Untitled

India! I dare you to be rich

Category Archive: Humour

Rothbard describing Mises’s great sense of humour

I've not paid much attention to Rothbard, but given some positive words from Peter Boettke recently, decided to review his work. Nothing like a talk by the man himself, to get to know him and to understand his views.

This talk is good. I'm a quarter way through it, but came across an exceptionally brilliant take on economists (he is citing Mises whose lectures he had attended in 1949).

Continue Reading

Golwalkar’s most fantastic and absurd attempt to “prove” that the non-existent Aryans were from India

This is getting amusing. Now, this is the most hilarious of all.

Golwalkar had this great problem.

a) He did not want to accept the idea that a European could tell them about their own history.

b) Dayanand Saraswati had already said the Aryans came from OUTSIDE, from Tibet. [I've discussed this here]

c) Vivekanands had pooh-poohed the idea that Aryans came from outside India, saying: "As for as the truth in these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afganistan. There it ends." [Source]

d) Tilak said they DID come from outside, but basically from the Arctic region.[here]

So Golwalkar was lost. He was a zoologist (MSc degree holder), not (as I understsand) a student of Sanskrit. He had no way to determine who was right. Moreover he had a very strong POLITICAL agenda: to oppose Muslims. So he clutched at straws to establish his view that Aryans were indigenous.

[Actually, I believe the whole idea of Aryans is mythical, and mythical things don't migrate. Yes, there has been cross-fertlisation and migration, but that's UNRELATED to the idea of Aryan invasion]

The Aryan invasion theory would make the arrival of the Vedic people analogous with that of the Mughals and other invaders and undermine any indigenous formulations for Hindutva. In short, this brand of Hindu nationalism … is obliged to refute the Aryan invasion theory or risk logical absurdity. Golwalkar, accordingly, rejects the theory but attempts to reconcile this position with Tilak's North Pole homeland. Un­willing to contradict the prestigious Tilak, who had accepted an external origin of the Aryans in the Arctic Circle, Golwalkar (1947) states that modern scientific research has shown the North Pole not to be stationary, and that "quite long ago it was in that part of the world . . . [which] is called Bihar and Orissa at the present”.[The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate  by Edwin Bryant. p.273]

Here's my Word version of We.

39 – To start with, the life of nations is not to be counted in years but centuries. What a year is to a man a century is the Hindu nation.

With the Vedas, the Western Scholars have not still seen even the hem of the garment of the glorious Goddess of knowledge.

40 – if we ignore the vedas and the later Ramayana and Mahabharata, and we still go back 4 – 5,000 years. Hinduism is old. And the Mahabharata depicts an organized society.

42 – So Hindus have been in possession of the land for 8 or even 10 thousand years before the land was invaded by any foreign race. [Sanjeev: But modern man is around 100,000 years old. Where were these "Hindus" before 10,000 years? ]

“Hindu i.e. Aryan race” What evidence is there that Hindusthan, the land of Hindus, was a land of immigrants? None save the “Shady testimony of Western scholars.” The West’s superiority complex blurs its vision. [Sanjeev: this is NOT the kind of language one can use to discuss the truth. Stick to the facts, please!]

42 – Can they admit the superiority of a nation they control? Till yesterday, they wandered wild in the wilderness, their nude bodies weirdly tattooed and painted [literally]. By saying all Aryans migrated to Europe and Hindustan, they undermine Hindu’s claim to the land.

44 – The Englishman will never cease duping us into believing that we have no more right to this land than he has.

44 – Tilak said the Aryans came from the Arctic. Perhaps.

45 - But the arctic pole has shifted. The North Pole used to be in Bihar. So, the Vedas come from Hindustan! [Sanjeev: "Data indicates that the geographical poles have not deviated by more than about 5° over the last 130 million years" - Wikipedia]

Perhaps never has more flimsy data been used to support any theory. And this man became the boss of RSS.

