative, though it turned out to be the eventual consequence of their unfortunate thought process. Secondly, (b) countering unfair mainstream media tactics by equally unfair media tactics like fake news and ownership of news channels to push forth with your narrative in the mainstream public stage, encouraging polarisation as the mainstream public narrative, retaliating with tenfold aggression against military aggression of nations controlled by the elite globalists (like the Pakistani political administrative machinery controlled by the US deep state, etc.), et al, are entirely fair and just stratagem in the abstract, unemotional and clinical realm of statecraft, that most middle-class people find inconvenient to think about, hence care even less to understand.
https://scroll.in/article/882970/why-i-am-resigning-from-the-bjp-a-narendra-modi-supporter-and-party-campaign-analyst-explains
The person who had sent me this is the sort of nationalist who is unlikely to vote 'NOTA' in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and yet probably believes that neutrality as a format of discussion is important in order to arrive at a fair assessment of political reality. It is important for readers to first read the above article in order to understand my response to it, in the following.
I decided to give a considered and systematic response, partly in order to influence public opinion on this issue to the extent possible. I have always maintained that engagement with the general public is inherently pointless, and extremely taxing and thankless even when better than pointless, and yet sometimes it is difficult to let go without responding meaningfully to something that seems so obviously misleading to people that pride themselves on their considered attitude of fairness and neutrality, for whatever such attitude may be worth in terms of actually making a fair assessment of political reality.
There are several points that I wish to make regarding this chap's narrative because it is important to analyse the circumstances holistically, instead of assigning credibility to some person's narrative simply because he was a BJP insider at some point in time.
1. One has to understand something in the wider geopolitical narrative that not even BJP's campaign team is able to state publicly, and not all of them are likely aware of, as evidenced by this former campaign analyst's obvious ignorance in this matter. I'm referring here to the elite globalists, the collective of wealthiest business families in the world, that owned the East India Company and controls the British crown through majority ownership of Bank of England sovereign bonds, since 1812. They are the owners of the sort of businesses that operate through the dark web - drugs, terrorism funding, money laundering, contract killers for hire, human trafficking, several other unmentionables - the whole nine yards. So the transfer of power from the company to the crown in 1857 was actually a sham transfer of power. Similarly, the transfer of power from the crown to Nehru in India under a false pretext of democracy, and to Jinnah in Pakistan without such pretext, were also sham transfers of power. That is my real reason for being against the Congress, and also the reason that the Congress is able to successfully rally all non-BJP parties behind it - the elite globalists had already set up a deep state within the political-administrative structure of the country well before 1947, the Congress inherited the deep state from them, and so it was obviously expected that the Congress had to remain a puppet of the elite globalists forever. PMs like Lal Bahadur Shastri and P V Narasimha Rao within the Congress who were conscientious enough to not toe the line were removed either physically or politically. Sonia Gandhi was planted by these globalists as early as the 1970's so that they had someone at the top who was not only an administrative puppet of the Indian deep state, who might prove inconvenient at times (Indira Gandhi being such an instance), but also uneducated and stupid enough to do their bidding without question.
2. It has been the pattern of the elite globalists, not only in India, but also in the largest democracies (in economic terms) under their control, such as the US and UK, to buy over the mainstream media, because the power that controls the media, the fourth estate in a democracy, effectively controls the democracy itself. In that sense, BJP discrediting most of the mainstream media narrative is something that the media had earned for itself, and was long overdue. One might argue that BJP did it because the media was against them, but if the media is basically owned/controlled by imperialist powers, I think discrediting them is not only moral but politically and geostrategically appropriate. It isn't clear why the author has an issue with morals in the case of the present government when this issue of morality is far bigger than most others that he deems important. When you are faced with a powerful, ponderous enemy like mainstream media owned/controlled by foreign imperialist powers, I don't see the harm in responding with an Internet-based fake news strategy, if it proves to be a deadly response. The enemy is anyway so big and powerful that playing straight on every battlefront would be ineffective. Moreover, if one analyses these strategies in terms of statecraft instead of simplistic middle-class morality, it wouldn't appear to be that big an issue. Statecraft isn't meant for those whose sense of morality extends only to the obvious, like the author of the article cited above, and who ignore the insidious and the invisible either because they cannot fathom it, or because don't have the intellectual capacity to make sense of it. They are unable to understand a deceptively simple principle that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense, especially to the masses.
3. हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं is not a fake narrative, as the emerging situation in Kerala and West Bengal is a testimony to. The manner in which Islamic expansionism expresses itself when the Muslims reach a demographic majority in any region or country establishes it as a clear and present danger to Hindus in India, and in fact to non-Muslims all over the world. Dr Subramanian Swamy has elaborated on this issue in at least one of his public speeches. And to add to all of this, the UN controlled by the elite globalists and represented by Priyanka Chopra wishes for India to take in cannibals like the Rohingya Muslims as refugees so that Islamic expansionism receives a significant boost within the country. It is clearly seen that if Islamic expansionism is not checked effectively, by 2040 India would become a Muslim-majority country, and normal people like us would be forced to live under the Shariah law with basically few to none of the fundamental rights that we enjoy at present. Just because this author isn't able to see the geometric progression in Muslim population in the country at present, because he obviously doesn't understand simple high-school mathematics, his assessment that there is nothing on the ground to suggest that हिन्दू ख़तरे में हैं, is not something that is worth taking seriously, at least by those with some logical persuasion.
4. The green revolution that the Congress had brought about was pushed through mainly by the promotion of mainstream industries owned or controlled by the elite globalists - chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The long-term ecological harm caused by these substances was probably meant for the agricultural enslavement of the country to foreign imperialist powers because they would obviously know that dropping soil yields caused by the widespread and long-term usage of chemicals would ensure this outcome. We are witness to farmer suicides that are quite common nowadays. Is it not likely that crop yields dropping over time have at least something to do with this issue? The green revolution propagated by successive Congress governments was in all likelihood a Trojan horse brought in by them on behalf of the elite globalists in order to ensure continued economic exploitation in a manner similar to pre-1947 colonialism. He cites agrarian self-sufficiency and even over-sufficiency as a consequence of this green revolution, but very conveniently fails to mention (intentionally, or more likely due to ignorance) that this self-sufficiency is a time bomb on which we're sitting at present unless the Modi administration does something to shift the agrarian economy entirely over to biofertiliser and biopesticide-based organic farming.
5. The polarisation that he talks about is not only very real but also quite necessary. This necessity appears to be beyond the ability of a seeming simpleton like the author to fathom, but I would like to elaborate on it to the extent that I can. When a nation has to fight a battle for survival on cultural and economic battlefronts, it needs to identify friends and enemies very clearly, and not being aligned on either side because one prefers convenience, mental laziness and lack of stress etc. isn't really an ethical way of dealing with the situation. There are many such non-aligned people in society nowadays, a proud yet cowardly subset being the NOTA-voting impractical idealists, and I do not even care to engage with them in conversation or otherwise, because their apathy and political ignorance (when in spite of education) makes them unfit to interact with anyone with a more responsible attitude towards the nation and civilisation. Balaram had decided to go on a pilgrimage during the Mahabharat war because he had his favourite disciples, Duryodhan and Bheem pitted against each other, on either side. When Balaram came to the battlefield with his "righteous" anger et al, to prevent Bheem from killing Duryodhan in an obviously unethical manner, Krishna had pointed out this exact thing to him - that he had lost his moral high ground to interfere already, by choosing neutrality when it wasn't really a fair option. Two things emerge from this situation: Firstly, (a) the need for polarisation against adharma has always been there in human society, and so is equally important in the present times since any kind of unilateral imperialist agenda is adharma in practice. When Krishna had polarised the forces of dharma onto the side of the Pandavas, it is unrealistic to imagine that all the kings and their armies on the side of the Pandavas were entirely honest and consistently straightforward in all their thoughts, actions and behaviour. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that all the forces of adharma on the side of the Kauravas were entirely dishonest in their persuasion, and twisted in the intentions informing their actions - in fact, there were people like Karna, Bhishma and Dronacharya in whose case this wasn't even clearly established as their mainstream narrative, though it turned out to be the eventual consequence of their unfortunate thought process. Secondly, (b) countering unfair mainstream media tactics by equally unfair media tactics like fake news and ownership of news channels to push forth with your narrative in the mainstream public stage, encouraging polarisation as the mainstream public narrative, retaliating with tenfold aggression against military aggression of nations controlled by the elite globalists (like the Pakistani political administrative machinery controlled by the US deep state, etc.), et al, are entirely fair and just stratagem in the abstract, unemotional and clinical realm of statecraft, that most middle-class people find inconvenient to think about, hence care even less to understand.