Critical thinking! That's the KEY message of ancient Indian philosophy. That message has been lost by these people in their enthusiam to "prove" their superiority.

Continue Reading

Not to be outdone by Müller, Tilak proposed that Aryans descended from the north pole.

I had come across Tilak's theory about the origin of Aryans earlier, but didn't know that Max Muller was a great supporter of Tilak. The combination of these two people's work is hilarious.

The following extract re: Tilak's hypothesis truly stretches human imagination to the limits. (But that was not all. I'll come to Golwalkar's hypothesis next.)

Tilak was deeply interested in the edition of the Rigveda which he received from Max Mueller. He was highly impressed by the statement `suryodayat prak bahuni ahani asan' meaning `many days have passed before the sunrise'. It was this statement that led him to trace the original home of the Aryans in the Arctic region.14 He wrote this book when he was involved in the Jagannath Maharaj adoption case. In the Orion, he had shown, on astronomical grounds, that the antiquity of the Vedas can be stretched back to 4500 B.C. Tilak says in the Preface to the Arctic Home, that it is a sequel to the Orion in which it was unmistakably pointed out that the vernal equinox was in the constellation of Mriga or Orion during the period when the Vedic hymns were composed, and that it had receded to the constellation of the Krittikas or the Pleiades (about 2500 B.C.) in the days of the Brahmanas. The next logical step was to trace the original home of the Aryans. [See more details here]

ALSO THIS:

Extract from Tony Ballantyne's Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire:

Balwantrao Gangadhar Tilak … offered the most striking reinterpretation of Indo-Aryan history. Tilak published two works, Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas (1892) and The Arctic Home of Vedas (1903), which set out his argument. Tilak, drawing on a Hindu cosmogony with a vast temporal scope, had no trouble accepting the ‘latest and most approved geological facts and opinions’, which greatly extended the timescale of history. He suggested that the ancient home of the Aryas was not central Asia but rather in the Arctic during the ‘Tertiary period’. Originally, the Arctic was temperate, but the advent of an ice age between 10 000 BCE and 8000 BCE transformed it into an ‘icebound land unfit for the habitation of man’.  [Sanjeev: The last ice age lasted from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago, with most of the arctic region - and Europe - covered with ice, a mile thick. There was NO temperate climate in the Arctic just 12000 years ago. Indeed, today is about the warmest the Arctic has been in 100,000 years.] From 8000 BCE the Aryas left their Arctic home moving south into Europe and central Asia and by 6000 BCE had settled in the southern tracts of the central Asian steppes, displacing pre-existing communities and carrying with them an advanced culture: this was the Vedic culture carried south into India in the final southern push of the great migration. [Sanjeev: This contradicts Dayanand Saraswati's and Swami Vivevakananda's assertion that there was no migration of Aryans into India]

These Indo-Aryans retained their cultural sophistication and military superiority, but those Aryas who settled in northern Europe began to slide into barbarism. The sophistication of the Indo-Aryans was enshrined in the Vedas that were transmitted ‘accent for accent’ for maybe as long as six millennia. Therefore the Indo-Aryans, Tilak argued, were precociously civilized, attaining a level of civilization that was commensurable with the glories of Egypt at the height of its power, but predating the peak of Nile civilization by several thousand years. [Sanjeev: This civilisation had a unique characteristic: it did not leave any evidence of its existence!]

Thus Tilak extended and reinterpreted the work of European Indologists, rebutting arguments that European culture developed earlier and more quickly than Indian culture, and asserting the sophistication of Vedic culture. The Arctic Home of the Vedas opened with a discussion of his debts to Max Müller. Max Müller’s work on the Rig Veda and the history of Sanskrit literature was not only a key reference point for Tilak, but Max Müller also provided him with material and personal assistance. Tilak wrote much of The Arctic Home of the Vedas while imprisoned for sedition. Max Müller sent Tilak a copy of his edition of the Rig Veda to read in prison and led the press campaign for Tilak’s release. Tilak made good use of the latest Orientalist research, supplementing Max Müller with Rhys and Taylor’s works on Aryan origins and Warren’s research on ancient languages. Most importantly, Tilak extended the image of a Vedic Golden Age created by Jones, Colebrooke and Max Müller, using it to assert the primacy, vigour and superiority of Indo-Aryan culture.

Continue Reading

There was no Aryan invasion of India since there was no ‘Aryan’ in the first place

There can be no greater 'elephant in the room' than the idea of 'Aryan'.

Based on the flimisiest of data, the hypothesis of Aryan language/s and 'race' seems to have caught fire sometime in the mid 19th century, leading to a massive conflagaration both in the West (World War II) and East (the cultural racism of Hindutva). In that process, it got mingled with Darwin's and Spencer's ideas, and with Nietzsche's and Dayanand Saraswati's,  coming out with a concoction that is baffling and confused beyond belief.

Here's an extract from an 1876 book in which the Irish are desperately trying to link themselves to the mythical 'great culture' of the Aryans. While reading this I couldn't but be amused. I am classifying this idea of "Aryan" in the category of humour.

THE ARYAN ORIGIN OF THE GAELIC RACE AND LANGUAGE. BY THE VERY REV. ULICK J. BOURKE,

The pagan Irish were Aryans, therefore Easterns; the Easterns were great builders; Noah built the Ark; his sons must also have been good builders; some of his descendants were certainly such, e.g., the builders of the Tower of Babel and the hanging gardens of Babylon, & the sons of Japhet must have been as clever as their cousins: the pagan Irish were descendants of Japhet; they must have inherited the family talents; they could accordingly have built the Round Towers; they did build them; ergo, these structures are of pagan origin.

All the Aryan nations were skilled in the sciences and arts, especially those of architecture, sculpture, dyeing, and painting. But the early natives were, as their language proves, Aryan. Therefore, the inhabitants of ancient Ireland were skilled in the sciences and arts, and they possessed a knowledge of architecture, sculpture, dyeing, and painting. Does this argument prove that the pagan Irish built the Towers? Not at all. It only proves that they had knowledge and power sufficient to erect those perennial piles which are a source of wonder to succeeding generations.

The early Irish were Aryan, therefore they were a race possessed of skill and power to erect those Towers.

THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGES SHOWS THAT ENGLISHMEN AND IRISHMEN ARE NOT ALIEN.

Irishmen are not all that Lord Lyndhurst declared they were "Aliens in speech, in religion, in blood." Science shows that they are with Englishmen and Scathmeu brethem of the one great Aryan family, who, thousands of years ago emigrated from Persia in the East to the most western portion of Europe, and made island homes of Eire and Britain.

At this moment, as Matthew Arnold observes, "there exists in the mind of many Englishmen, yea, and of many Irishmen in Ireland, such a sense of mutual repulsion, such a feeling of incompatibility, of radical antagonism between the two races that the Jew seemed, at least not long ago, nearer than the Gael to Englishmen."

 "I remember when I was young," says the Professor of Poetry, Oxford University, " I was taught to think of Kelt as separated by an impassable gulf from Teuton; my father in particular was never weary of contrasting them; he insisted much oftener on the separation between us (English) and them, than on the separation between us and any other race in the world."

Political and religious differences doubled the estrangement. The sneers and insults of writers in the Times, assuring the Gaels that everything of theirs not English is "simply a foolish interference with the national progress of civilisation and prosperity" tended to make this estrangement immense, incurable, fatal.

There have been no greater enemies to the English nation and people than ignorant, conceited writers who decry everything Irish, Gaelic, Keltic, and who can find nothing of good even in virtue or knowledge, unless tinged with the yellow beams that radiate from some golden focus, or with the mellow light of imperial favor.

The object and aim of the present work is to give a thorough critical account of the language of the Gael, to show its early origin; that it is Aryan, and comes to us down the great stream of migration that had begun to flow westward from the high country between the Tigris and the Indus, even before Abraham went forth out of his country, and from his kindred, and out of his father's house, and came into the land which the Lord did show him.

Through the eastern origin of the language, one reaches the habitat of the people who spoke a common mother tongue in the hilly country of Persia and Armenia, and all along the fertile valleys watered by the Oxus, the Araxes, and Euphrates once, as many learned men suppose the blissful site of Paradise. The phonesis of this primitive Aryan tongue did not rest on chance, but had been wedded, like music, to principles of science. These principles were handed down to the eldest daughter of the mother tongue—Gaelic—the phonetic developments of which show forth, at this day, the truth of Jakob Grimm's law. Gaelic is the twin sister of Sanskrit, and like it, is the oldest of the Indo-European family.

The primary result of the study of the language of ancient Ireland as a branch of the science of philology, is to lead the student to the conviction, that the first immigrants who made Eire their home had come from the East; and that the language which they spoke was Aryan, identical at that early period with the tongue known and spoken in the valleys of Persia, and eastward to the banks of the Indus. A knowledge of this lost language has been obtained by the labours of men of science, much in the same way, as one could form a new Latin speech from the six living romance dialects, if it were possible that Latin, like Cornish, or the Etruscan, or the Aryan, had died out. The newly efformated Latin tongue would, like a broken Base remoulded, be similar in every respect to the original defunct Latin language. In this way, the lost primitive Aryan tongue has been reconstructed, a grammar written, a dictionary compiled. This revived language could well be styled Japhetic, or, the tongue spoken by the descendants of Japhet, in contradistinction to the Semitic spoken by the children of Sem, and which is the mother tongue of Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Ethiopic, and old Phenician; while the Aryan or Japhetic is the parent tongue of Sanskrit, Keltic, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Slavonic—nigh every dialect in Europe, and in parts of Asia, where the descendants of Japhet took up their abode.

CHAPTER II. MEANING OF ARYAN.

Why call the language and the race Aryan?—what does it mean? The answer will be given the reader in the words of Rev. George W. Cox, M.A., in the preface to the Mythology of the Aryan Nations, Vol. 1.; London, Langmans, Green and Co., 1870: "I have retained the word Aryan, which is a name for the tribes or races akin to Greeks and Teutons in Europe and in Asia.

"Objections have been lately urged against its use on the ground that only Hindoos and Persians spoke of themselves as Aryans. And the tracing of this name to Ireland Mr. Peile regards as very uncertain. To him the word appears to mean, not ' ploughman,' but fitting, worthy, noble. If it is so, the title becomes the more suitable as a designation for the peoples who certainly have never called themselves Indo-Germanic."

Pictet shows plainly the word means high, illustrious, noble, of the highest rank. He devotes several pages to the explanation of the word; and in his wake follow Max Muller and most English writers.

"Arya is a Sanskrit word, and in the later Sanskrit, it means noble, of a good family. Max Muller devotes fifteen pages (Lectures on the Science of Languages) to the explanation of the term." I can only state," he says, "that the ethnological signification of Aryan seems to be one who ploughs or tills, and that it is connected with the Latin root arare, (root, Irish "ar," ploughing.)  Airya, in Zend, means venerable, and is, at the same time, the name of the people."—p. 277. Again, that "Aryan was a title of honour in the Persian empire, is clearly shown by the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius."

Max Muller closes the dissertation with the following judicious remarks:

"As comparative philology has thus traced the ancient name of Aryan from India to Europe, as the original title assumed by the Aryans before they left their common home, it is but natural that it should have been chosen as the technical term for the family of languages which was formerly designated as Indo-Germanic, Indo-European, Caucasian, or Japhetic."—Lecture vi.

The scholars of Europe and the East, and of America, have, in German, French, and English, within the past twenty years, adopted the term.

Who were the Aryans. Pictet and Max Muller answer the question:

It can be proved by the evidence of language, that before their separation, the Aryans led the life of agri. cultural nomads—a life such as Tacitus describes that of the Germans. They knew the arts of ploughing, of making roads, of building ships, of weaving and sewing, of dying and painting, of erecting houses; they had counted at least as far as one hundred. They bad domesticated the most important animals—the cow, the horse, the sheep, the dog. They were acquainted with the most useful metals. They had recognised the bonds of blood, and laws of marriage; they followed their leader and kings; and the distinction between right and wrong was fixed by customs and laws. They adored a God and invoked him under various names." All this is proved by the evidence of language. It is proved further that they were a powerful, an intellectual race, their language wonderful in its fecundity and plastic potency. Their descendants came from their country to Europe, by two roads—"one through Chorasan to the north, through Russia, and thence to the shores of the Black Sea, and through Thrace; another from Armenia, across the Caucasus, or across the Black Sea to Northern Greece, and along the Danube to Germany." The first branch who came to Europe were Kelts. Those who came by the south-western route settled in Greece, Thessaly, Pannonia, Etruria, Tyrol, Helvetia, Spain, Gallia, Hibernia. Those who came by the northern course were also Kelts. To this hour ethnology points to two distinct races.

HIGH VALUE OF IRISH-GAELIC.

How does Irish-Gaelic, as a branch of philology, prove more clearly than historic records, the civilization of the ancient Keltic race in Ireland?

"I cannot see," says Professor Blackie, " that the academic claims of Greek and Latin, however high'y allowed, can justify us in the habitual neglect of that most venerable member of the Aryan family—Gaelic, which lies at our own doors. Lecture—the Gaelic language, page 2. Published at Edinburgh, 1861.

It is the same class of scholars in Germany and Switzerland, and not Irishmen, who have shewn that Irish Gaelic is, in origin, one with Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin; and that it is amongst the oldest branches of the one primaeval Aryan tongue.

The Irish speech is, therefore, for all lovers of languages, and for all who wish to become, like German scholars, acquainted with the first tongue spoken by the human family, equal in value to Sanscrit, Latin, and Greek.

This is not merely the opinion of the writer—it is held by Professor Blackie of Edinburgh, by Monsieur Pictet of Geneva, by Bopp, by Geddes, Professor of Greek in the University of Aberdeen. Geddes says—(Lecturethe Philologic uscs of the .Deltic tongue—published by A Browne & Co., Aberdeen, 1872):—" A great field of investigation, as yet comparatively unexplored, lies before you in your (the Gaels of the Highlands) own tongue—it is an El-Dorado for the winning."

Second—Schleicher, a German scholar, shows in his compendium of comparative grammar, the position which Irish holds as a language in the wide field of Aryan speech.

Eastern Aryan.

1. Alt Indisch or Sanscrit.

2. Baktrisch or Zend.

Classic Aryan

3. Griechisch.

4. Italisch or Latin.

5. Irisch or Gaelic.

6. Bulgarisch.

7. Litauisch or Lithuanian.

8. Gothisch.

According to this distinguished linguistic scientist, a foreigner to Ireland in all save her ancient language, Irish holds on the tree of early human speech a position next after the eastern and classic off-shoots of the great Aryan tongue. Fuller investigation shows that with its 16 or 17 primitive letters, had an earlier start westward than either Greek or Latin from the Aryan region—namely, that high table land around Mount Ararat, whence the four rivers—the Euphrates, and the Tigris, the Araxas and the Oxus, flowing out from the Garden of Eden, took their rise. Professor Geddes does not fail to observe, viewing the linguistic tree framed and developed by German hands, that Schleicher makes, immediately after the separation of Sanscrit or Zend from the common stem, the Keltic keep company with the Greek and Latin in what he calls a common Greco-ItaloKeltic branch, and that there remained the Italo-Keltic which shot far more to the west, after the Greek had sprouted forth to the south, and had attained development. It there found, as history testifies, a congenial clime for further growth in the mountains and valleys of Thessaly, and stretching more southward still in the Peloponnessus and in the isles of Greece, and, above all, in Ionia, where it blossomed and ripened into the highest and the most matured perfection. Under the stylus of tha father of Grecian poe               it had been made the medium of the undying Epics, that tell of the direful wrath of Achilles with the destruction of Troy, and the wanderings of Ithaca's king.

It is certain that there was a primaeval speech, called at present by scholars the Aryan tongue; that it was once spoken by the people who lived in the high table lands of Armenia and Iran; that it was carried to Europe by the inhabitants who emigrated from the land now ruled by the Shah, that Greek, Latin, Keltic or Irish, Slavonic or Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Gothic, or German, are dialects of that common pre-historic speech.

 Monsieur Pictet for good reasons styles this primitive race Aryan, and calls the language they spoke the Aryan tongue. He says that in course of time they spread from Armenia eastward to India, and westward to the extreme limits of Europe, and that they formed one long chain of parent peoples, one in blood and in kin, yet no longer recognising each other as brothers:

It is now a recognised fact in science, that from the Indus to the Atlantic Ocean, and thence across the American continent to the shores of the Pacific, the descendants of one primitive, blue-eyed, fair-haired race, divided into several branches, and speaking dialeets of what was once a common language, held sway. To determine the common elements in the languages, mythologies, legends, laws, and customs of the several branches of this great Aryan race, and thence inductively rehabilitate the primitive parent race, whence they issued, is one of the most interesting and important problems of historical science.

The Irish race, it is confessed, had been the earliest emigrants from the land of Iran, and had led the van in the great army which came westward to people Europe.

The strong point of which Irish-Gaelic supplies proof in favour of the truth of Dr. Bentley's discovery rests on the fact that Latin and Gaelic are elder sisters to Greek, in the Aryan family of languages, and that the three are quite distinct; yet, that they are traceable on a common geneological stem.

Again, Irish-Gaelic is anterior to the Latin.

(1) "The 'Celts seem to have been the first of the Aryans to arrive in Europe." Max Muller,—Lectures on the Science of Language, vol. i., p. 225.

 (2) " In a variety of instances," says Newman, (Regal Rome, p. 25) " Latin words retain only secondary meanings where the primary ones are manifest in the Irish-Gaelic (Keltic.) Thus, the word "monile," a neck-lace, is from the Gaelic, " mulneal." The word " mumeal" means neck." Hence Irish-Gaelic was before Latin. See pp. 118, 119—Supra.

 (3) Dr. Donaldson, in his New Crafgas, says:—The earliest population of both Italy and Greece was Irish or Keltic. After these came the Sclavonian, Low-Iranian or Pelasgic element in each country.

The proofs presented in the preceding chapters, and the learned views and grave opinions of those scholars who at the present day are most distinguished for their knowledge of languages, and for their acquaintance with the science of comparative philology, cannot fail to imbue the mind of the reader with the certainty, that there had been a primeval tongue now known by the name Aryan; and that all the languages of Europe and those of India and Persia have, like branches from a parent plant, sprouted forth from that venerable tree of pre-historic speech.

 Professor Blackie says, further:—" What was the lineage and kinship of the Gaelic language? In 1830 it was regularly admitted to be a real orthodox, f all-blooded member of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, in which year Prichard published his book on the subject.

"Originally the Aryan tongue was the language of the leading classes on the high table-land of Persia, who at length divided—one half (at different periods) going east into Hinclostan, and the other west into Europe. Gaelic, therefore, as the earliest in her migration westwards, was one of the oldst branches of this ancient family."—Ibid. That Irish-Gaelic, in its plastic power and phonetic fecundity, possesses not only the virtual but the formal germinal developments of dialectic variety, is a proposition that can, as the writer says, be readily proved by means of a little knowledge of the science of comparative philology.

 

Continue Reading

I firmly condemn the Bangalore Political Action Committee for its support of corrupt parties

Through a commentator I chanced upon the information that BPAC had supported Congress/BJP.

Confirmed here: http://news.oneindia.in/2013/05/08/karnataka-polls-bpac-endorsed-candidate-results-1211737.html

The 14 candidates endorsed by BPAC are – Dr Ashwini Mahesh (Loksatta party); Abdul Azeem (JD(S)); Dr Ashwathnarayan C (BJP); Dr B K Chandrashekar (INC); BN Vijaykumar (BJP); Dinesh Gundu Rao (Congress); Krishna Byregowda C (Congress); Dr Meenakshi Bharath (Lok Satta Party); Michael B Fernandes (Karnataka Janatha Paksha); Dr MRV Prasad JD(S); NL Narendra Babu (Congress); Shanthala Damle (Loksatta Party); S Suresh Kumar( BJP); Dr Tejaswini Gowda(INC).
 
I'm not just seriously disappointed. I CONDEMN BPAC's indiscriminate action.
 
If BPAC can't distinguish corrupt parties from those which are founded on integrity then I must say it has NO REASON TO EXIST.
 
I see this as a serious blog on India, that its first major political action committee turned out to be a GREAT SUPPORTER OF CORRUPTION.
 
Shame!
 
Big names were on this BPAC. But their integrity is at the level of crony capitalists who, hands in glove with criminal politicians, have ruined India.
Continue Reading

Hindutva “braves” (Modi) and Indian armed forces scared witless by Walmart?

One of the most absurd (it is not even imaginable) arguments against FDI is that just like Jahangir gave the British permission to set up a trading unit in India which apparently led (directly!) to the conquest of India, so also allowing Walmart to come to India to compete with existing Indian traders will mean that Walmart will take over India.

The reasoning goes thus.

1. First Walmart will set up a shop.

2. Then Walmart will set up a town called Walmart Nagar.

3. Then Walmart will set up Walmart East India Company and build a fort around Walmart Nagar.

4. Then Walmart will take over India.

… Easy.

I'm amazed. How easy it is to conquer India! Why in heaven's name do Indian taxpayers pay for an army, navy and air force? I wonder.

This perspective, by the way, comes from a retired armed services officer (Cdr. B.B. Khilari) on Twitter.

I fully understand that Indians don't understand economics. It is too hard for them. Too counter-intuitive. It hurts their brain to read difficult English books like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. For 235 years they couldn't figure out how to read it. From the back, middle or front? Which section provides the kunji to exam questions?

And their own Arthashastra is too hard as well because Kautilya foolishly decided to write it in Sanskrit. He should have (at least) made a Youtube video. Or TV serial. Therefore, only Sanskrit scholars are able to read it. But to them what it says means nothing (I'm talking about "Hindutva" leaders). They use it, therefore, as mantras to chant while offering vibhuti to the fire. Mumble jumble. Blah Blah.

But that senior armed force officials don't even know and understand history? That they can't distinguish the circumstances of 1612 from those of 2012? How can I explain this?

What explains Modi's "WORSHIP" of arms on the one hand, and his TOTAL cowardice in facing COMMERCIAL competition from Walmart, on the other? I've depicted this puzzle below.

Could anyone explain this to me, please? How is it possible that if an Indian consumer VOLUNTARILY buys something from Walmart, India will become a territory of the Walmart East India Company (which presumably is – secretly – a subsidiary of USA?)?

What's the precise pathway to this dangerous outcome – the loss of Indian sovereignty? Are we expecting Walmart CEO to establish an army? Will he secretly brainwash the checkout counter clerks? Do we know that this is his plan?

I never heard of it before. What have I missed?

Did Julian Assange leak this plan to Modi?

From the Ecuador embassy in London? Where are the plans!! Give me! Let me read them.

What should I do?!

Laugh?

Weep?

Mourn?

Go nuts?

The coward Modi – a king in his backyard

Continue Reading